International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijggc

Review

A review of global gas flaring and venting and impact on the

environment: Case study of Iran
Mohammad Soltanieh a,∗ , Angineh Zohrabian b , Mohammad Javad Gholipour c ,
Eugenia Kalnay d
a
Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Department of Energy Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
c
Corporate Planning Department, National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), Tehran, Iran
d
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: After a brief review of the global gas flaring and venting in oil industries including the emission of air
Received 14 September 2015 pollutants and greenhouse gases and the amount of energy resources wasted, the focus is on Iran as a
Received in revised form 4 February 2016 major oil producing and the world’s third largest gas flaring country. Gas flaring is also practiced in natural
Accepted 8 February 2016
gas industries, petroleum refining and petrochemical plants, although the level of emission is very low
Available online 30 March 2016
compared with emissions from oil production. The historical emission of these gases globally and Iran
specifically, geographic location of emission sources, composition of gases, environmental impacts of gas
Keywords:
flaring and the current and future projects to mitigate emissions are evaluated and discussed. Emission
Gas flaring
CO2 emission
factor, an indication of efficiency in oil production, varies widely among oil production sites around the
Emission factor world, from near zero to more than 50 standard cubic meters of flare gas per barrel of oil produced
Associated gas with an average value of about 5. Iran’s emission factor has fluctuated from around 1 to more than
Environmental impact 16 according to the data of 1980–2012 with higher emission factors for offshore oil production. Data
Reduction technologies also show an increasing trend during 2010–2012 which could be due to the several technical reasons
in oil productions as well as economic sanctions imposed on Iran. In addition, there is a great amount
of uncertainty and discrepancies among various data sources in the emission factors due to the lack
of actual measurements of the volume and composition of flare gas and the uncertainties in the data
sources. This requires regulatory measures, investment by oil companies and international collaboration.
The economic and technological constraints in implementing or delaying the gas flare reduction projects
are evaluated and addressed, with successful case studies and best practices reviewed. In particular,
the techno-economic constraints in implementing gas flaring reduction projects caused by international
sanctions on Iran are analyzed. It is shown that despite the great loss of energy resources due to gas flaring,
its adverse impacts on the local and global environment and the availability of the technologies to reduce
emissions, flaring is still practiced in many parts of the world, which can be avoided if the necessary
regulatory policies and measures are established at national levels and international collaboration can
facilitate the investment by providing the required finance and technologies. At present the international
activities to implement gas flaring project activities under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of
the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are very
limited, but could be very effective in reducing emissions, if implemented. Due to the global demand
and continued use of oil and gas in the next decades, there is an urgent need for reducing gas flaring
emissions. This is not only the responsibility of the oil and gas companies, but also the responsibility of
the national governments and the global community.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗ Corresponding author at: Sharif University of Technology, Azadi Avenue, Tehran 11155/9464, Iran.
E-mail addresses: msoltanieh@sharif.edu (M. Soltanieh), a.zohrabian@gmail.com (A. Zohrabian), gholipour@nioc.ir (M.J. Gholipour), ekalnay@umd.edu (E. Kalnay).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.02.010
1750-5836/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509 489

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
2. Emission factor and combustion efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
2.1. Emission factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
2.2. Combustion efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
3. Global gas flaring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
4. Oil production and gas flaring – emission factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
5. Environmental impacts of gas flaring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.1. Acidity impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.2. Thermal impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.3. Heat radiation impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.4. Photochemical effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.5. Health impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
5.6. Agriculture impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
6. Techno-economic constraints on reduction of flare emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
7. Gas flaring reduction technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.1. Re-injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.2. Power generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.3. Pipeline natural gas (PNG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.4. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
7.5. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
7.6. Compressed natural gas (CNG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
7.7. Natural gas hydrates (NGH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
7.8. Gas-to-liquid (GTL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
7.9. Methanol and ammonia production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
7.10. Comparison of technology options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
8. Best practice cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
9. CDM projects for gas flaring reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
10. Gas flaring in Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
10.1. Historical background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
10.2. Gas flaring sources in Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
10.3. Natural gas supply and demand in Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
10.4. Major gas gathering projects in Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
10.4.1. AMAK projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
10.4.2. Kharg and Behregansar projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
10.4.3. SIRI project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
10.5. Gas flaring laws and policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
11. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Flare gas sampling, combustion efficiency, emission factor and composition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .507
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508

1. Introduction and shutdown operations. As it will be shown in Section 10.2, the

contribution of this type of flaring is relatively very small com-
Since the inception of oil exploration, drilling and production pared with the associated gas flaring in oil production, however,
in the world more than one and a half century ago, gas flaring and the associated gas flaring and venting, is the focal area of this
venting has been practiced as a method to dispose of the gases asso- article.
ciated with petroleum, mostly for safety, operational and economic There are several reasons for gas flaring and venting in oil pro-
reasons. The environmental awareness and concerns as well as the duction including:
issue of sustainability on gas flaring have been raised only in the
past few decades. • Lack of infrastructure to collect, treat, transport and utilize the
Under the high-pressure condition in underground reservoirs, associated gases;
light hydrocarbons and other impurities are dissolved or dispersed • The production site is remote from the market demand (such as
in the heavier hydrocarbon compounds (crude oil). When this high offshore sites);
pressure is reduced to the atmospheric condition at the well head • The small volume of the gas and its fluctuation, which make the
in the surface facilities, the dissolved gases and other impurities are design of facilities more uncertain and therefore uneconomical
separated from liquids and released that are called the associated investment;
gases, flared or vented to the atmosphere. • Impurities in the gas that require hard and expensive treatment
It should be noted that in addition to gas flaring and venting in methods (such as highly acidic gases);
oil production facilities (associated gas), in all oil and natural gas • Safety and operational reasons;
refineries as well as in petrochemical plants, there is always some
amount of gases collected from various processes and sent to flare Flaring wastes a valuable energy resource with great adverse
in tall stacks mostly for safety reasons or process operational con- environmental impacts and economic losses. According to GE
siderations such as startups or shutdowns or process disruptions. Energy report (Farina, 2010) gas flaring is: (1) a multi-billion dollar
This is called the non-associated gas that contains flammable and waste; (2) a local environmental tragedy; (3) a global environmen-
hazardous materials from pressure relief valves, process equipment tal issue; and (4) an energy problem that can be solved. As will
490 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
be discussed later in this paper, in 2011 the global gas flaring was
around 140 billion cubic meters (Bcm) equivalent to 5% of global
natural gas production, 10 billion USD lost revenue at $2.00 per
MMBtu, 2.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Environmen-
tally, the 400 million tons per year of CO2 is roughly equivalent to
(Farina, 2010):
• the annual emissions from 77 million cars (34% of US fleet),
• 2% of global CO2 emissions from energy sources,
• 6 billion USD carbon credit value at $15.00 per metric ton,
• 20% of global steel industry CO2 emissions,
• 35% of global cement industry CO2 emissions,
• Output from 125 medium-sized coal power plants of about 63
gigawatts (GW) total (Farina, 2010).
According to a recent report by Olivier et al. (2013) of PBL, the
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the global CO2
emissions of about 250 million tons from flaring of unused gas
during oil production – comparable in magnitude with total CO2
emissions in a medium-sized country such as Spain – did not signif-
icantly change in 2011, after a steady decrease by about a quarter
since 2003. This amount of CO2 emission is roughly equal to the
estimated value by Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
(CDIAC) (CDIAC, 2014). In the same source (CDIAC), 360 million tons
is reported for earlier years (1980s) (CDIAC, 2014). In another study
an amount of around 150 billion cubic meters per year of global nat-
ural gas flaring has been reported, contaminating the environment
with 400 million tons of CO2 annually (Andersen et al., 2012).
Many factors are responsible for the gas-flaring-related CO2
emissions, discussed in a recently published article for the case
of Nigeria (Hassan and Kouhy, 2013). These factors are produced
crude oil, investment on gas utilization, gas-to-oil ratio, natural
gas price, and flare reduction regulations and policies (Hassan and
Kouhy, 2013). A recent investigation is done by Pourhassan and
Taravat (2014), discussing on long term relationships between gas
flaring volume, oil price, CO2 emission amount and the total natural
resources rent of the GDP for eight developing countries including
Iran.
The light hydrocarbon gases (natural gas, which is mostly
methane) are normally accompanied by non-methane volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and several other impurities such as
sulfur gases, some inorganic salts (mainly as chlorates and sulfates
of K, Mg, Na and Ca), carbon dioxide, nitrogen, polyaromatic hydro-
carbons (PAHs), water, etc. The amount and composition of these
gases vary significantly with time and from well to well depending
upon the region of oil production and the pressure and tempera-
ture of the oil in the underground reservoir (Johnson et al., 2001).
Detailed measurement of gas composition and volume of gas flaring
and venting in most parts of the world is not available. However,
a method for estimating the composition of gas being flared and
vented at individual facilities has been proposed by Johnson and
Coderre (2012).
In relative term, the mass fraction of these gases compared with
the crude oil production is usually small (in the range of 1–5 cubic
meters of natural gas under atmospheric condition per barrels of
oil produced – see Table 1 below for the global averages). This is
equivalent to approximately 0.7–3.5 kg natural gas per barrel of oil
produced (each barrel of oil is approximately 160 L and assuming a
specific gravity of about 0.9, a barrel of oil is roughly 144 kg). Thus
the mass fraction is roughly 0.0049–0.02431 or 0.49–2.43 wt% of
associated gas per barrel of oil. This is the minimum to average
value of emissions. As will be discussed in the following sections,
there are certain countries where the amount of gas flared is
much higher than these average values. However, in absolute term
even this small fraction is significant globally as mentioned above
and will be presented in detail in the following sections, causing
significant amount of energy resources loss and environmental pol-
lution.
If the associated gases are flared, most of this gas containing high
fractions of methane is converted to CO2 , and if vented, methane
with its high global warming potential (25 times more than CO2 –
100 years) and other air pollutants will be released to the atmo-
sphere directly. Depending on the composition of the associated
gases and the efficiency of combustion (to be discussed later), vari-
able amounts of greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 and air pollutants
such as sulfur compounds (hydrogen sulfide, sulfur oxides, etc.),
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, soot and black carbon particles,
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polyaromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) and toxic heavy metals such as mercury and nickel and other
inorganic salts (mainly as chlorate and sulfate of K, Mg, Na and Ca)
are emitted to the atmosphere (Leahey et al., 2001), causing severe
local and regional air pollution and greenhouse effect.
In 1996, the Alberta Research Council (ARC) released a report
describing a multi-year experimentally-based study that culmi-
nated in field tests of one sweet and one sour gas flares. These
measurements showed the existence of more than 150 volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) including formaldehyde (H2 CO) and
more than 60 poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) in the plume of
combustion products (Leahey et al., 2001; Kostiuk et al., 2004). It is
well known that the presence of NOx and VOCs exacerbates the pho-
tochemical smog including ozone. In addition, there are significant
amount of local thermal and noise pollution near the flaring sites.
Low efficiency or poor combustion in the flare results in emission of
methane, VOCs and other harmful air pollutants such as hydrogen
sulfide and soot directly to the atmosphere. These pollutants under
unfavorable atmospheric conditions (e.g. a temperature inversion)
could have very serious health impacts like asthma, blood disorder,
cancer, or chronic bronchitis on human living in the surrounding
areas (Hassan and Kouhy, 2013; Younessi Sinaki et al., 2011).
The gas flaring has continued to be practiced in the petroleum
industries for techno-economic reasons despite the tremendous
amount of energy loss and huge adverse environmental impacts.
Although there are several initiatives at global and national levels,
both state funded and by private sectors to end gas flaring, recent
data show that emissions from gas flaring still continue at steady
rate in an unsustainable manner.
The objectives of this study are:
• To review the most recent available data and published papers or
technical reports on global gas flaring;
• To assess the emission factor1 based on the statistical data of global
gas flaring and combustion efficiency;
• To review the environmental impacts of gas flaring;
• To assess the technologies for emission reduction from gas flar-
ing;
• To review the status of the gas flaring in Iran as a major oil and gas
producing country and assess the existing and planned projects
to reduce the gas flaring;
• To identify the gaps and constraints in implementation of gas
flaring projects in the oil and gas industries of Iran.
1
According to the terminology for calculating the air pollutants and greenhouse
gases, emission factor is defined as the amount of the gas emitted to the atmosphere
per unit of a particular activity, which in the case of gas flaring would be “cubic
meters of flared gas/barrel of oil produced”. Some sources such as (Elvidge et al.,
2009) call this ratio as flare efficiency, which may be misleading since this term is
also used for combustion efficiency of the flare (ratio of flared gases compared to
the vented gas). In this work emission factor is used to describe the amount of gas
emitted per barrel of oil produced.
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509 491

Table 1
Gas flaring, oil production and average 5-year emission factor for the period of 2007–2011 for top 20 gas flaring countries.

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5-year

Country Gas flaring Oil pro. Gas flaring Oil pro. Gas flaring Oil pro. Gas flaring Oil pro. Gas flaring Oil pro. EF (cm/bbl)
(Bcm/y) (Mbbl/d) (Bcm/y) (Mbbl/d) (Bcm/y) (Mbbl/d) (Bcm/y) (Mbbl/d) (Bcm/y) (Mbbl/d)

Russia 52.3 9878 42 9797 46.6 9934 35.6 10,157 37.4 10,239 11.7
Nigeria 16.3 2353 15.5 2169 14.9 2212 15 2459 14.6 2555 17.8
Iran 10.7 4039 10.8 4177 10.9 4178 11.3 4243 11.4 4265 7.2
Iraq 6.7 2097 7.1 2385 8.1 2399 9 2403 9.4 2629 9.3
USA1 2.2 8469 2.4 8564 3.3 9134 4.6 9685 7.1 10,136 1.2
Algeria 5.6 1967 6.2 1955 4.9 1910 5.3 1881 5 1863 7.7
Kazakhstan2 5.5 1446 5.4 1431 5 1542 3.8 1609 4.7 1638 8.7
Angola 3.5 1747 3.5 1979 3.4 1908 4.1 1948 4.1 1800 5.4
Saudi Arabia3 3.9 10,249 3.9 10,782 3.6 9819 3.6 10,642 3.7 11,264 1.0
Venezuela 2.2 2682 2.7 2656 2.8 2510 2.8 2405 3.5 2489 3.0
China 2.6 3956 2.5 4037 2.4 4067 2.5 4363 2.6 4363 1.7
Canada 2 3449 1.9 3344 1.8 3319 2.5 3442 2.4 3597 1.7
Libya 3.8 1845 4 1874 3.5 1790 3.8 1789 2.2 502 6.1
Indonesia 2.6 1041 2.5 1065 2.9 1053 2.2 1039 2.2 1016 6.5
Mexico4 2.7 3500 3.6 3184 3 3001 2.8 2979 2.1 2960 2.5
Qatar 2.4 1121 2.3 1204 2.2 1213 1.8 1441 1.7 1641 4.3
Uzbekistan 2.1 112 2.7 110 1.7 107 1.9 107 1.7 106 51.0
Malaysia 1.8 705 1.9 731 1.9 694 1.5 683 1.6 626 6.9
Oman 2 715 2 760 1.9 819 1.6 870 1.6 891 6.1
Egypt 1.5 674 1.6 706 1.8 729 1.6 717 1.6 726 6.2
Total top 20 132.4 62,045 124.5 62,909 126.6 62,337 117.3 64,861 120.6 65,306 5.4
Other countries 22 22,281 22 22,530 20 22,255 20 22,297 19 22,267 2.5
Global 154.4 84,326 146.5 85,439 146.6 84,593 137.3 87,158 139.6 87,573 4.6

Source: Gas flaring data from NOAA Satellite and oil production data from EIA.
Bold texts and numbers signify the importance and focal areas relevant to this paper.
1
Includes N. Dakota.
2
Reported much lower.
3
Includes share of neutral zones.
4
Reported much higher.

2. Emission factor and combustion efficiency
2.1. Emission factor
The ratio of the amount of associated gas (usually in cubic
meters) to the barrel of oil produced is called the emission factor
(EF). As will be discussed in the following sections, emission factor
varies significantly, from around 1 to more than 50 cubic meters
per barrel of oil for different oil fields (see Table 1). However, the
global five year average emission factor is around 5 cubic meters of
gas per barrel of oil produced. For example, in 2010 for the world
oil production of 87.2 million barrels per day (EIA, 2015) and the
annual gas flaring estimate of 137.3 billion cubic meters (GGFR,
2012), the average emission factor was approximately 4.3 cubic
meters of associated gas per barrel of oil produced.
2.2. Combustion efficiency
The goal of a flare is to consume gases safely, reliably, and effi-
ciently and, through oxidation, produce less harmful emissions
to the atmosphere than simply venting the gases. The flare effi-
ciency or combustion efficiency (CE) is a measure of the effectiveness
of the combustion process in fully oxidizing the fuel to CO2 . CE
affects the composition of emissions significantly. When inefficien-
cies occur, unburned fuel, carbon monoxide, and other products
of incomplete combustion (e.g., soot, volatile organic compounds,
hydrogen sulfide, etc.) are emitted into the atmosphere. If the flare
stream contains methane, the unburned fuel represents an increase
in greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of sour gas flares, any
unburned fuel emissions are potentially toxic such as hydrogen sul-
fide that can raise health concerns for animals and people (Kostiuk
et al., 2004; McDaniel, 1983).
The actual flare efficiency can only be obtained by measurement
of composition of vented and flare gases. This is an expensive task,
which is not undertaken by oil companies in all gas flaring sources.
The mechanism of combustion reactions in an actual flare flame in
the atmosphere is extremely complicated and the models for even
simple fuels such as pure methane or hydrogen are not well under-
stood (Hedayatzadeh, 2014). The composition of associated gases
is measured mostly in those sources that have a planned project
for implementation. For example, an offshore associated gas com-
position in Soroosh & Nowrooz oil sites of Iran in the Persian Gulf –
which was implemented as CDM (Clean Development Mechanism)
project under the Kyoto Protocol – is given in Appendix A. In this
project flare combustion efficiency of 100% was assumed. Not all gas
flaring data reported globally are based on measurements; rather
they are estimated by satellite data or by expert judgment. It should
be noted that flare efficiencies are not measured in Iran’s oil, gas and
petrochemical industries and they are only checked by visual obser-
vation of experts (less smoke: higher efficiency). In another study,
the measured average composition of flare fuel and assumed flar-
ing combustion efficiencies of 98% and 90% were used to estimate
CO2 emission factor of gas flaring in Iran’s oil and gas processing
plants (Kahforoushan et al., 2011). Measurement of flare efficiency
is difficult that requires special devices and analytical tools and thus
default values are usually used to estimate emissions. Although use
of emission factors makes the approximate emission estimation
possible, it might have large uncertainty, as recently reported for
carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustions in China (Liu et al.,
2015). Recently a pilot scale flare has been used to find parametric
emission factors for CO, CO2 , and NOx gases (Talebi et al., 2014). The
emission estimation references along with the range of observed
averaged emission factors for a set of experiments is reported in
Appendix A. Details of combustion efficiency, flare sampling and
concentration measurement as well as a semi-empirical model for
492 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
Fig. 1. Gas flaring global distribution (a) top flaring countries adopted from (Farina, 2010), (b) countries’ flaring level adopted from NOAA (NOAA, 2014).
estimation of combustion efficiency in real crosswind conditions
are also given in Appendix A.
3. Global gas flaring
It is not in the scope of this paper to present an extensive detailed
review of the global gas flaring sources and data. Rather, after a brief
review of such data and the respective flare emissions, the focus will
be on the status of the gas flaring projects in Iran, the third largest
gas flaring country in the world, after Russia and Nigeria (GGFR,
2012).
Gas flaring data are available through various sources includ-
ing: national and international oil companies; International Energy
Agency (IEA); US Energy Information Administration (EIA); the
World Bank; Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC). The
same sources also report greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse
gas emissions from various sources including gas flaring are also
available through the web site of United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where Annex I and Non-
Annex I Parties to the Convention officially report their emissions.
Fig. 1 shows the global map of gas flaring countries and Fig. 2
shows the global and regional gas flaring and crude oil produc-
tion from 2000 to 2009, respectively (Farina, 2010). It should be
mentioned that the flaring index as defined in Figure represents
the inverse of the emission factor that was defined above, normal-
ized to the base year of 2000. Thus lower flare index means higher
emissions. From Fig. 2a it can be seen that whereas the global oil
production and gas flaring during 2000–2009 have remained rel-
atively constant, the emission factor has had an increasing trend
till 2008 followed by a drop in 2009. The sharpest increase in gas
flaring (emission factor) was observed in the Caspian region with
the highest increase in the rate of oil production (Fig. 2b). South-
east Asia (Fig. 2c), Middle East (Fig. 2d), North America (Fig. 2f)
and North Asia (Fig. 2g) have had relatively stable oil production
and gas flaring in the mentioned period. Latin America (Fig. 2e),
despite its relatively constant oil production and gas flaring, has had
high emission factors between 2001 and 2007. Europe (Fig. 2h), has
reduced its emission factor, partly due to its reduced oil production
since 2004 and partly due to higher efficiency in oil production with
reduced flaring.
Countries with the largest satellite observed flaring emissions
are the Russian Federation and Nigeria, with shares of global flar-
ing emissions of about one quarter and one tenth, respectively,
together accounted for 42% of those 400 million tons of CO2 .
These two countries contributed also most to the global emission
decrease over the last decade, followed by Iran, Iraq and the United
States (Olivier et al., 2013). Nigerian gas flaring programs to end
flaring in that country have recently been reviewed by Ite and Ibok
(2013) and Ibitoye (2014).
Fig. 3 compares the global gas flaring data estimates from vari-
ous sources. Two primary data sets are available. The first set is the
data reported by international agencies such as the International
Energy Agency (IEA) and agencies like EIA and Cedigas, essentially
a compilation of nationally reported data by official bodies (that
broadly captures the reported levels of gas flaring). No single agency
has global data coverage so a hybrid compilation of data is devel-
oped from these sources and is referenced as the reporting agencies
data set (Farina, 2010). The second set is prepared by the World
Bank’s Global Gas Flaring Reduction Initiative (GGFR) led by the
US National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on
satellite tracking. Most gas flaring data available is estimates based
on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Operational Linescan
System (DMSP-OLS) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrora-
diometer (MODIS) satellite measurements. The night-time lights
from gas flares observed by the satellites provide an estimate of
the amounts of gas flared, when related to the reported flaring
volumes available from the GGFR Partnership (Olivier et al., 2013;
Elvidge et al., 2009). However, in the absence of measured data,
the satellite data has excellent global coverage but also has sev-
eral sources of uncertainty, including variation in flare intensity,
inclusion of processing plant flaring, misidentification of flares,
inability to track gas venting, and the difficulty in distinguishing
flares from other urban lighting sources (Farina, 2010). The analysis
of the error associated with satellite gas flaring estimates showed
that 95% of the residuals of the calibration data were smaller than
2.98 Bcm (Elvidge et al., 2009). It should be mentioned that in 2012
NOAA has changed to a new sensor, for which cloud corrections
and calibration to the flared gas volume can be carried out. Accord-
ing to Farina (2010) these two data sets cover approximately 98
percent of estimated global gas flaring. However, unless validated
by measurements at different sites and countries, it seems that
the uncertainty remains unverified. A recent study has been dedi-
cated to estimate methane consumption of gas flaring using Visible
Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) night-time data and to
compare with NOAA satellite data. The comparison confirmed that
the methane consumption estimation from VIIRS night-time data
fitted reasonably well with limited field data including six stations
located in North Dakota, whereas the NOAA night-fire estimates
showed underestimation with Version 1 and overestimation with
Version 2 (Zhang et al., 2015).
Iran’s gas flaring data estimates from three sources of World
Bank, EIA and the Hydrocarbon Balance Report, prepared annu-
ally by the International Institute for Energy Studies (IIES) affiliated
with the Ministry of Petroleum of Iran (IIES, 2011), are compared
in Fig. 4a. It can be seen from this figure that there is significant
discrepancy between the various estimates: whereas the World
Bank consistently underestimates the data, the EIA data fluctuates
between the two other estimates. However, the over-estimation of
Iran’s gas flaring by EIA after 2006, might be due to the inclusion
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509 493

Fig. 2. Regional gas flaring and crude oil production (Farina, 2010). Notes: (1) Gas flaring data converted to Bcf per day so it can be charted with oil. (2) To roughly convert
to Bcm per year multiply by 10. (3) Flare index was constructed by taking the annual ratio MMb/d of oil produced per Bcm of gas flared converted into percentage change
relative to the year 2000 (Farina, 2010).

of natural gas flaring and venting in their estimations or lack of
information of EIA of the recent activities of Iran to reduce its gas
flaring. In the absence of reliable measurements of the volume and
composition of the associated gases, the percentage flared and the
efficiency of flare (combustion efficiency), there will be great deal
of uncertainties in the estimated air pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Fig. 4b compares Iran’s oil production based on Iran’s Hydro-
carbon Balance report, OPEC, BP, and EIA. Earlier data from BP
and OPEC in the period of 1960–1980, shows a great agreement.
Nevertheless, in recent years there is more inconsistency between
reported data from various sources. However, the uncertainties in
oil production data are less significant compared with natural gas
flaring.
4. Oil production and gas flaring – emission factors
The first correlation between gas flaring and oil production was
proposed in 1974 by Rotty. He correlated the gas flaring volume to
crude oil production for two regions of US and non-US countries
based on the available data set in the period of 1968–1971. Then
the correlations were used to estimate the flared gas volume for
each year since 1935 (Rotty, 1974).
It is enlightening to relate these emissions to the amount of oil
produced for each year in the respective country by calculating the
emission factors as defined above (the ratio of the amount of associ-
ated gas to the barrel of oil produced). Although the emission factor
is a very rough indicator of production efficiency, and it depends
on many operational factors as well as on the sources of oil or flare
494 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509

Fig. 3. Comparison of global gas flaring data estimates 2000–2009 (Farina, 2010).
Note: Maximum and minimum estimates based on the highest and lowest data
points for each country from any of the data sets.
Fig. 5. Gas flaring emission factor for the top 20 gas flaring countries in period of
2007–2011.
Source: Gas flaring data from NOAA Satellite and oil production data from EIA.
gas, as discussed in (Hassan and Kouhy, 2013), but it shows to a
first approximation, how efficient the production unit is. For this
purpose, oil production of all the top 20 gas flaring countries (see
below) in the years of reporting the emissions is taken from EIA
and then the emission factors are calculated. From Table 1 it can
be seen that, for example, for oil production of 2011, emission fac-
tors range from 0.9 for Saudi Arabia to 43.9 for Uzbekistan, with an
average of about 5.1 for the top 20 countries and a global average
of about 4.4. Iran’s emission factor stands above the average of the
top 20 emitters at about 7.3 cubic meters per barrel of oil during
2007–2011. It can also be seen that the rest of the world with the oil
production of about 34.1%, contributed 15.7% to the gas global flar-
ing. Although the high emission factor indicates, in general, that the
efficiency in oil production is poor, care should be taken in inter-
preting this conclusion because several other factors influence gas
flaring efficiencies such as the magnitude of oil production, the site
of production, the composition of flare gases, the demand and mar-
Fig. 6. Accumulated global oil supplied (solid line) and accumulated CO2 emission
ket availability. Based on the data of Table 1, emission factors of the
due to gas flaring (dashed line) versus production year in the period of 1950–2010.
top 20 gas flaring countries are plotted for the years 2007–2011 as
Source: Global oil supply data from Earth Policy Institute (Brown, 2010) and CO2
shown in Fig. 5. emission due to gas flaring from CDIAC (CDIAC, 2014).
These rough emission factors can also be used to estimate emis-
sions for individual countries for the years that no satellite data
or any other measurements were available. The Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) (CDIAC, 2014) in Tennessee of 1950–1970 both the oil production and CO2 emissions due to gas
has estimated global carbon dioxide emissions from flared gas for a flaring are increased in monotonic similar trends. In the period of
long period of 1950–2010. A graph of cumulative CO2 emissions 1970–2010, although the oil production is increasing with almost
and oil production is shown in Fig. 6. The oil supply historical constant slope, CO2 emissions have different increasing rates: first
data in the same period is extracted from a report of Earth Pol- the slope is increased intensively, after a slight moderation again it
icy Institute (Brown, 2010). This figure indicates that in the period is increased severely.

Fig. 4. Comparison of Iran’s gas flaring (a) and oil production (b) estimates. Note: Hydrocarbon Balance data (IIES, 2011) includes only oil associated gas flaring while EIA
data (EIA, 2015) includes total natural gas flaring and venting.
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
5. Environmental impacts of gas flaring
The environmental problems caused by flaring are global,
regional and local (Ismail and Umukoro, 2012). The results of a
recent investigation in environmental and health impacts of gas
flaring in Niger Delta indicate the likely magnitude and extent of
pollution across the region associated with the gas flaring process
(Anejionu et al., 2015).
There have been over 250 identified toxins released from flar-
ing including carcinogens such as benzopyrene, benzene, carbon
disulfide (CS2 ), carbonyl sulfide (COS) and toluene; metals such
as mercury, arsenic and chromium; sour gas with H2 S and SO2 ;
nitrogen oxides (NOx ); carbon dioxide (CO2 ); and methane (CH4 )
which contribute to the greenhouse gases (Ismail and Umukoro,
2012). These pollutants cause acidity, temperature increase, influ-
ence on the immediate environment, particularly on human health
and plant growth.
5.1. Acidity impact
When the combustible vapors are burnt off into the atmosphere,
they in turn form acid rain especially in the humid environment
of the offshore. The acid rain is corrosive in nature, and causes
widespread damage to the environment, devastating to vegeta-
tion and surface water (Hassan and Kouhy, 2013; Nwankwo and
Ogagarue, 2011). Acid rain causes significant impacts on freshwa-
ter, coastal and mangrove ecosystems (Ite and Ibok, 2013). Acid
rain from increased SO4 2− and NO3 − concentrations is evident in
the pH values that range from 4.98 to 5.15 and mean value of 5.06
(Efe, 2010). According to Efe (2010) environmental study in Nigeria,
rain water acidity varied significantly and it decreases with increas-
ing distance from gas flare sites throughout the period of study.
Rapid corrosion of corrugated iron roofs (galvanized iron sheet)
witnessed in the oil–producing communities have been linked to
acid rain (Ite and Ibok, 2013). A study has been dedicated to com-
pare the corrosion rate of corrugated galvanized steel roofing sheets
in near flaring and non-flaring regions. A maximum weight loss of
7.62 mg was obtained at 500 m away from flare source followed by
4.23 mg at 1000 m from flare source while 1.17 mg weight loss was
obtained in non-flaring zone. This shows that gas flaring has seri-
ous deteriorating effect on galvanized roofing sheet (Ovri and Iroh,
2013).
5.2. Thermal impact
Anomohanran (2012) has investigated the thermal effect of gas
flaring on the Ebedei community of Delta State, Nigeria. Measure-
ments of temperature variation with distance from the flare point
were obtained for both the wet and dry seasons. Results indicate
that thermal pollution occurred within a distance of 2.15 km for the
wet season and 2.06 km for the dry season (Anomohanran, 2012). In
a study, surface temperatures, distances, latitudes and longitudes
away from the flaring point were investigated for the four cardi-
nal directions with the aid of thermometer, a fibrous meter tape
and a global positioning system (GPS) (Julius, 2011). The result did
not only show surface temperature elevation of about 9.1 ◦ C above
the mean normal daily temperature within a radius of 210 m but
a temperature gradient of 0.050 ◦ C/m (Anomohanran, 2012; Julius,
2011). In the same study, it was found important and advisable that
residential buildings be situated at least 210 m away from the flare
stack (Julius, 2011). High temperatures create physical, chemical,
and biological conditions, harmful to human health, plant and soil
micro-organisms (Anomohanran, 2012).
495
5.3. Heat radiation impact
It is known that some of the products of complete combustion,
such as CO2 and H2 O, from flares contribute greatly to heat radiation
experienced around flares (Ite and Ibok, 2013). In a study theoretical
and empirical relationships have been briefly reviewed and sum-
marized for determining the fraction of heat radiated from flares
in proximity of a flame (Guigard et al., 2000). The applicability of
these relationships to the general case is limited. The theoretical
or empirical conditions for which many of these relationships are
based upon are situation-specific. In addition, limited information
was provided in many instances on numerous parameters that are
known to influence flare heat radiation losses (e.g. stack exit veloc-
ity, crosswind velocity, aerodynamics of the flame, etc.) (Guigard
et al., 2000).
5.4. Photochemical effect
The photochemical formation of O3 in the troposphere pro-
ceeds through the oxidation of nitric oxide (NO) to nitrogen dioxide
(NO2 ) by organic-peroxy (RO2 ) or hydro-peroxy (HO2 ) radicals
(EPA, 2013). The Second Texas Air Quality Field Study (TexAQS-II)
aimed at obtaining a better understanding of atmospheric chemi-
cal processes was conducted in Houston in August and September
2006. The TexAQS-II Radical and Aerosol Measurement Project
(TRAMP) found evidence for the importance of short-lived radical
sources such as HCHO and HONO in increasing O3 productivity.
During TRAMP, daytime HCHO pulses as large as 32 ppb were
observed and attributed to industrial activities upwind in the Hous-
ton Ship Channel (HSC) and HCHO peaks as large as 52 ppb were
detected by in situ surface monitors in the HSC. Primary HCHO
produced in flares from local refineries and petrochemical facil-
ities could increase peak O3 by ∼30 ppb (Webster et al., 2007).
These concentrations are well in excess of current air quality
model predictions using gas phase mechanisms alone (Sarwar et al.,
2008) and multiphase processes are needed to account for these
observations.
5.5. Health impact
Apart from causing serious health problems such as skin can-
cers and lesions via dermal exposure, the ingestion of contaminated
water – ‘acid rain’ can alter pH of the stomach, leach the mucous
membrane of the intestinal walls and cause stomach ulcers (Ite and
Ibok, 2013). Further, a greater number of people in the rural com-
munities may be exposed to the risk of elevated levels of petroleum
hydrocarbon contaminant mixtures, PAHs, and toxic metals (espe-
cially vanadium) via harvested rainwater usage (Ite and Ibok, 2013).
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the
health effects of some gas flaring pollutants have been presented
in Table 2.
5.6. Agriculture impact
A review article illustrated the pros and cons of using biore-
mediation process for the remediation of petroleum contaminants
in soil (Bijay Thapa et al., 2012). It is widely known that soil and
sediments have become the ultimate sink for most petroleum con-
taminants, such as benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenes
(BTEX), aliphatic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Ite
and Ibok, 2013). PAHs containing from two to five fused aromatic
rings are of significant concern because of the mutagenicity and
carcinogenicity of several of these compounds and tendency to bio-
accumulate in organic tissues due to their lipophilic character and
electrochemical stability (Ite and Ibok, 2013).
496 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
Table 2
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the health effects of gas flaring pollutants (Vanos et al., 2013; Argo, 2002).
Pollutant Acceptable level
Nitrogen oxides (NOx ) 32 ppb (mean annual)
Carbon monoxide (CO) 5 ppm (mean daily)
Sulfur oxides (SO2 ) 57 ppb (mean daily)
Benzene 0.096 ␮g/m3 (annual average)
Toluene 120 ng/m3 (mean daily)
Xylenes 0.12 ng/m3 (mean daily)
Styrene Not reported
Naphthalene 96 ng/m3 (mean daily)
Black carbon 3.5 mg/m3 (OSHA, 2012) (8 h average)
Formaldehyde 0.75 ppm (OSHA, 2011) (8 h average)
It is known that thermal pollution from gas flares affects the
microbial populations, which participate in organic matter decom-
position and nitrogen formation process resulting in a decline in
organic matter and total nitrogen, as well as microbial popula-
tions, humid (top soil) formation, nutrient availability and soil
fertility. Therefore, gas flaring impacts adversely on soil fertility
and biogeochemical nutrient cycles and the negative effects of
physio–chemical properties of the soil subsequently impact on
some crops due to modification of the microclimate in the region
(Ite and Ibok, 2013). The toxicity of contaminant mixtures from
gas flare and vent systems could affect some aquatic organisms by
changing their phylogenetic position and reduction in their rela-
tive sensitivity as the intensity of gas flares increases (Ite and Ibok,
2013). It was observed that air, soil and leaf temperatures increased
and relative humidity of the air decreased within 110 m from the
flare sites (Isichei and Sanford, 1976). It is recommended that
agricultural crops, which respond negatively to high temperature
variation, should not be planted in this area (Anomohanran, 2012).
Odjugo and Osemwenkhae (2009) have reported the impact of nat-
ural gas flaring on microclimate and maize yield in the Niger Delta,
using Ovade flare site as a case study. The results show that with
rise in air and soil temperatures of the flare site, relative humidity,
soil moisture and all the soil chemical parameters decrease toward
the flare. The induced microclimatic condition reduced the yield of
maize such that maize production is not economically viable within
2 km from the flare site.
6. Techno-economic constraints on reduction of flare
emissions
Farina (2010) has discussed in detail the techno-economic con-
straints and the lack of policy and regulatory frameworks for gas
flaring reduction in different countries. In Nigeria, a multi-decade
legacy of flaring has been a flashpoint for conflict in the Niger
Delta region. Repeated postponements of government deadlines,
the most recent in 2008, for a phase out of gas flaring have dimin-
ished expectations for a lasting solution. The challenge in Nigeria,
and in other parts of West Africa, is to enact effective policies that
simultaneously build a dynamic energy sector, foster local eco-
nomic development, improve security, and enhance government
commitment to regulation and enforcement, all while finding a way
to develop new infrastructure to connect dispersed sites. In this
region, external financing solutions, expansion of public-private
partnerships and political will to advance policy reform will be
critical to drive flare reductions (Farina, 2010).
In some cases, there are high levels of contaminates, such as
hydrogen sulfide and heavy liquids, within natural gas that drive
up gas gathering and processing costs. If gas is sold at fixed prices
Health effect
Lung irritation, decrease lung function, increase susceptibility to allergens for asthmatics
Headache, nausea, weakness, potential long-term health effects
Adverse effects on respiratory systems of humans due to irritation and airway obstruction
Leukemia, aplastic anemia, pancytopenia, leukocytes, thrombocytes
Potent central nervous system toxicant leading to narcosis, in coordination, emotional
liability, and subjective symptoms such as headache and fatigue.
Unequivocal developmental toxins, leading to delayed development, decreased fetal body
weights and altered enzyme activities
Irritant of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes and a central nervous system depressant
Destroying the membrane of the red blood cells with the liberation of hemoglobin,
irritating the eyes
Caused to accumulation of dust in pulmonary system and pneumoconiosis (OSHA, 2012)
Irritation of lungs and mucous membranes, cause to naso/pharyngeal cancers and possibly
leukemia (EPA, 2007)
in the marketplace well below the costs of associated gas gathering
it creates a dilemma for gas producers. As a result, it is not uncom-
mon to see development of “sweeter” less costly non-associated
gas while “sour” associated gas is flared, despite the existence of
nearby areas with a strong demand for additional gas (Farina, 2010).
In the Middle East, domestic pricing policies distort the economics
of gas flaring projects especially at older brownfield sites. In places
such as Iraq and Iran, where physical conditions should support
gas infrastructure construction, political/economic/technological
issues and security concerns have delayed the needed investments.
In these regions it is the governments that must lead; recognizing
the negative externalities associated with flaring and incorporat-
ing associated gas strategies in their oil industry policies (Farina,
2010). In the special case of Iran, the law and regulatory measures
will further be presented in Section 10.5. It will be shown in the
following sections that the gas pricing policy is perhaps one of the
major causes of delays in implementation of gas flaring reduction
projects in Iran.
In offshore platforms there are tight weight constraints, and
installing additional processing kit can add significant weight and
cost. Offshore flaring is far more complex – unless it is designed into
the platform from the start as there is little space to work and so
any changes to the layout of the platform will have a major impact
on the operations. This basically means that for offshore projects,
unless the flare reduction is designed from the start, it is unlikely
to happen later, unless part of a major overhauls (CDM PDD, 2006).
Depending on the region, proven technologies such as dis-
tributed power generation, large-scale efficient commercial power
generation, re-injection, gathering and processing, liquefied natu-
ral gas (LNG) and micro gas-to-liquids (GTL) will all have their place.
The perception that associated gas is not worth the effort needs to be
challenged. Beyond national borders, the role of the international
community will be to accelerate the process, acting as a catalyst
for change to achieve practical outcomes that create value, gener-
ate social benefits, and increase environmental protection (Farina,
2010).
One of the critical flare gas issues from a technology perspective
is how to justify processing expense for small volumes of low-
pressure gas that decline quickly relative to traditional gas fields.
The Russian Academy of Sciences study estimates associated gas
processing costs at $47 per Mcm, excluding gathering and com-
pression charges. Estimates from several sources conclude that
basic gas processing costs for rich associated gas range between
$40 and $80 per Mcm ($0.90 to $2.00 per MMBtu). This estimate
assumes a basic gas-processing package of compression to 30 bar
(∼435 psi), dehydration, and refrigeration (chilling) to create lean
gas and a raw NGL mix. The analysis shows that for traditional sys-
tems, per-unit cost starts to escalate rapidly as the size of gas stream
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
Table 3
Commercial technologies for associated and non-associated gas conversion.
Technology Market maturitya
Re-injection Commercial
CNG Not commercial
LNG Commercial
Gas to GTL Near to Commercial
Gas to power Commercial
Gas to chemicals (Ammonia, methanol, DME) Commercial
a
Commerciality of a technology depends on many factors such as technology availability, marketing, alternatives and economical factors.
decreases. Lower gas flow equals higher costs. Project specific pro-
cessing costs range dramatically with the gas composition, size
of the plant, and level of gas treatment for contaminates (Farina,
2010).
In summary, significant amount of associated gases are still
flared globally due to economic constraints, lack of policy and reg-
ulatory frameworks, domestic fuel price subsidies, and technical
constraints like gas impurities and the degree of sourness, gas infra-
structure construction, gas flow and its fluctuations. High levels of
contaminates, such as hydrogen sulfide, increase the associated gas
gathering and processing costs, so that the “sweeter” less costly
non-associated gas is often preferred while “sour” associated gas is
flared, despite the existence of nearby areas with a strong demand
for additional gas. The gas price also has a critical role in the flare gas
recovery deployment, which may cause dilemma for the associated
gas producers as mentioned above (Farina, 2010). The dependence
of associated gas volume to oil extraction keeps gas infrastructure
investments in synch with oil developments. All wells producing
with a gas-to-oil recovery (GOR) greater than 3000 m3 /m3 at any
time during the life of the well must be shut-in or so that the gas is
saved, or for any sites flaring or venting combined volumes greater
than 900 m3 /day, a review of conservation economics must be done
at least once every 12 months (Odjugo and Osemwenkhae, 2009).
This is a dominant challenge in some regions, especially in the
Americas and parts of Asia (Farina, 2010). In places like the Middle
East, where physical conditions should support gas infrastructure
construction, political/economic/technological issues and security
concerns have delayed the needed investments. In Iran, the govern-
ment should lead, recognizing the negative externalities associated
with flaring, by accelerating the implementation of the already
planned gas flaring projects and improving the pricing policies of
the associated gases.
7. Gas flaring reduction technologies
Various proven gas utilization technologies for different appli-
cations are addressed in World Bank Report (Bank, 2004). These
technologies are summarized in Table 3 and described in detail
below.
7.1. Re-injection
Re-injection is a commonly used method to preserve gas for
future use or to increase the efficiency of the oil production pro-
cess. The technology involves the installation of a gas compressor
to re-pressurize areas of low-pressure formation gas, enhancing oil
production. As an alternative to gas compressors, multiphase pump
systems – in which oil and gas can flow together – have a smaller
equipment size and allow determination of the flow characteristics
without the need to separate oil and gas (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010).
Re-injection or recycle is often applied offshore in order to boost
oil recovery by maintaining reservoir pressure and simultaneously
reduce or eliminate the need for gas transportation facilities. This
is still an attractive option for small volumes of associated gas;
497
Successful cases Promoted by Ref.
Kazakhstan GE technology Farina (2010)
– – Buzco-Guven et al. (2010)
Soyo, Angola (since 2010) GGFR project World Bank (2013)
Pearl GTL, Qatar (since 2012) Shell and Qatar Petroleum Buzco-Guven et al. (2010)
Canada – Buzco-Guven et al. (2010)
Petrochemicals in Persian Gulf – Buzco-Guven et al. (2010)
it is aimed at utilizing small volumes of gas, which previously
were flared because of the relatively small volume during pro-
duction. It is often used in cases where investment in processing
or export infrastructure would render the prospect uneconomical.
However, for reservoirs with substantial gas reserves, re-injection
is often considered uneconomic (Odumugbo, 2010). Since 2000, the
deployment of this technology in Kazakhstan the gas re-injection
has prevented annually more than 49 million tons of CO2 from
being released into the atmosphere (Farina, 2010). A successful re-
injection project at an oil field in Southeast Asia aims to reduce GHG
emissions by 2.65 million tons of CO2 eq by conserving the gas from
the oil field to be vented or flared (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010). In
Iran around 31.45 MMscmd natural gas is re-injected (see Table 8)
(IIES, 2011) and the best example is Darkhoin project, which was
completed in 2010 in which about 7 MMscmd is re-injected. There
are some other projects under construction like Bibi-Hakimeh and
Labsefid (Personal Communication, 2014).
7.2. Power generation
This technology is an option for meeting the nearby electricity
demand or export the electricity to the grid. In Argentina, aero-
derivative gas turbine burns 0.45 million cubic meters per day of
previously flared low Btu gas to generate about 40 MW of power
(Farina, 2010).
7.3. Pipeline natural gas (PNG)
PNG is the principal and most convenient method of transport-
ing gas; either from an offshore location to onshore for processing
or to interface with existing distribution grids. It is also used for
transportation of export gas. Nevertheless, for offshore transport
of natural gas, pipelines become challenging as the water depth
and the transporting distance increase. The economics of gas trans-
portation through pipeline is a function of distance (Odumugbo,
2010). Parker has reported cost functions for natural gas transmis-
sion pipeline (Parker, 2004). Gas to pipelines are not flexible as
the gas will leave the source and arrive at its destination. Once
the pipeline diameter is decided the quantities of gas that can be
delivered is fixed by the pressures, although an increase in the max-
imum quantity can be achieved by adding compressors along the
line, extra pipe in the form of loops or by increasing the average
pipeline pressure. Pipeline pressures are normally 700–1100 psig
(although 4000 psig lines are in operation) depending on the mate-
rial of construction and the age of the pipe. Installation of pipeline
costs currently, on average, 1–5 million USD per mile, sometimes
even higher, depending on the terrain (such as for onshore, moun-
tains or for offshore, seabed flatness and depth) plus compressor
stations (Thomas and Dawe, 2003).
7.4. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)
This technology is an alternative way of utilizing associated
gas because of its easy storage and transport to local markets,
498 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
and due to the higher percentage of propane and butane in asso-
ciated gas compression compared to non-associated gas. Before
extracting the liquefied petroleum gases, associated gas must first
be treated for removal of impurities including water vapor, CO2 ,
mercury vapor and H2 S. Conventional LPG processes treat the
whole gas stream before extracting the LPG content. These pro-
cesses are not economical and practical for associated gas produced
in much lower volumes and have a lower pressure than non-
associated gas from gas wells. Therefore, some companies have
developed technologies to treat only the recovered LPG content of
the associated gas to remove the contaminants and thus to reduce
the plant size and associated capital costs (Buzco-Guven et al.,
2010).
7.5. Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
LNG technology uses a straightforward refrigeration process.
The gas is pre-treated for impurities such as sulfur, CO2 , water,
and other contaminants, transformed into liquid by being cooled
to −162 ◦ C, and stored until it is shipped onboard LNG tankers.
LNG has a volume ∼1/600 that of gas at room temperature. After
transport to a receiving terminal, the liquefied gas is re-gasified for
use in gas markets (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010; Thomas and Dawe,
2003). A new LNG technology concept that has yet to be devel-
oped and proven commercially is called floating LNG (FLNG). This
process is a combination of conventional LNG and floating deepwa-
ter offshore production technologies. The combined FLNG vessels
will contain liquefaction facilities onboard, and can be moved to
small and remote oil fields easily, without having the need to build
large, new facilities at each location. This concept is largely advo-
cated by Shell and the first commercial applications are likely to
be in Australia at remote Browse Basin gas fields (Marcano and
Cheung, 2007). The relatively low volume of gas associated with
oil production may still fall below the commerciality threshold of
FLNG, which requires inputs of about 10 MMcmd (Farina, 2010;
Buzco-Guven et al., 2010). Some of already operating small-scale
liquefaction plants are: Clean Energy, 100,000 gallons/day in Texas,
USA; Naturgass Vest, 120 tons/day in Bergen, Norway; Xinao LNG
Plant, 170,000 scmd flared gas in Weizhou Island, China (Cornitius,
2006). LNG plants are large scale, long contract (∼20 years or more)
and require large >85 Bscm gas reserves and ∼ 1 billion USD invest-
ment for a train processing around 14 MMscmd (Thomas and Dawe,
2003).
7.6. Compressed natural gas (CNG)
CNG technology is the compression of natural gas to a much
lower volume (1/1200 of the original volume) at pressure between
8300 and 30,000 kPa. CNG is stored and transported in cylinders
(Buzco-Guven et al., 2010). There are a number of advantages of
CNG when compared to LNG, which have created the very strong
interest in CNG that exists today. They are: (1) no need for lique-
faction or re-gasification; (2) the gas does not need to be cleaned
to the same extent as it is necessary for LNG pre-processing; (3)
the CNG container may be made of fine grain normalized steel,
such as API 5L pipeline quality steel, rather than the significantly
more expensive high nickel steel, aluminum or stainless steel
needed to carry cryogenic LNG (Rynn et al., 2005). This technol-
ogy has the potential to become the preferred method of utilizing
associated gas in offshore platforms where building pipeline or
LNG plants are not economical and practical (Odumugbo, 2010).
Since CNG is transportable, and therefore easily re-deployable,
it can be used in fields with relatively short production hori-
zons. Trans Ocean Gas is in the process of commercializing its
CNG transport technology. Developments in CNG technology are
supported by Statoil, TransCanada, and ExxonMobil (Buzco-Guven
et al., 2010).
7.7. Natural gas hydrates (NGH)
NGH is crystallized natural gas, a solid material in an ice state
and chemically stable at −20 ◦ C. The stabilizing temperature is con-
siderably higher than that the LNG temperature of −162 ◦ C, which
leads to lower capital, transportation, and storage costs. However,
NGH is far less dense than LNG and quantity of gas transportable in
hydrate form is correspondingly lower than LNG technology. NGH
as a method to utilize associated gas is still in the research phase, but
Mitsui and Mitsubishi, the BG Group, and Marathon Oil are lead-
ing the efforts to develop gas-to-solid technology (Marcano and
Cheung, 2007).
7.8. Gas-to-liquid (GTL)
GTL technology is a chemical process that converts methane gas
into transportation fuels, such as gasoline or diesel fuels (Fleisch,
2014). GTL technology is still in development since it has not
been economically feasible and has involved more technical risks.
A world scale GTL plant can convert 8.5 MMscmd of gas into
30,000 bpd of diesel or gasoline (Fleisch, 2014). Over the last few
years, mini GTL technologies have been developed to monetize
smaller volumes of gas (less than 0.7 MMscmd) and thereby offer
opportunities to extinguish flares (Fleisch, 2014). Now, Oberon
Fuels, Velocys and Compact GTL are on the brink of multiple
commercial plants (Fleisch, 2014). Fleisch has reviewed over 24
companies of mini GTL technologies available today (Fleisch,
2014). Qatar is a leader in the world with the most GTL projects,
which produce 330,000–500,000 bbl/day, followed by Australia
with 120,000 bbl/day (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010). The Pearl gas-to-
liquids (GTL) plant, jointly owned by Qatar Petroleum and Shell,
located in Ras Laffan Industrial City, sold its first commercial ship-
ment of GTL gasoil in June 2011. The second train of the plant
became operational in late 2011 and the plant was scheduled
to reach full capacity by mid-2012. Once fully operational, Pearl
GTL is designed to consume some 45 MMscmd from the North
Field, which will be processed to deliver an expected 120,000 bpd
of condensate, LPG and ethane and an expected 140,000 bpd of
GTL products (Wood et al., 2012). Escravos, Nigeria developed by
Chevron Nigeria Limited, NNPC and Sasol, was expected to start up
by mid-2014 and will use 15% of total flaring to produce GTL prod-
ucts (diesel ∼70% and naphtha ∼30%) with capacity of 34,000 bbl/d
from two trains, the feed gas required to support the production
capacity of the plant is around 9.6 MMscmd (Buzco-Guven et al.,
2010; Odumugbo, 2010).
7.9. Methanol and ammonia production
Methane in natural gas and associated gas can also be converted
to methanol. Methanol is further used to produce dimethyl ether
(DME) and olefins such as ethylene and propylene in simple reactor
systems, conventional operating conditions and commercial cata-
lysts (Odumugbo, 2010). Lurgi’s Mega Methanol, MTP, and Mega
Syn technologies and Topsoe’s DME process provide cost-effective
and large economy-of-scale solutions to gas conversion. Methane in
associated gas can also be converted to ammonia via the Haber pro-
cess to produce nitrogen fertilizers. This method is quite common in
the Persian Gulf oil-producing countries (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010).
7.10. Comparison of technology options
Factors, including capital investment, technology risks, domes-
tic market and its infrastructure, and political environment,
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
companies’ strategies, compete for decision making. These fac-
tors may make a technology practical to be commissioned in
somewhere while applying the same technology may not be rea-
sonable in somewhere else. Although, a general comparison of all
alternatives is difficult to make, a case-by-case analysis is com-
mended for the best action selection. In this manner, IEA has
suggested some tips.
In the case of relatively short distances to markets and low
gas volumes, electricity generation or pipeline transport of the gas
might be economical alternatives to flaring. If the gas volumes are
higher than 10 Mscmd and distances to markets are greater than
2000 km, there are some other options to utilize the gas, includ-
ing LNG or GTL plants, and transporting the liquids produced via
tankers to the market locations. Although LNG has slightly lower
operating costs than GTL, the overall production cost for LNG and
GTL products for the same amount of natural gas is quite similar
(on the order of 2.5 billion USD) (Lichun et al., 2008). The pricing for
LNG products requires long-term contracts. Therefore, in the end,
the decision to install either an LNG or GTL unit will be dependent
on other factors such as local market needs, available resources,
and companies’ and governments’ priorities, etc. (Zhang and Pang,
2005).
Dong et al. (2008) compared GTL and LNG then concluded on
the commercial viability of GTL, and claimed that while a GTL facil-
ity is more complex, less efficient and more expensive than an
LNG facility, their end-to-end supply chains are quite comparable
and, thus, a decision to invest in either is challenging. Khalilpour
and Karimi’s (2012) study suggested GTL as the best option for
large reservoirs and distant markets; however, an NG utilization
method for any field will depend on both technical and economic
factors.
Small volumes of intermittent gas are not economically attrac-
tive to the major gas sellers, particularly for LNG facilities or
pipelines. For the smaller markets, e.g. islands where pipelines or
LNG are not feasible, NGH and CNG can be economic potential trans-
port methods. There could be options for handling niche markets
for gas reserves stranded (no market) and for associated gas (on- or
off-shore) which cannot be flared or re-injected, or for small reser-
voirs which cannot otherwise be economically exploited (Thomas
and Dawe, 2003).
The strength of subsea gas pipelines is associated with trans-
portation of large gas volumes fairly short distances to the market.
For quantities less than some 5.7 MMscmd this alternative rapidly
loses ground to other alternatives such as CNG and Electricity con-
version (Eriksen et al., 2002).
Transportation of natural gas as hydrate or CNG is believed
feasible at costs less than for LNG and where pipelines are not
possible. The competitive advantage of NGH or CNG over the
other non-pipeline transport processes is that they are intrinsi-
cally simple, so should be much easier to implement at lower
capital costs, provided that economically attractive market oppor-
tunities can be negotiated to the gas seller (Thomas and Dawe,
2003).
LNG, CNG and GTL technologies’ capital and operating cost func-
tions are reported and compared by Khalilpour and Karimi (2012).
Alternative technologies of PNG (pipeline natural gas), LNG, CNG
and NGH have been investigated for transporting 100 MMscmd nat-
ural gas from port of Assaluyeh in the south of Iran in the Persian
Gulf area to potential markets. The results indicate that for short
distances (up to 2700 km), PNG is the best option. In this range, CNG
has a lower production cost than LNG and NGH but, the production
cost of CNG versus distance increases sharply and for distanced
higher than 2700 km, LNG becomes more attractive. For medium
distance range (from 2700 to 7600 km) still PNG has the lowest
production cost. LNG becomes the best option for distances larger
than 7600 km (Najibi et al., 2009).
499
8. Best practice cases
In this section some of the successful projects and best practice
options will be reviewed. Despite increasing levels of oil pro-
duction, Norway reduced gas flaring and venting significantly by
widely using incentives and penalties, such as a CO2 tax on emis-
sions to encourage oil producers to reduce gas flaring volumes
(Buzco-Guven et al., 2010).
In 2007, the total associated gas production for Canada was
23.7 Bcm, 94% of which was utilized in domestic heating and power
generation as well as industrial and commercial use. The associ-
ated gas is re-injected in some oil fields, and is also used as fuel in
industrial processes, and in oil field operations. The well-developed
pipeline and transportation infrastructure in Canada and United
States also allows distributing the associated gas to North Amer-
ica’s gas network (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010). Although greenhouse
gas emissions are not regulated in United States, other constituents
of associated gas are strictly regulated by Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The EPA requires companies to report gas flaring vol-
umes and regulates their emissions from flaring activities. Onshore
and offshore producers of oil and associated gas are required to
manage associated gas through transportation to a market, power
generation, or re-injection (Buzco-Guven et al., 2010).
Chevron in Angola has several associated gas management
projects. The Flare and Relief Modification (FARM) project, along
with the offshore Gas Processing Platform and Cabinda Gas Plant,
upgrades and modifies the flare gas and relief systems on 14 off-
shore facilities, processes offshore natural gas liquids, and produces
LPG for export by using floating production, storage, and offload-
ing vessels. The project will eliminate 0.7 MMscmd of flared gas
(Buzco-Guven et al., 2010).
The AMAK project in Iran, started the most extensive envi-
ronmental project implemented by the National Iranian South Oil
Company in February 2005, to collect associated gas from 7 fields of
the reservoirs in Ahwaz in south-west Iran (Ab-Teymour, Mansuri,
Marun, Ahwaz and Kupal). 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 95 km of power
lines. As a result of the implementation of this large project, emis-
sion of 6.8 MMscmd of sour gas was prevented and the gas was
utilized (Andersen et al., 2012). For more information see Section
10.4.1.
The most common methodology for utilizing associated gas in
Iran is to produce liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) in NGL Plants. Many
NGL plants in different parts of the country utilize gathered associ-
ated gas from different oil fields for producing LPG. Also in the last
decade reinjection has been common in some projects for the pur-
pose of enhance oil recovery (EOR). Although in recent years some
projects for power generation and GTL have been proposed by pri-
vate companies in Iran, but they are still under study and have not
been advanced to design and implementation phase. LNG projects
to transform natural gas to liquid are not common for associated
gas utilization in Iran (Personal Communication, 2014). For details
refer to Table 9 in Section 10.4.
9. CDM projects for gas flaring reduction
Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) and its Kyoto Protocol, gas flaring could be reg-
istered as a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for greenhouse
emissions reduction. The CDM program has only sparingly been
used in associated gas flaring projects despite its great potential.
According to a recent report prepared by the Norwegian University
of Science and Technology (Andersen et al., 2012), global emis-
sions from gas flaring alone stand for more than one-half of the
500 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
annual Certified Emissions Reductions (624 million tons CO2 ) cur-
rently issued under CDM. This is a significant proportion because
most gas flaring projects are large-scale projects and thus the total
greenhouse gas reduction through gas flaring projects is equivalent
to many other small-scale registered CDM projects.
There are only five approved methodologies for gas flaring CDM
projects: recovery and utilization of vented or flared gas (AM0009),
flared gas to energy or feedstock (AM0037), waste gas to power gen-
eration (AM0074), and recovery and delivery of flared gas to specific
end-users (AM0077) waste gas to power generation (ACM0004)
(CDM Methodology Booklet, 2012). According to Gouvello (2011),
14 out of 15 different gas flaring projects validated or registered
as CDM project in UNFCCC Secretariat, are in AM0009 methodol-
ogy and only one project is in AM0037 methodology (See Table 4).
Based on the registered annual CO2 emission reduction of each
project, and by assuming that all projects have been implemented,
overall 69,274 Mtons CO2 emission has been reduced by the end
of 2012 (Gouvello, 2011). According to UNFCCC website, Turk-
menistan, Kuwait, Iraq and Nigeria have proposed five other large
scale flare gas recovery project design documents (PDD) in 2012,
which totally can reduce annually 9 Mtons CO2 emissions (UNFCCC,
2014).
Iran’s only registered CDM project is the Soroosh & Nowrooz
Early Gas Gathering and Utilization project as part of Kharg
and Behregansar project discussed in more details in Section
10.4.2. According to Soroosh & Nowrooz project design document
(PDD), the annual average emission reduction over the crediting
period was estimated to be 463,122 tons of CO2 eq. Total capi-
tal infrastructure utilized for this project is estimated at 118.2
million USD (CDM PDD, 2006). This project has been commis-
sioned in 2010 with around 0.08 MMscmd gas transporting to
Kharg Island, which was increased to 0.4 MMscmd in 2011. The
first monitoring report of this project led to issuing 202,000 cer-
tified emission reduction (CER) (IIES, 2011). However, due to
several financial and technical constraints, the estimated emis-
sions reduction of 463,122 tons of CO2 eq as anticipated in the PDD
was not realized as can be seen from the last row, item 16 of
Table 4.
To receive CDM financing, project developers not only need to
provide detailed methodologies to demonstrate baselines and the
volumes of gas flaring reduced, they also need to demonstrate that
flare gas reduction projects would not move ahead without carbon
financing, the so-called “additionality” test. This requires capabili-
ties and monitoring that are often unavailable in some developing
nations (Farina, 2010).
Unfortunately, the sharp decline in the carbon price in the CDM
market as a result of the decisions of the Conference of Parties (COP)
of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol has caused a very low market
for new CDM projects, especially the large-scale gas flaring projects.
10. Gas flaring in Iran
10.1. Historical background
Oil exploration and production in the world dates back to over
150 years ago with more than two million wells around the world;
many of the early wells turned out to be dry (History, 2014). The
first oil exploration and drilling operations for oil in Iran were
started more than a century ago by William D’Arcy when the con-
cession made on May 28th 1901 marked the foundation of Iran’s
oil industry. Since the US oil industry came to existence in 1859,
several concessions were granted in Iran for crude oil production.
Numerous drilling operations were carried out in the west and
southwest parts of the country without satisfactory results, until
about 1905 when the first major oil production began in Masjed
Soleiman region in southwest of Iran (NIOC, 2014). Since then the
drilling and oil production in Iran were carried out by international
oil consortiums until the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC)
was established in 1951 that has since been directing and making
policies for exploration, drilling, production, research and devel-
opment, refining, distribution and export of oil, gas, petroleum
products. NIOC, with a vast amount of oil and gas resources, is
one of the world’s largest oil companies. At the present time, it
is estimated that the company holds 156.53 billion barrels of liquid
hydrocarbons and 33.79 trillion cubic meters of natural gas (Oper-
ated by the National Iranian Gas Company – NIGC). NIOC consists
of seventeen production companies, eight technical service compa-
nies, seven managements, six divisions (administrative units) and
five organizational units (NIOC, 2014).
In general, global gas flaring data is scarcely available before
1950. For Iran gas flaring data for pre-nationalization period (1951)
from Iranian oil fields is also not available, particularly that oil
production was carried out mostly by the international oil consor-
tiums with no central national administration for oil production.
Indeed, Iran has officially reported gas flaring data only from 2001
onward. However, gas flaring data for Iran is available since 1980
based on the US EIA and since 1995 based on GGFR of the World
Bank, although the data reported by EIA might have been esti-
mated data and independent from the official data reported by
Iran. As discussed above, oil production can be used to estimate
the amount of gas flared for each year. Oil production and flaring
data for Iran from 1980 to 2012 are available from EIA (EIA, 2015).
In CDIAC data bank, a statistical data set for gas-flaring-related CO2
emissions in Iran is reported for the period of 1955–2008 (CDIAC,
2014).
10.2. Gas flaring sources in Iran
As mentioned in the Introduction, gas flaring is practiced not
only in oil production, but it is also in natural gas production, in oil
and gas refineries and in petrochemical plants. It suffices to men-
tion that in addition to the four major oil companies listed below,
there are large gas flaring emission sources including 9 petroleum
refineries, 18 gas refineries, 39 petrochemical plants which have
gas flaring operations (IIES, 2011).
Although the focus of this paper is on the gas flaring in oil
production in Iran, the importance and contribution of other
sources such as natural gas production and refineries should not
be overlooked. For example, Tabriz Oil Refinery in northwestern
Iran flares 22.5 million cubic meters annually (Zadakbar et al.,
2008), and Farashband gas refinery near Shiraz flares 40 million
cubic meters (mcm) annually (Rahimpour and Jokar, 2012) com-
pared to 17.6 Bcm flared gas in Iran in 2012 (IIES, 2011). These
amounts are roughly, 0.13% and 0.22% of Iran’s associated gas
flaring, respectively for the same year. South Pars Gas Refiner-
ies in Assaluyeh in the northern coast of Persian Gulf in south
Iran are other significant sources of gas flaring. However, there
exists great uncertainty in the amount of emission from these
sources. In one study the total gas flaring in 8 phases of South
Pars Gas Refineries has been reported to be around 1.4 MMscmd
(Davoudi et al., 2013). However, by personal communication with
National Iranian Oil Company it was found that the annual aver-
age of gas flaring volume is around 2.83 MMscmd for 10 active
phases of South Pars gas refineries roughly 4.6% of total flared gas
by National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). In another source, the
amount of natural gas flared in the South Pars Oil and Gas Zone
was estimated to be around 3.5 million cubic meters per day in
October 2013 (Ayaronline, 2013). It seems that gas flaring volume
of 3–3.5 MMscmd is more realistic and the lower reported vol-
ume could be due to estimation method which may not reflect
gas flaring during shutdowns or other technical considerations.
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509 501

Table 4
Gas flaring CDM projects in validation and registration stages (Gouvello, 2011).

Title Host country Annual ktonCO2 Credit start 2012 ktonCO2

1 Use of recovered gas for methanol production Equat. Guinea 2356.03 1-May-01 23,560
2 Flare gas recovery project at Hazira Gas Process Comp, (ONGC) India 73.58 1-Sep-06 466
3 Gas flaring reduction project at Cauvery Asset, (ONGC) India 33.36 1-Sep-06 211
4 Gas flaring reduction project at Mumbai High, (ONGC) India 201.34 1-Sep-06 1274
5 Gas flaring reduction project at Ankleshwar Asset, (ONGC) India 136.64 1-Sep-06 865
6 Gas flaring reduction project at Assam Asset, (ONGC) India 21.12 1-Sep-06 134
7 Gas flaring reduction project at Rajamundry Asset, (ONGC) India 26.85 1-Sep-06 170
8 Gas flaring reduction project at Neelam and Heera Asset, (ONGC) India 109.46 1-Sep-06 693
9 Flare gas recovery project at Uran plant, (ONGC) Limited India 96.35 1-Sep-06 610
10 Gas flaring reduction project at Mehsana Asset, (ONGC) India 16.74 1-Sep-06 106
11 Gas flaring reduction project at Ahmedabad Asset, (ONGC) India 13.04 1-Sep-06 130
12 Recovery of associated gas Kwale oil–gas process plant, Nigeria Nigeria 1496.93 16-Oct-06 10,521
13 The Ovade Ogharefe Gas Capture and Processing Project Nigeria 2531.7 1-Jan-07 14,505
14 Al-Shaheen Oil Field Gas Recovery and Utilization Project Qatar 1457.81 1-Jan-07 9120
15 Rang Dong oil filed associated gas recovery and utilization (NM26) Vietnam 677 1-Dec-01 6910
16a Soroosh & Nowrooz Early Gas Gathering and Utilization Project (S&N project) Iran 202 3-Nov-10 –
a
This project has not been included in Gouvello (2011) and was added by the authors.

Fig. 7. Iranian petroleum facilities: oil and gas fields and refineries (a) from Wikipedia (2014) and Iran’s flares map (b) from Google Earth based on NOAA data.

Emission of air pollutants and greenhouse gases from this impor-
tant natural gas production and refining complex and its associated
petrochemical plants were estimated in a comprehensive study in
2006 (Soltanieh, 2006). Considering significant expansion of facili-
ties in this region since that date, update of detailed information is
not available.
However, since the emphasis of this paper is on the gas flaring
from oil production, the focus will be on this sector. There are four
main oil production companies in Iran which operate in different
zones:
• National Iranian South Oil Company (NISOC)
• Iranian Central Oil Fields Company (ICOFC)
• Iranian Offshore Oil Company (IOOC)
• Arvandan Oil and Gas Company (AOGC)
The map of Iran in Fig. 7a shows the location of these oil produc-
tion zones; one is offshore in the Persian Gulf and the other three
are onshore. Fig. 7b is extracted from Google Earth which shows
all gas flaring locations in Iran. In the top 100 flare list, Iran has 13
flares mostly in offshore regions (NOAA, 2014).
The contribution of each of these companies to oil production
and the associated gas flaring in 2011 in Iran is presented in Fig. 8
and Table 5 below. It can be seen that more than 75% of oil pro-
duction is by the National Iranian South Oil Company and the least
is by Arvandan Oil and Gas Company. It is interesting to compare
the gas flaring from these four zones of oil production in the same
year (2011). According to Table 5, the gas flaring in the four zones
in 2011 was, 12.68, 3.98, 20.35 and 0.46 million cubic meters per
day, respectively. The relevant emission factors are also shown in
Table 5. It can be seen that Iran Offshore Oil Company had the high-
est emission factor (33.29 cubic meters of gas per barrel of oil)
whereas the Arvandan Oil and Gas Company had the lowest (2.97
cubic meters of gas per barrel of oil) (IIES, 2011).
Iran’s oil production, associated gas flaring rate and emission
factors for the period 2007–2011 are shown in Table 6 and depicted
in Fig. 9. The gas flaring volume fluctuations compared to oil pro-
duction is considered to be normal in most oil production facilities
502 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509

Table 5
Iranian oil companies’ oil production, gas flaring volume and emission factor in 2011 (IIES, 2011).

Company Gas flaring volume (MMscmd) Oil prod. vol. (1000 bbl/day) Emission Factor (scm/bbl)

National Iranian South Oil Company 12.68 2977.59 4.26

Iranian Central Oil Fields Company 3.98 159.72 24.92
Iranian Offshore Oil Company 20.35 611.39 33.28
Arvandan Oil and Gas Company 0.46 154.94 2.97

Table 6
Oil production, associated gas flaring and emission factors for Iran during 2001–2011 (IIES, 2011).

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Oil production (1000 bbl/day) 3706 3637 3983 3996.2 4021.6 4056.9
Flared gas (MMscmd) 34.48 31.5 38.08 34.88 38.21 38.96
Emission factor (scm/bbl oil) 9.30 8.66 9.56 8.73 9.50 9.60

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Oil production (1000 bbl/day) 4103.6 4016.6 3927.43 3942.42 3903.7

Flared gas (MMscmd) 39.53 40.32 41.56 37.24 37.46
Emission factor (scm/bbl oil) 9.63 10.04 10.58 9.45 9.60

Bold texts and numbers signify the importance and focal areas relevant to this paper.

have not been functioning well or has been out of service for any
reason.
• The pressure drop in the oil wells can cause some fluctuations in
the gas to oil ratio which is a common and known behavior in oil
extraction.
• The other reason may be due to the overall oil extraction plan-
ning among the different oil companies of NIOC, i.e. the share of
each oil field in total production level. Since the flared gas vol-
ume depends of the fields, this fluctuation may be observed. For
example, oil production in offshore sites (IOOC) cause higher gas
flaring than onshore facilities (such as NISOC) which is due to the
lack of gas gathering facilities in offshore fields.

Iran’s gas flaring-related carbon dioxide emission share from

Fig. 8. Share of the associated gas flaring in the four Iranian oil companies in 2011
(IIES, 2011).
however, the following reasons are suggested for gas flared volume
fluctuation between 2003–2004 and 2009–2010:
• It may be related to the operation of collecting and processing
facilities of associated gas. This means that the facility might
total national CO2 emission is shown in Fig. 10. This figure has
been prepared from the data source of CDIAC for a long period
of 1965–2008 (CDIAC, 2014). This figure indicates that the per-
centage of gas flaring-related CO2 emission compared to the total
CO2 emission has had a decreasing trend during 1965–2008, with
a minimum in 1998, and it remained relatively constant during
1990–2008 at a level of about 10–7%. This is despite the fact that
the absolute value of Iran’s gas flaring has increased in recent years
as shows in Fig. 4b. This may be due to the fact that carbon dioxide
emissions from other sectors have been risen at a much greater rate
than in gas flaring section.

Fig. 9. Daily oil production, gas flaring (a), and gas flaring emission factor (b) for Iran during 2001–2011 based on IIES data (IIES, 2011).
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509 503

Table 7
Oil production, gas flaring volume and emission factor for Iran in the period of 1980–2012 based on EIA data (EIA, 2015).

Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

Gas flaring (Bcm) 9.46 8.21 14.24 12.86 6.51 5.89 4.96 4.81 3.99 1.50 1.39
Oil prod. (1000 bbl/day) 1683 1402 2236 2460 2196 2272 2044 2313 2253 2831 3113
EF (scm/bbl) 15.40 16.05 17.45 14.32 8.13 7.10 6.64 5.70 4.85 1.45 1.22

Year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Gas flaring (Bcm) 10.99 11.30 8.64 8.89 11.61 11.81 10.99 10.00 10.51 10.51 7.39
Oil prod. (1000 bbl/day) 3358 3476 3591 3672 3709 3748 3728 3703 3621 3765 3800
EF (scm/bbl) 8.97 8.90 6.59 6.63 8.58 8.63 8.07 7.39 7.95 7.64 5.33

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Gas flaring (Bcm) 8.21 12.09 12.20 12.01 15.83 15.69 16.82 15.89 16.59 16.65 17.56
Oil prod. (1000 bbl/day) 3524 3833 4104 4239 4149 4039 4178 4178 4243 4265 3589
EF (scm/bbl) 6.38 8.64 8.15 7.76 10.45 10.64 11.03 10.42 10.71 10.70 13.40

Bold texts and numbers signify the importance and focal areas relevant to this paper.

sanctions forced NIOC to extract oil from the shared fields which
are mainly offshore with fewer plans for collecting the associated
gas. As evidence, the gas flaring emission factor for Iranian Offshore
Oil Company (IOOC) is the highest among the others (see Table 5).
Thus, while the overall oil production has been dropped, the flared
gas volume has not been reduced. In addition, there is great amount
of uncertainty in gas flaring data reporting.

10.3. Natural gas supply and demand in Iran

This section presents a brief status of natural gas supply and

Fig. 10. Iran’s gas flaring-related CO2 emission share from total CO2 emission based
on CDIAC data (CDIAC, 2014).
Fig. 11. Iran’s oil production and gas flaring emission factors in the period of
1980–2012 based on EIA data (EIA, 2015).
Table 7 shows Iran’s gas flaring emission factors for the period
1980–2012 based on oil production and gas flaring data for Iran
which is also plotted in Fig. 11. From this table and figure it can
be seen that the gas flaring emission factor in Iran has had great
fluctuations in the 32 years of record: in early 1980s when oil pro-
duction was disrupted because of the Islamic Revolution in 1979
and the oil production dropped by at least 50%, emission factors
were high as much as 17.45 in 1982. As oil production resumed
to more than 3 million bbl/day in 1990, emission factor dropped
to a very low value of 1.22. Emission factor then remained rel-
atively constant during 1990s at an average of about 7.9 and it
remained approximately at that level until 2005. However, since
2006, emission factors show an increasing trend which could be due
to disruption of oil production caused by international sanctions in
early 2012. The oil production reduction due to the international
demand in Iran. It helps to understand the linkage between the
oil and natural gas production in the overall energy scheme of
the country. Since natural gas production does not have signifi-
cant amounts of gas flaring emissions comparable to oil production
emissions, it explains some of the reasons for delays in implemen-
tation of the associated gas flaring projects. This information is
also useful for the forecast of the gas flaring associated with the
oil production.
Based on OPEC annual statistical bulletin in 2013 (OPEC, 2013),
Iran has the second natural gas proved resources (33.78 Tcm) in
the world after Russia (48.68 Tcm) (OPEC, 2013), whereas accord-
ing to British Petroleum (BP) in its 2013 Review of World Energy
(BP, 2013), Iran has the first rank in proven natural gas reserves
(33.62 Tcm for Iran and 32.92 Tcm for Russia).
According to the World Oil News Center (Tuttle and Salehi,
2013), in 2014 Iran will lead the Gas Exporting Countries Forum
(GECF) with 13 member countries holding 60% of the world’s natu-
ral gas reserves. US and EU sanctions have cut the Persian nation’s
crude exports by half since 2011 and are stiffing projects to export
some of its gas, the world’s largest gas reserve. Iran is one of three
GECF members that are net importers as the group faces increased
competition from LNG projects from the US to Australia. Iran flared
11.4 Bcm of gas in 2011, the last year for which data is available,
according to the World Bank’s Gas Flaring Reduction Public–Private
Partnership (World Bank, 2014). As will be discussed below in Sec-
tion 10.5, under the new Gas Flaring Law, the selling price of flare
gas is going to be one third of the price of refined natural (non-
associated gas) delivered to industries by the National Iranian Gas
Company. On the basis of the energy supply and demand analysis,
the environmental damage from air pollution in Iran was assessed.
The damage cost to the global environment from the flaring of nat-
ural gas, based on the price of $10/ton CO2 was estimated to be 600
million USD per year. This is equal to a little less than 1% of GDP
2002 (Shafie-Pour and Ardestani, 2007). Iran’s gas flaring is about
8% of the global flaring (World Bank, 2014). That would meet about
a quarter of demand in South Korea, the world’s second buyer of
LNG after Japan. The gas is worth 7.3 billion USD on Southeast Asian
504 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
Table 8
Natural gas supply (a) and demand (b) in NIOC in 2011 based on IIES data (IIES,
2011).
(a) Supply
Associated gases
Onshore regions Gas caps
Independent gas fields
Sum
Associated gases
Offshore regions Gas caps
Independent gas fields
Sum
Total associated gases
Total gas caps
Total independent gas fields
Total gas production
(b) Demand
Self-consumption
Gas plants and LNG units
Gas refineries
Petrochemicals
Gas condensate and statistical errors
Injection
Flared gas
Total gas consumption
Note: All units are in million standard cubic meters per day.
Bold texts and numbers signify the importance and focal areas relevant to this paper.
spot markets, according to Bloomberg calculations using World
Gas Intelligence prices. Iran flares associated gas because it lacks
the infrastructure to process and transport it to market (Tuttle and
Salehi, 2013).
In Iran natural gas plays a major role in the energy supply
basket. Table 8 shows the supply and demand of natural gas in
Iran. Associated natural gas production originates mainly from the
Khuzestan, Ilam, and Kermanshah provinces, along with offshore
oil fields (EIA, 2014). Gross natural gas production totaled almost
631 MMscmd in 2011 most of which was marketed (562 MMscmd),
and the remainder was re-injected into oil wells to enhance oil
recovery (31.45 MMscmd) and vented and flared (37.46 MMscmd).
Re-injecting natural gas plays a critical role in oil recovery at Iran’s
fields. As a result, natural gas reinjection is expected to increase in
the coming years. Some estimates indicate that NIOC will require
around 0.2 billion cubic meters per day of natural gas for reinjec-
tion into its oil fields in the next decade, according to FACTS Global
Energy (EIA, 2014). Iran also burns off a substantial portion of its
gross production which is around 6% in 2011 (IIES, 2011).
10.4. Major gas gathering projects in Iran
The most important gas gathering projects in oil production
(associated gas) of Iran are listed in Table 9 below. The latest esti-
mates show that around 10 billion USD investment is needed
to implement all the planned gas recovery projects (Personal
Communication, 2014). Considering the amount of energy saved
as a result of implementation of these projects and the environ-
mental cost of air pollution and greenhouse gas emission of flare
gases, this amount of investment is not too high and it will have
high rate of return.
The Iranian Government and the National Iranian Oil Com-
pany (NIOC) have a policy objective to reduce gas flaring. NIOC’s
gas flaring reduction plans have been listed in Table 9. As it is
shown in Fig. 12, gas flaring volume is expected to decrease by
implementation of the mentioned projects. A large gap between
the actual and planned gas flaring volume can be seen. In order
to reduce gas flaring in Iran, the projects had been planned to
reach low flaring target in 2012, but the international sanctions
78.94
29.93
262.88
371.75
24.92
0
234.45
259.37
103.86
29.93
497.33
631.12 Fig. 12. Flared gas volume actual and planned trend.
Note: Dashed curve is based on reductions from implementation of flared gas recov-
ery projects during 2011–2015.
5.97
78.32
469.36 delayed their implementation to an unknown date. There are
7.19 many projects planned or under construction which need large
1.34 amount of capital investment and new technologies. Accord-
31.45 ing to a recent EIA report on Iran (EIA, 2014), the sanctions
37.46
and lack of international involvement have particularly affected
631.09
upstream projects, as the lack of expertise, technology, and
financial investment has resulted in delays and, in some cases, can-
celations of projects. Nonetheless, development of a few projects
continues, albeit at a slower pace than planned. These rea-
sons plus other domestic economic reasons have led to major
delays in completing the planned projects which could have
decreased a large amount of flaring, if they were implemented on
time.
In the following, some details of these major gas gathering
projects will be presented.
10.4.1. AMAK projects
The objectives of AMAK (Ab-Teymour, Mansuri, Marun, Ahwaz
and Kupal) projects are gathering, compressing, dehydrating and
sweetening of the sour associated gases, flared in seven pro-
duction units and transfer the sweet gas to NGL plants and the
acid gas to the Razi Petrochemical Complex. The AMAK project
has been implemented since 2010 and comprises of 10 projects
and 7 compression stations for gathering and transportation of
the associated gases to the production units (Shams Ardekani,
2014).
The average emission factor of the seven AMAK projects is around
23.2 cubic meters of gas per barrel of produced oil (6.8 MMscmd
sour associated gas versus 292,880 bbl/day produced oil) (AGGP,
2005). This overall emission factor of 23.2 is relatively high com-
pared with the national average of around 7.2 and the global
average of around 4.6 (see Table 1 above). As a result of implemen-
tation of these projects great environmental benefits is achieved
that include: stop flaring and wasting 6.8 million cubic meters
of highly sour natural gas, containing 18,400 ppm hydrogen sul-
fide, which was otherwise flared with extremely high economic
value, avoiding emission of 18,000 tons/day of air pollutants, and
avoiding consumption of the atmospheric oxygen at the rate of
640,000 m3 /h. In addition, the useful products of the implemen-
tation of these projects include: 141 Mscmd lean gas (mostly
natural gas), 9450 bbl/day of propane, 6560 bbl/day of butane,
5280 bbl/day of naphta and 180 tons/day of sulfur. The economic
values of these projects include: Annual Product Value (APV) of
210 million USD, Net Present Value (NPV) at 6% rate of 687.7
million USD, the IRR of 28% and PBP of 30 months. These indi-
cators are all in favor of immediate action on implementation
of these projects with great economic and environmental advan-
tages with an estimated investment cost of 531 million USD (based
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509 505

Table 9
Flared gas recovery planned projects in NIOC in Iran, 2011 updates.

Gas volume (MCMPD) Progress Commissioning year

Planned Actual

National Iranian South Oil Company

Gas recovery and re-injection1 – 85.76% 73.31% 2011
Two-phase pumping for re-injection 2.72% 2% 2013
Gas recovery and re-injection2 95.96% 95.91% 2011
Gas recovery and re-injection 68.47% 40.05% 2012
Re-injection system optimization 66.13% 43.46% 2013
Gas recovery and re-injection 4.20% 2.93% 2013
Re-injection system optimization 3.85% 3.85% 2013
Sour gas recovery for NGL unit feed 2.50% 2.50% 2014
Gas recovery and re-injection 66.30% 66.30% 2011
Gas recovery and re-injection 13.20% 13.20% 2013
Re-injection system optimization 4.35% 4.26% 2014
Sour gas recovery for NGL unit feed 3.85% 3.85% 2013
Optimization of NGL feed supply 0.00% 0.00% 2015

Iranian Central Oil Fields Company

Gas Recovery and Injection 1.64 (From one oil field) – 66% 2012
Compression Station and Injection 0.52 (from one oil field) – 34% 2011
NGL 7.19 (from one oil field) – 4% 2014
Gas Recovery and Injection 2.92 (from 3 oil fields) Engineering study 2014
Compression Station 0.28 (from one oil field) – 31% 2014

Iranian Offshore Oil Company

Kharg NGL3 18.12 (from 7 oil fields) 100% 21% 2014
Siri NGL4 2.87 (from 4 oil fields) 100% 97% 2011
To National Gas Network 0.93 (from one oil field) 100% 97% 2012
To National Gas Network 0.85 (from one oil field) 75% 54% 2011
To National Gas Network 4.53 (from one oil field) 3% 5% 2012

Arvandan Oil and Gas Company

NGL unit 15.25 (from 6 oil fields) – – –
Gas Injection 7.93 (from one oil field) – – –
1
This is the Ghalenar oil fields gas recovery and re- injection that has been completed in 2013, preventing 0.3 MMscmd gas flaring.
2
This is the Nargesi oil fields gas recovery and re-injection that has been completed in 2013, preventing 0.5 MMscmd gas flaring.
3
Kharg project’s physical progress is reported about 44% in 2014.
4
Siri NGL project has been partially implemented. Although the project is almost completed, because of imposed international sanctions causing problems with gas
compression unit, in this field around 1.4–1.7 MMscmd gas is flared.

on 2005 calculation) which can be returned in less than three
years.
10.4.2. Kharg and Behregansar projects
Flaring of the associated gas at Kharg Island of Iran in the Persian
Gulf and the related offshore fields has been a major source of CO2
emissions for decades. Most of the gas flared is of an acidic nature,
which presents a substantial technical and financial barrier to end
flaring, despite long-term efforts to alleviate the situation. The CDM
project activity in this field was designed to capture and treat asso-
ciated gas that had been flared at the Soroosh & Nowrooz offshore
oil fields and connect this gas to a common trunkline at the Aboozar
Gas Compressor Platform. The gas will then be brought to Kharg
Island where the gas will be transferred to an existing gas pipeline
to serve gas users on the island: primarily oil processing facilities,
power generation and a petrochemical facility. The project activ-
ity is a sub-component of the Kharg-Bahregansar NGL and Acid Gas
Treatment project (Kharg NGL project) designed to capture and uti-
lize all the associated gas in the Kharg Bahregansar area. The project
activity encompasses the recovery of the sweet associated gas at the
Soroosh and Nowrooz oil production platforms (CDM PDD, 2006).
The infrastructure consists of:
The Kharg and Behregansar is the largest gas flaring oil field in
Iran with an estimated amount of 15.3 MMscmd. Of this amount,
8.4 MMscmd is offshore and 6.9 MMscmd in onshore (AGGP, 2005).
The recovered gas will avoid emission of around 5 million tons of
CO2 annually.
The contribution of each oil field in Kharg and Behregansar
region to SOx and NOx emissions are shown in Fig. 13. It should
be noted that the calculations behind the figure is based on air dis-
persion models. It can be seen that most of sulfur compounds are
emitted from Dorood Foroozan and Aboozar and Dorood 2 oil fields,
which have highly acidic gases. However, most of the NOx emis-
sions are from the Foroozan, Nowrooz and Behregan and onshore
facilities.
It should be noted that the Kharg Island Gas Gathering and
NGL Recovery Project, to which the Soroosh and Nowrooz Early
Gas Gathering CDM Project (CDM PDD, 2006) was an original
part, despite being a high priority for the Iranian Government and
NIOC with many years of planning, has not been fully funded. For
this reason its allocated cost is increasing due to inflation so that
a recent cost estimate for the aforementioned installations and
facilities is around 2500 million USD (Personal Communication,
2014).

• Gas compression and dehydration on the oil field platforms;
• Subsea gas gathering system and the gas transmission lines;
• Onshore reception facilities, i.e. separator(s) at Dorood II;
• Connecting onshore pipeline between the landing site of the
offshore pipelines, the reception facilities and the existing gas
distribution system on the island.
10.4.3. SIRI project
After Kharg and AMAK projects described above, the third
largest source of associated gas is the oil field of Siri with volume of
about 3.7 MMscmd as estimated in (AGGP, 2005). Total cost of this
project is 458 million USD based on 2011 calculations. The SIRI gas
gathering project also has many elements including:
506 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
Fig. 13. The contribution of each oil field in Kharg and Behregansar region to SOx (a) and NOx emissions (b) (AGGP, 2005).
• Offshore gas gathering
• Onshore gas gathering
• Acid gas removal and acid gas incineration
• NGL plant
• LPG, pentane and condensate storage and loading
• Residue gas export to Kish and Qeshm Islands.
Note that although the physical progress of Siri project is about
97%, due to the imposed international sanctions this site still flares
around 1.4–1.7 MMscmd of the associated gases. This problem is
due to the compression unit of the project as mentioned in the
footnote of Table 9.
10.5. Gas flaring laws and policies
The only law to curb gas flaring in Iran was approved by the
Parliament (Majles Shoraye Eslami) in the Annual Budget Law
of 2011 and with a slight change in the Annual Budget Law
of 2013. According to this law the Ministry of Petroleum was
permitted to sell the associated gas currently flared through its
affiliated state companies to the private companies at one-third
of the selling price of the refined natural gas delivered to indus-
tries by the National Iranian Gas Company (NIGC). The Ministry
can then spend the income gained from this source for its own
environmental projects or those of its affiliated companies. The
2013 version of this Law (Article 15–3 of the 2013 Budget Law)
required that the selling should be carried out through a pub-
lic bid competition. However, it seems that for several reasons
such as the lack of economic incentive especially in the long
term, this law has not been able to attract and create incen-
tive for companies to invest is gas flaring projects. The following
techno-economic constraints maybe the reasons for lack of imple-
mentation and unwillingness of private sector to invest in gas
flaring projects:
• Small volume of certain sources of associated gases;
• Remote geographical location;
• Variation of pressure and temperature of the gas with time which
complicates the engineering design of the project with great
uncertainty;
• Composition of the gas which makes purification uneconomical;
• Cost of purification, transport and injection;
• Lack of experience and technology to use the sour gas for small
scale generators (Gas-to-Electricity);
• Lack of experience and technology to convert the gas to liquid
(GTL).
In order to facilitate implementation of gas flaring reduction
projects, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) plans to prepare
the framework for the public bid competition, which will include
the following activities:
• The time frame of the completion of the existing projects or the
projects at design stage;
• The volume and characteristics of the present associated gases
and predicted changes in the future;
• Priority to be given to those associated gases for which NIOC does
not have long-term plans for investment and implementation;
• Establish the rules for the full technical, safety and environmental
responsibility of the investors in associated gas projects;
• Establish the rules for the buy-back of the refined gas, electricity
and liquid products (GTL).
As noted above, although the Government and NIOC have a pol-
icy objective to reduce gas flaring, albeit the objective has not been
translated into any specific measures. Unlike many countries, the
flaring of gas in Iran does not entail any fees or fines nor does utiliza-
tion of associated gas provide any fiscal incentives. Further, while
NIOC does have plans to implement projects to reduce gas flaring,
it is chronically underfunded for capital projects as all profits go
directly to the Treasury and the capital budget is approved directly
by the National Assembly (Majlis). CAPEX of each project needs
the approval of the NIOC Board of Directors. Given that social ser-
vices require major subsidies, the Government is not able to fund
all the capital projects requested by NIOC and since the associ-
ated gas capture projects have low rates of return, partly due to
the low domestic gas prices, such projects are generally deferred
(CDM PDD, 2006).
One reason that Iran flares large quantities of the associated gas
in oil production, while it has a growing gas demand, is that it has
such large quantities of non-associated gas produced from natural
gas reserves. Indeed, Iran can meet almost all its domestic needs
from the giant South Pars field alone. While the development of
gas for international markets will ultimately impact the domestic
demand situation, the international export of major amounts of gas
from Iran, either by pipeline or LNG is still largely in the planning
stage, and is not expected to exert any major pressure on domestic
supply in the near to medium term. In fact, Iran’s very abundance
of natural gas and its ability to benefit from economies of scale to
bring on giant fields like South Pars is an important reason that gas
capture projects related to associated gas flaring are continually
disadvantaged in the competition for limited capital funds (CDM
PDD, 2006). In addition, according to the National Iranian Gas Com-
pany (NIGC), it is the policy of this company to implement the “no
flare” policy in all natural gas refineries of Iran by the end of the Fifth
Five-Year National Development Plan (the end of 2016) (Mehrnews,
2012). This rather easier flare emission reduction opportunity also
could compete with gas flaring reduction projects in oil production
that causes delay in such projects.
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
11. Conclusions
Global gas flaring has continued since the inception of oil pro-
duction more than one and a half century ago. Gas flaring is a
great loss of energy resources with significant local, regional and
global environment consequences caused by emission of millions
of tons of air pollutants and greenhouse gases each year. In addi-
tion to gas flaring in oil production, gas flaring is also practiced
in other oil, gas and petrochemical industries mostly for opera-
tional and safety reasons, the magnitude of gas flaring in those
industries is small compared to the gas flaring in oil produc-
tion. Only about 20 countries account for more than 90% of the
global gas flaring. The amount of gas flaring compared to the oil
production (emission factor) is highly variable from less than 1
cubic meter per barrel of oil produced to more than 50 cubic
meters per barrel of oil. The emission factor also varies with time
and location of production. There is significant amount of uncer-
tainty in the estimates of the volume and composition of flare
gases that needs to be resolved. Actual measurement of the vol-
ume and composition of flare gas is very limited and most data
are estimates. It is hoped that the on-going research project on
the measurement of the volume and composition of flare gases
and various pollutants before and after combustion from the Ira-
nian oil and gas fields can reduce the level of uncertainty in this
important environmental problem in the future. Field measure-
ment requires regulatory measures by the national governments,
investment by oil companies and international collaboration. The
problem with offshore production is even more serious due to the
limited space for any capture plants and downstream processing
and utilization. Most estimates are based on satellite data and few
on actual measurements. This paucity of observations needs the
immediate attention of both the oil companies and environmen-
tal enforcement bodies and relevant international organizations.
There are various methods and technologies available to reduce
the gas flaring. However, due to the limited financial resources,
lack of policy and regulatory measures and constraints to access
the required technologies, in particular by developing countries,
gas flaring continues in most parts of the world at a continuous
and alarming rate. Various air pollutants and greenhouse gases are
emitted from flaring operations, extremely harmful for the local
and global environment. This review shows that many good studies
on gas flaring have been carried out globally, but effective abate-
ment measures and real actions have been limited. There exists
an urgent need for action on this important energy/environment
issue.
Iran’s gas flaring record shows that for more than a century flar-
ing has had a large fluctuation due to oil production variations.
Although Iran does have plans to cut the gas flaring volume, but
economical, policy, and technological constraints have delayed the
implementation of these projects, which could otherwise provide a
large amount of energy with great environmental benefit. The sit-
uation has been exacerbated due to international sanctions against
Iran, especially the oil sanctions in recent years.
The fact that for economic reasons the associated gas is cur-
rently flared at many oil production sites, the abundant supply of
natural gas and its relatively lower prices, and the lack of strict reg-
ulations at national and international levels, are the main reasons
for continuing gas flaring practice. However, several successfully
implemented projects in Iran such as AMAK since 2010, Siri since
2012, Soroosh and Nowrooz (part of the Kharg Project) since 2010,
Ghalenar and Nargesi since 2013 show that it is possible to reduce
gas flaring emissions provided that financial resources, national
policies and regulations and technological constraints are lifted.
Iran’s gas flaring can be reduced significantly as planned provided
that the financial and technological constraints due to international
sanctions are removed.
507
The final message from this review paper may be adopted from
a recent report prepared by the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology (Andersen et al., 2012). 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 con-
ducted 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 annu-
ally. 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 (Andersen
et al., 2012)?
Acknowledgment
This work was initiated and carried out while the first author
was on sabbatical in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic
Science of the University of Maryland, USA. The corresponding
author is grateful to the University of Maryland, in particular Dr.
Eugenia Kalnay for her financial support and to Dr. J. Carton, the
Chair of the department for hosting his sabbatical, and to Dr. Russ
Dickerson for the useful discussions and in particular for taking
his time to review this paper with several critical and construc-
tive comments. Many individuals including my former graduate
students, several friends and experts in NIOC, National Iranian Oil
Company; NIGC, National Iranian Gas Company; NIPC, National
Iranian Petrochemical Company; Mehr Renewable Energy Com-
pany, etc. have provided valuable information for preparation of
this review. The financial support provided by Sharif University of
Technology and the University of Maryland for the first author’s
sabbatical is highly appreciated.
Appendix A.
Flare gas sampling, combustion efficiency, emission factor and
composition
Flare sampling: To the authors’ knowledge there is no
standard method for flare gas sampling. The sampling methodol-
ogy explained here refers to the experiments of McDaniel’s study
(1983). In that methodology, the sampling is employed by the
means of a specially constructed probe suspended by a crane over
the flare flame. The sample extracted by the probe is monitored
continuously to determine concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2 ),
carbon monoxide (CO), total hydrocarbons (THC), sulfur dioxide
(SO2 ), oxides of nitrogen (NOx ) and oxygen (O2 ). In addition, the
probe tip temperature, ambient air temperature and wind speed
and direction are measured. Integrated samples of the flare plume
are collected for hydrocarbon species analysis by gas chromato-
graph. Particulate matter samples are collected during the smoking
flare tests.
Combustion efficiency: It defines the percentage of flare emis-
sions that are completely oxidized to CO2 . Mathematically the
combustion efficiency (CE) is defined as:
CO2
%CE =
CO2 + CO + TCH + Soot
where CO2 , CO and Soot are in parts per million by volume; THC is
in parts per million by volume of total hydrocarbon as methane.
In general, when flares are operated under conditions represen-
tative of industrial practices, the combustion efficiencies in the flare
plume are greater than 98% (EPA, 1991), that was also observed in
McDaniel’s study. In addition, the concentrations of NOx emissions
in the flare plume were observed to be in the range of 0.5–8.16 ppm
508 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509

(McDaniel, 1983). In McDaniel’s study (1983), it is assumed that respectively (Talebi et al., 2014). It should be noted here that the
accuracy of the combustion efficiency calculations is dependent on National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), being aware of the uncer-
two primary sources of error: (l) the accuracy of the listed con- tainties in the gas flaring operations and emissions, has planned to
centrations of the calibration gases, and (2) the accuracy of the attain local emission factors for its upstream oil facilities including
instruments’ measurements of the gaseous samples (instrument gas flares. The project is on-going and the results have not been
drift, interference, repeatability, etc.). Other systemic errors due to published yet.
sampling, data acquisition, etc. are assumed to be negligible. There- Sample composition: Sample associated gas composition and
fore, the total worse case accuracy error for CO, CO2 , THC, NOx , O2 characteristics flared in Soroosh & Nowrooz oil fields in Persian
and SO2 is reported as ±9.7 ppm, ±2545 ppm, ±2.3 ppm, ±1.0 ppm, Gulf (CDM PDD, 2006):
±0.69%, and ±0.065 ppm, respectively.
A semi-empirical relationship has been suggested by Kostiuk Composition (mole %) Nowrooz Soroosh
and his co-workers to estimate the efficiency of a flare burning in Carbon dioxide 0.93 1.52
a crosswind (Kostiuk et al., 2004): Methane 75.83 40.75
  Ethane 13.12 21.54
Propane 6.99 23.83
3 U∞
(1 − )(LHVmass ) = A · exp B Butane 2.17 10.20
1/3
(gVj d0 ) Pentanes 0.74 1.28
Hexanes 0.13 0.05
where LHVmass is the lower heating value of the flare stream on a Nitrogen 0.09 0.84
Water 0.00 0.00
mass basis and g is the gravitational acceleration. The coefficients,
H2 S 0.00 0.00
A and B, are the following: A = 133.3 (MJ/kg)3 and B = 0.317 for Total gas 100.00 100.01
methane base flares; and A = 32.06 (MJ/kg)3 and B = 0.272 for Net calorific value (MJ/Nm3 ): 48.1 66.2
propane and ethane based flares. For natural gas-based flare Carbon intensity fuel (kg C/MJ): 0.0146 0.0156
streams, at energy densities below 15 MJ/m3 significant inefficien- Carbon content (kg C/Nm3 ) 0.7021 1.0344
Mass fraction of methane (kg CH4 /kg): 55.51% 20.97%
cies result at wind speeds as low as 1 m/s. Therefore, based on this
Carbon content (kg C/kg): 76.51% 78.32%
model and current data, the recommendation is made to raise the Gas density (kg/Nm3 ): 0.92 1.32
lowest permissible energy density of flare streams to 20 MJ/m3 . For
a flare burning pure methane with a measured efficiency of 97.18%,
the calculated uncertainty is ±0.6% absolute. For the same flare
under different wind conditions and with a measured efficiency of References
91.79%, the calculated uncertainty is ±0.15% absolute (Kostiuk et al.,
2004). While these statistical uncertainties are small, it is notable Associated Gas Gathering Projects (No flaring projects), 2005. National Iranian Oil
that these values only reflect the uncertainties of the terms present Company, Tehran.
Andersen, R.D., Assembayev, D.V., Bilalov, R., Duissenov, D., Shutemov, D., 2012.
in the aforementioned equation. The authors have mentioned that Efforts to reduce flaring and venting of natural gas world-wide. Norwegian
assumptions used in the development of the methodology must be University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
tested by other means (Kostiuk et al., 2004). Anejionu, O., Whyatt, J., Blackburn, G., Price, C., 2015. Contributions of gas flaring
to a global air pollution hotspot: spatial and temporal variations, impacts and
Gas flaring emission factor: When a gas flaring project is being alleviation. Atmos. Environ. 118, 184–193.
planned (e.g. a project to be submitted as the Clean Development Anomohanran, O., 2012. Thermal effect of gas flaring at Ebedei area of Delta State,
Mechanism – CDM), only the CO2 emission as the main greenhouse Nigeria. Pac. J. Sci. Technol. 13 (2), 555–560.
Argo, J., 2002. Unhealthy effects of upstream oil and gas flaring. A Report Prepared
gas, is considered. Therefore, in calculating baseline emissions, it for Save our Seas and Shores (SOSS), Sydney.
is assumed that the recovered gas would be flared in the absence Ayaronline, 28.10.2013 (Online). Available: http://ayaronline.ir/1392/08/38359.
of the project. It is also assumed that all carbon in the tail gas html (accessed 20.05.14).
Bank, T.W., 2004. Flared gas utilization strategy opportunities for small-scale uses
(i.e. in methane and other gases including other hydrocarbons, CO,
of gas. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,
and CO2 ) is completely oxidized to carbon dioxide. From the envi- Washington, DC.
ronmental point of view, emission of CO, SO2 , NOx , and BC even Bijay Thapa, B., Kumar, A.K.C., Ghimire, A., 2012. A review on bioremedation of
petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants in soil. Kathmandu Univ. J. Sci. Eng.
small is important. Many investigations and reference guidelines
Technol. 8 (1), 164–170.
are devoted to estimate these emissions. IPCC has developed a BP, 2013. BP statistical review of world energy 2013. BP plc, London, UK.
three Tier-based emission inventory. This procedure for vent and Brown, L., 2010. World On the Edge: How to prevent environmental and economic
flare related emission has been described in Chapter 4: Fugitive collapse. Earth Policy Institute.
Buzco-Guven, B., Harriss, R., Hertzmark, D., 2010. Gas flaring and venting: extent,
Emissions of 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas impacts and remedies. James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice
Inventories (IPCC, 2006). Emission factor values are accessible in University.
IPCC emission factor database (EFDB), manufacturer’s data or other CDIAC, 2014. Fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide information analysis
center, Available: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/by new/bysubjec.html.
appropriate sources. It is recommended to compare the IPCC default CDM Methodology Booklet, 2012. United Nations Framework Convention on
factors to national or local data to provide further indication that the Climate Change, 4th ed.
factors are applicable. Emission factor uncertainties are less than CDM PDD, 2006. Soroosh & Nowrooz early gas gathering and utilization project
(S&N project). Project Design Document Form, UNFCCC.
or equal to ±100 percent, a normal distribution has been assumed, Cornitius, T., 2006. Medium-scale liquefaction technology, Global Forum.
resulting in a symmetric distribution about the mean. Default emis- Davoudi, M., Rahimpour, M., Jokar, S., Nikbakht, F., Abbasfard, H., 2013. The major
sion factors for flaring in oil and gas extraction is also given in sources of gas flaring and air contamination in the natural gas processing
plants: a case study. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 13, 7–19.
European Environmental Agency (EEA) EMEP emission inventory
Dong, L., Wei, S., Tan, S., Zhang, H., 2008. GTL or LNG: which is the best way to
guidebook 2013 (EEA, 2013). The default emission factors in this monetize “stranded” natural gas? Pet. Sci. 5 (4), 388–394.
guidebook are reported for NOx , CO and non-methane VOCs along EEA, 2013. EMEP/EEA Air pollutant emission inventory guidebook. European
Environment Agency.
with upper and lower limits of emission factor with 95% confidence
Efe, S., 2010. Spatial variation in acid and some heavy metal composition of
interval. rainwater harvesting in the oil-producing region of Nigera. Nat. Hazards 55 (2),
For a set of pilot scale flare experiments performed in 307–319.
Iran, the range of observed averaged emission factors (includ- EIA, 2014. Country Analysis Brief: Iran. Energy Information Administration.
EIA, 2015 (Online). International energy statistics. Energy Information
ing different flared gases compositions) were 0.10–0.59 kg/109 J, Administration. Available: http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/
49.0–51.6 kg/109 J, and 0.020–0.035 kg/109 J for CO, CO2 , and NOx , browser.
 M. Soltanieh et al. / International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 49 (2016) 488–509
Elvidge, C., Ziskin, D., Baugh, K., Tuttle, B., Ghosh, T., Pack, D.E.E., Zhizhin, M., 2009.
A fifteen year record of global natural gas flaring derived from satellite data.
Energies, 595–622.
EPA, 1991. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA, 2007. Formaldehyde: Teach chemical summary. Environmental Protection
Agency.
EPA, 2013. Integrated science assessment for ozone and related photochemical
oxidants. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Eriksen, R., Brandstorp, J., Cramer, E., 2002. Evaluating the viability of offshore LNG
production and storage. GASTECH, Qatar.
Farina, M.F., 2010. Flare gas reduction – Recent global and policy considerations.
GE Energy, Global Strategy and Planning.
Fleisch, T., 2014. Associated gas monetization via miniGTL conversion of flared gas
into liquid fuels & chemicals. Global Gas Flare Reduction Partnership.
GGFR, 2012. Guidance Document: Flaring estimates produced by satellite
observations. World Bank.
Gouvello, C., October 2011 (Online). Gas flaring and CDM. Available: http://www.
worldbank.org/html/fpd/ggfrforum06/sucre/degouvelo.ppt (accessed
24.05.14).
Guigard, S., Kindzierski, W., Harper, N., 2000. Heat radiation from flares. Alberta
Environment, Edmonton, Alberta.
Hassan, A., Kouhy, R., 2013. Gas flaring in Nigeria: analysis of changes in its
consequent carbon emission and reporting. Acc. Forum 37, 124–134.
Hedayatzadeh, M., 2014, October. Development of kinetic model for combustion
reactions of mixed gases in flare. Islamic Azad University, Science and Research
Branch.
History, 2014. Britain’s oil hunters, http://www.history.co.uk/shows/britains-oil-
hunters/articles/finding-oil-and-gas.
Ibitoye, F., 2014. Ending natural gas flaring in Nigeria’s oil fields. J. Sustain. Dev. 7
(3), 13–22.
IIES, 2011. Hydrocarbon Balance. International Institute for Energy Studies,
Ministry of Petroleum, Islamic Republic of Iran.
IPCC, 2006. IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Isichei, A.O., Sanford, W., 1976. The effects of waste gas flares on the surrounding
vegetation in South-Eastern Nigeria. J. Appl. Ecol. 13 (1), 177–187.
Ismail, O., Umukoro, G., 2012. Global impact of gas flaring. Energy Power Eng. 4,
290–302.
Ite, E.A., Ibok, U., 2013. Gas flaring and venting associated with petroleum
exploration and production in the Nigeria’s Niger delta. Am. J. Environ. Prot. 1
(4), 70–77.
Johnson, M., Coderre, A., 2012. Compositions and greenhouse gas emission factors
of flared and vented gas in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin. J. Air
Waste Manag. Assoc. 62, 992–1002.
Johnson, M., Kostiuk, L., Spangelo, J., 2001. A characterization of solution gas flaring
in Alberta. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 51, 1167–1177.
Julius, O., 2011. Thermal gradient due to the gas flared at umusadege marginal
oilfield, Umusadege-Ogbe Kwale Delta State, Nigeria. Appl. Sci. Res. 3 (6),
280–290.
Kahforoushan, D., Fatehifar, E., Soltan, J., 2011. The estimation of CO2 emission
factors for combustion sources in oil and gas processing plants. Energy Sources
Part A: Recovery Util. Environ. Eff. 33 (3), 202–210.
Khalilpour, R., Karimi, I., 2012. Evaluation of utilization alternatives for stranded
natural gas. Energy 40, 317–328.
Kostiuk, L., Johnson, M., Thomas, G., 2004. Flare research project. University of
Alberta.
Leahey, D., Preston, K., Strosher, M., 2001. Theoretical and observational
assessments of flare efficiencies. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 51, 1610–1616.
Lichun, L., Shun’an, W., Shiyu, T., Hongjing, Z., 2008. GTL or LNG: which is the best
way to monetize “standard” natural gas? Pet. Sci. 5, 388–394.
Liu, Z., Guan, D., Wei, W., Davis, S., Ciais, P., Bai, J., Peng, S., Zhang, Q., Hubacek, K.,
Marland, G., Andres, R., Crawford-Brown, D., Lin, J., Zhao, H., Hong, C., Boden, T.,
Feng, K., Peters, G., Xi, F., Liu, J., Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Zeng, N., He, 2015. Reduced
carbon emission estimates from fossil fuel combustion and cement production
in China. Nature 524, 335–346.
Marcano, J., Cheung, R., 2007. Monetizing standard natural gas. Oil Gas Financ. J. 4
(2).
McDaniel, M., 1983. Flare efficiency study. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Mehrnews, 07.09.2012 (Online). Available: http://www.mehrnews.com/
TextVersionDetail/1690789 (accessed 20.05.14).
Najibi, H., Rezaei, R., Javanmardi, J., Nasrifar, K., Moshfeghian, M., 2009. Economic
evaluation of natural gas transportation from Iran’s South-Pars gas field to
market. Appl. Therm. Eng. 29, 2009–2015.
NIOC, 2014. NIOC at a glance. National Iranian Oil Company. www.nioc.ir (Online).
NOAA. http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ (Online) (accessed 25.05.14).
509
Nwankwo, C., Ogagarue, D., 2011. Effects of gas flaring on surface and ground
waters in Delta State Nigeria. J. Geol. Min. Res. 3 (5), 131–136.
Odjugo, P., Osemwenkhae, E., 2009. Natural gas flaring affects microclimate and
reduces maize (Zea mays) yield. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 11, 408–412.
Odumugbo, C., 2010. Natural gas utilisation in Nigeria: challenges and
opportunities. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2, 310–316.
Olivier, J., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Muntean, M., Peters, J., 2013. Trends in global
CO2 emissions: 2013 report. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency.
OPEC, 2013. Annual Statistical Bulletin. Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries.
OSHA, 2011. OSHA Fact Sheet: Formaldehyde. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration.
OSHA, 2012 (Online). Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Available:
https://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH 225300.html (accessed
25.06.14).
Ovri, J., Iroh, M., 2013. Corrosion effect of gas flaring on galvanized roofing sheet in
Imo State, Nigeria. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2 (1), 339–345.
Parker, N., 2004. Using natural gas transmission pipeline costs to estimate
hydrogen pipeline costs. Institute of Transportation Studies.
Personal communication with National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), 2014.
Pourhassan, S., Taravat, A., 2014. Effect of gas flaring on environmental variables in
developing countries. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 2 (1), 101–106.
Rahimpour, M.R., Jokar, S., 2012. Feasibility of flare gas reformation to practical
energy in Farashband gas refinery: no gas flaring. J. Hazard. Mater., 204–217.
Rotty, R., 1974. First estimation of global flaring of natural gas. Atmos. Environ. 8,
681–686.
Rynn, P., Patel, H., Gaughan, J., 2005. ABS development of a guide for compressed
natural gas carriers. In: International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
(ISOPE), Seoul.
Sarwar, G., Roselle, S., Mathur, R., Appel, W., Dennis, R., Vogel, B., 2008. A
comparison of CMAQ HONO predictions with observations from the Northeast
Oxidant and Particle Study. Atmos. Environ. 42, 5760–5770.
Shafie-Pour, M., Ardestani, M., 2007. Environmental damage costs in Iran by the
energy sector. Energy Policy 35, 4413–4423.
Shams Ardekani, A., 2014. Futurism and energy – the role of flares in the Country’s
energy structure. In: 7th Conference on Green Management.
Soltanieh, M., 2006. Estimation of the emission of air pollutants and presentation
of a comprehensive dispersion model for the Assaluyeh region (South Pars
Special Energy Zone). Technical Report prepared for the R&D Department of
the National Iranian Oil Company, Tehran.
Talebi, A., Fatehifar, E., Alizadeh, R., Kahforoushan, D., 2014. The estimation and
evaluation of new CO, CO2 , and NOx emission factors for gas flares using pilot
scale flare. Energy Sources Part A: Recov. Util. Environ. Effects 36 (7), 719–726.
Thomas, S., Dawe, R., 2003. Review of ways to transport natural gas energy from
countries which do not need the gas for domestic use. Energy 28, 1461–1477.
Tuttle, R., Salehi, Y., 2013, November. Bloomberg (Online). Available: http://www.
bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03/iran-burning-7-billion-seeks-to-lead-gas-
opec-facing-u-s-lng.html (accessed 20.05.14).
UNFCCC, 2014 (Online). United Nations Framework Convection on Climate Change.
http://newsroom.unfccc.int.
Vanos, J., Cakmak, S., Bristow, C., Brion, V., Tremblay, N., Martin, S., Sheridan, S.,
2013. Synoptic weather typing applied to air pollution mortality among the
elderly in 10 Canadian cities. Environ. Res. 126, 66–75.
Webster, M., Nam, J., Kimura, Y., Jeffries, H., Vizuete, W., Allen, D., 2007. The effect
of variability in industrial emissions on ozone formation in Houston, Texas.
Atmos. Environ. 41, 9580–9593.
Wikipedia, 2014. National Iranian Oil Company. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/National Iranian Oil Company (accessed 20.04.14).
Wood, D., Nwaoha, C., Towler, B., 2012. Gas-to-liquids (GTL): a review of an
industry offering several routes for monetizing natural gas. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.
9, 196–208.
World Bank, 20.09.2013 (Online). Available: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/
feature/2013/09/20/angola-major-natural-gas-project-to-cut-emissions-from-
flaring (accessed 05.05.14).
World Bank, 2014. World Data Bank. Available: http://databank.worldbank.org/
data.
Younessi Sinaki, S., Tarighaleslami, A.H., Jafarigol, F., 2011. Study on external costs
of flare gases using asian development bank method. Chem. Eng. Trans. 25,
39–44.
Zadakbar, O., Vatani, A., Karimpour, K., 2008. Flare gas recovery in oil and gas
refineries. Oil Gas Sci. Technol. 63, 705–711.
Zhang, K., Pang, M., 2005. The present and future of the world’s LNG industry. Int.
Pet. Econ. 13, 55–59.
Zhang, X., Scheving, B., Shoghli, B., Zygarlicke, C., Wocken, C., 2015. Quantifying gas
flaring CH4 consumption using VIIRS. Remote Sens. 7 (8), 9529–9541.