Final Print PDF

STATE OF LIBYA
Sabratha University
Faculty of Engineering - Sabratha
Chemical Engineering Department
Flare Gas Utilization to produce electricity

‘ Case study: Zawia Oil Refinery ’
The Thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the Bachelor of science in chemical engineering
Written by
Donia Fathy Alganody
Khawla Moftah Alasir
Supervised by
Mr: Ali Abusaloua
Spring - 2022
‫إهداء‬
‫ى‬
‫المصطف عليه أفضل صالة‬ ‫الحمد هلل والصالة والسالم عىل الحبيب‬
‫وسالم أما بعد‪:‬‬
‫مسيتنا الدراسية ى يف‬ ‫ى‬

‫الحمد هلل الذي وفقنا للوصول لهذه الخطوة يف ر‬
‫َّ‬
‫ومشقة‪.‬‬ ‫المرحلة الجامعية إىل نهايتها بعد تعب‬
‫همة ونشاط‪ ،‬ممت ىُّ‬
‫ني لكل من كان له‬ ‫تخرجنا بكل َّ‬
‫وها نحن نختم بحث ُّ‬
‫ر‬
‫المستني لمن كان معنا‬ ‫السية العطرة‪ ،‬والفكر‬ ‫ى‬
‫ر‬ ‫مسيتنا‪ ،‬ألصحاب ر‬
‫فضل يف ر‬
‫باليسي‪.‬‬
‫ر‬ ‫وساعدنا ولو‬
‫العاىل (والدينا األحبة)‪ ،‬أطال‬ ‫التعليم‬ ‫بلوغنا‬ ‫ف‬ ‫األول ى‬

‫لمن كان له الفضل َّ‬
‫ي‬ ‫ي‬
‫هللا ى يف ُعمرهم ورحم من فارقنا‪.‬‬
‫إىل من وضعتننا عىل طريق الحياة إىل من وضع الموىل ‪ -‬سبحانه وتعاىل ‪-‬‬
‫َّ‬
‫الجنة تحت قدميها‪ ،‬و وقرها ى يف كتابه العزيز (أمهاتنا الحبيبات)‪.‬‬
‫كثي من العقبات والصعاب‪.‬‬ ‫ى‬

‫إىل إخوتنا؛ من كان لهم بالغ األثر يف ر‬
‫صياتة؛ ممن لم يتوانوا‬ ‫ى‬

‫إىل جميع أساتذتنا الكرام يف كلية الهندسة بجامعة ر‬
‫ى يف مد يد العون‪.‬‬
‫ُّ‬
‫نجلهم ون ر‬
‫حيمهم‪.‬‬ ‫إىل كل األصدقاء والمعارف الذين‬
‫نهدي لكم بحثنا‬

‫الشكر والتقدير‬
‫األخية ى يف الحياة الجامعية من وقفة نعود‬
‫ر‬ ‫ال بد لنا ونحن نخطو خطواتنا‬
‫إىل أعوام قضيناها ى يف رحاب الجامعة مع أساتذتنا الكرام الذين قدموا لنا‬
‫كبية ى يف بناء جيل الغد‪.‬‬ ‫الكثي ر ى‬

‫باذلي جهود ر‬ ‫ر‬
‫نقدم أسىم آيات الشكر واالمتنان والتقدير والمحبة إىل الذين حملوا‬
‫أقدس رسالة ى يف الحياة إىل الذين أناروا لنا طريق العلم والمعرفة إىل جميع‬
‫صياتة‪.‬‬
‫أساتذتنا األفاضل بكلية الهندسة بجامعة ر‬
‫نتوجه بالشكر الجزيل إىل الذين تفضلوا ر‬

‫باإلشاف عىل هذا البحث جزاهم‬
‫الخي فلهم منا كل التقدير‪.‬‬

‫هللا عنا كل ر‬
ABSTRACT
Abstract
Every year, flare gas is responsible for more than 350 million tons of CO2 emissions.
Aside from thermal and environmental pollution impacts, flare gas contributes to global
warming and enormous economic losses. Thus, waste heat recovery due to flaring gas
can be explored through combined power cycle for electricity production. In this
context, the assessment of a combined power cycle containing gas turbine GT, Steam
turbine cycle STC, toluene organic rankine cycle ORC systems is proposed for a
potential application in an Zawia refinery. The study focuses mainly on highlighting
the potential and thermodynamic performances of the combined cycle application to
produce electricity and potential cooling thanks to coupling an absorption chiller by
recovering heat due to flaring gas. Such a solution can easily be implemented as an
energy efficiency key solution. The electrical production by the cycle can meet the
increasing demand of natural gas initially intended to be provided to a gas power plant
and assures the major part of the Zawia refinery electrical consumption.
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract I
List of Tables IV
List of Figures V
Abbreviations VI
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction 2
1.2 Electricity generation 2
1.3 Gas flaring 3
1.4 Flare gas recovery 4
1.5 flare gas utilization & reducing mechanisms 4
1.5.1 Commercialization of Associated Gas 4
1.5.2 Regulation, Legislation and Promotion of Application of Best Practices 5
1.5.3 Application of New Technologies 5
1.6 Objectives 6
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Petroleum and Its Properties 8
2.1.1 Composition of crude oil 8
2.1.2 Properties of crude oils 9
2.2 The Categories of the Operation Refining 9
2.2.1 The Purpose of refining 10
2.2.2 The Type of Petroleum Refinery 11
2.3 Refinery Diagram 11
2.3.1 Libyan oil refinery overview 11
2.4 Fundamental of petroleum refining processes 12
2.4.1 Atmospheric distillation units 13
2.4.2 Vacuum distillation unit 13
2.4.3 Catalytic Reforming 13
2.4.4 Catalytic Cracking 13
2.4.5 Fluidized Catalytic Cracking 13
2.5 flaring and venting 14
2.5.1 Flaring 14
2.5.2 Venting 14
2.6 Gas flaring composition 15
2.7 Environmental concerns of flaring and venting 16
2.7.1 Technical (Safety) 20
2.7.2 Environmental Effects and Consequences 21
2.7.3 Resource Conservation 22
2.8 Measurement Techniques in Industry 22
2.8.1 Government legislation 23
2.9 Gas flaring reducing and recovery 24
2.9.1 Gas flaring collection and compression 28
2.9.2 Gas-to-liquid technology 32
2.9.3 Electricity production 35
II
CHAPTER THREE: CASE STUDY
3. Process description and simulation setup 39
3.1 Process description 39
3.2 Preselection of applicable gas use technology 41
3.3 Plant simulation and flow sheet development 43
3.3.1 ASPEN HYSYS Simulation Software 44
3.3.2 Component list and fluid package selection 45
3.3.3 Setup of reaction sets 45
3.3.4 Simulation setup 46
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS & DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of material balance 56
4.2 Result of energy balance 57
4.3 Result of scenario 1 58
4.4 Result of scenario 2 60
4.4 Comparison between scenarios 62
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion 64
5.2 Recommendation 65
References 66
III
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Libyan Refinery Capacity 12

Table 2.2: Major Refining Processes In Modern Refineries 12
Table 2.3: waste gas compositions at a typical plant 15
Table 2.4a: Thermal and noise emissions from flaring 17
Table 2.4b: pollutants of flare and their health effect 17
Table 3.1: Fuel gas Weight Composition 42
Table 3.2: Flare gas specification S1 46
Table 3.3: Feed air specification S2 47
Table 3.4: Specification of compressor K-101 & K-102 47
Table 3.5: Specification of compressor K-101 & K-102 48
Table 3.6: Specification of heat exchangerE-101 48
Table 3.7: Specification of turbine K-103 49
Table 3.8: Specification of condenser E-100 49
Table 3.9: Specification of pump P-100 50
Table 3.10: Specifications and conditions required for ORC simulation 50
Table 3.11: Specification of turbine K-100 51
Table 3.12: Specification of streams S1,S4, and S16 52
Table 4.1: specification of inlet air 56
Table 4.2: mass around CRV-100 56
Table 4.3: specification of CRV-100 produced gas 57
Table 4.4: specification of compressors 58
Table 4.5: specification of CRV-100 58
Table 4.6: specification of STC in scenario 1 59
Table 4.7: specification of ORC in scenario 1 59
Table 4.8 specification of GT in scenario 2 60
Table 4.9: specification of STC in scenario 2 60
Table 4.10: specification of ORC in scenario 2 61
Table 4.11: Comparison between scenarios 62
IV
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Composition of crude oil 8
Figure 2.2: The Principal Refining Operations 10
Figure 2.3: Top 20 gas flaring countries (NOAA satellite data) 23
Figure 2.4: Summary of Qatargas flare reduction projects 27
Figure 2.5: TCO gas flared from 2000 to 2013 28
Figure 2.6: A view of a flare gas recovery system 29
Figure 3.1: Block flow diagram of fuel gas system in Zawia oil refinery 39
Figure 3.2: Block flow diagram of fuel gas system in Zawia oil refinery 40
Figure 3.3: Process evaluation chart 41
Figure 3.4: Schematic presentation of waste heat recovery system WHRS 43
Figure 3.5: Schematic presentation of WHRS "Scenario 2" 44
Figure 3.6: Process flow diagram "Scenario 1" 53
Figure 3.7: Process flow diagram "Scenario 2" 54
Figure 4.1: Comparison between scenarios 62
V
Abbreviations
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

PNG Piped Natural Gas
CC Catalytic Cracking
FCC Fluidized Catalytic Cracking
DB Decibel
KW Kilowatt
GHG Greenhouse Gas
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GGFR Global Gas Flaring Reduction
FGRS Flare Gas Recovery Systems
GMI Global Methane Initiative
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
USA United States Of America
GTL Gas-To-Liquid
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LSR Light Straight Run
HN Heavy Naphtha
Organization Of Petroleum Exporting
OPEC
Countries
CDU Crude Oil Distillation Unit
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
ROR Rate Of Return
SPDC Shell Petroleum Development Company
MMscfd Million Standard Cubic Feet A Day
TCO Tengizchevroil
DSC Dry Screw Compressors
SVC Sliding Vane Compressors
RC Reciprocating Compressors
LRC Liquid Ring Compressors
FSC Flooded Screw Compressors
MMBTU Metric Million British Thermal Unit
SCMD Standard Cubic Meters Per Day
VI
F-T Fischer-Tropsch
MCF Million Cubic Feet
BBLS Barrel Standard
MT Metric Tons
BBL Barrel
mmh Millimeter
MW Molecular Weight
SRC Steam Rankine Cycle
ORC Organic Rankin Cycles
SOFC Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
CERs Certified Emission Reduction
VII
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
One of the major environmental problems related to the gas and oil industry is the
unwanted natural gas released to the atmosphere by flaring [1]. The increased flaring gas
process is due to the increased demand of oil and gas production in addition to the pressure
relief requirement in abnormal conditions [2], for safety purposes at refinery facilities. It
should considered that flaring enormous quantities of natural gas is an economic capital
waste and is a major source of the reported important quantities of emitted gas components,
such as carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur, NOx, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and
black carbon [3]. Statistical reports provided an amount of 400 million tons of CO2 emitted
from about 150 billion cubic meters per year flared gas all around the world [4,5], these
emissions are dominated by the upstream petroleum sector. Therefore, it is highly required to
reduce the flared gas by improving the actual flaring gas techniques and to look for new
recovery technologies that can be used for electricity production or alternative efficient
applications. The natural gas that flared in oil and gas industry can be used instead to produce
heat power that is utilized for electricity generation, thus significantly reducing emissions [6].
Flaring gas can be reduced and/or recovered by means of different techniques, including,
i.e., redistribution in the natural gas distribution networks, transported via pipeline (Piped
Natural Gas -PNG), re-injected for enhanced oil recovery, used as feedstock for the
petrochemical manufacturing, and used for electricity generation [7]. The latter technique
was the focus of some recent studies and is the subject of the present investigation.
1.2 Electricity generation
Gas turbines are commonly used when power utility usage is at a high demand, where gas
flaring can be burned to produce hot combustion gases that pass directly through a turbine,
spinning the blades of the turbine to generate power. Electricity generation with a gas turbine
provides 25 MW electricity from the 4.176 MMSCFD of gas flared from the Farashband gas
refinery in Iran [8]. Gas flaring can also be used to produce electricity in gas-fired turbines
called “microturbines”, to be an energy source to provide power for industry operations, like
pumping, compression machines and gas processing. The electricity can even be sold, if they
do not need all of it [9].
There are several cycles to generate power. Steam Rankine Cycle (SRC), the most
commonly used system for power generation from waste heat involves using the heat to
generate steam in a waste heat boiler, which then drives a steam turbine [91] . Steam turbines
2
are one of the oldest and most versatile prime mover technologies. Organic Rankine Cycles
(ORC), other working fluids, with better efficiencies at lower heat source temperatures, are
used in ORC heat engines. ORCs use an organic working fluid that has a lower boiling point,
higher vapor pressure, higher molecular mass, and higher mass flow compared to water. So,
the turbine efficiencies of ORCs are higher than in SRC. Additionally, ORC systems can be
utilized for waste heat sources as low as 148 ºC, whereas steam systems are limited to heat
sources greater than 260 ºC. ORCs have commonly been used to generate power in
geothermal power plants, and more recently, in pipeline compressor heat recovery
applications [9].
1.3 Gas flaring
Flaring is the controlled burning of natural gas in the course of routine oil and gas
production operations [10]. This burning occurs at the tip of a flare stack or boom. A
complete flare system consists of the flare stack or boom and pipes which collect the gases to
be flared. The flare tip at the end of the stack or boom is designed to assist entrainment of air
into the flare to improve burn efficiency [11]. Seals installed in the stack prevent flashback of
the flame, and a vessel at the base of the stack removes and conserves any liquids from the
gas passing to the flare [12]. A flare is normally visible and generates both noise and heat
[13]. During flaring, the burned gas generates mainly water vapour and carbon dioxide [14].
Efficient combustion in the flame depends on achieving good mixing between the fuel gas
and air, and on the absence of liquids. Low pressure pipe flares are not intended to handle
liquids and do not perform efficiently when hydrocarbon liquids are released into the flare
system. The percentage combustion efficiency of a well-designed and operated flare are often
higher than 98% [15].
The gas to be flared at the flare stack in oil and gas Occasionally, production shutdowns
may require the production process may come from a variety of sources. It temporary flaring
of all the gas stored on or arriving at a may be the excess gas not used for power generation,
facility, to release high pressure and avoid a catastrophic unburned process gas from the
process facilities, gas from situation occurring [16].
3
1.4 Flare gas recovery
The total volumetric flow to the flame must be carefully controlled to prevent low flow
flashback problems and to avoid flame instability. Sweep or purge gas, typically natural gas,
fuel gas, N2, or CO2, is used to maintain a minimum required positive flow through the
system. If there is a possibility of air in the flare manifold, N2, another inert gas, or a
flammable gas must be used to prevent the formation of an explosive mixture in the flare
system. To ensure a positive flow through all flare components, sweep gas injection should
be at the farthest upstream point in the flare transport piping. The amount of sweep gas
required is dependent on the complexity of the flare collection header system, with more
sweep gas required for larger, more complex collection headers. For flares with flare gas
recovery, the sweep gas is recovered so the quantity of sweep gas does not impact the annual
operating costs. For flares without flare gas recovery, the sweep gas also acts as purge gas to
prevent air ingress and the flare tip. For simple flare collection headers where a single
emission source is controlled by a flare, the amount of sweep gas required can be estimated
by the gas flow rates needed to prevent oxygen ingress at the flare tip.
The minimum continuous purge or sweep gas flow rates required to prevent oxygen
ingress at the flare tip is determined by the design of the stack seals, which are usually
proprietary devices. Modern labyrinth and internal gas seals are stated to require a gas
velocity of 0.001 to 0.04 ft/sec (at standard conditions) Using the conservative (or higher-
end) value of 0.04 ft/sec and knowing the flare diameter (in), the annual purge gas volume
[17].
1.5 flare gas utilization & reducing mechanisms
1.5.1 Commercialization of Associated Gas
This option could be achieved through access to international markets, development of

local markets, remote field and infrastructure interface, creation of incentive framework,
creation of investment friendly fiscal and gas pricing policies by the government and
potential applicability of carbon credits [18].
4
1.5.2 Regulation, Legislation and Promotion of Application of Best Practices
A robust associated gas utilisation policy is best tool that could be used to minimise
flaring of associated gas, if implemented. Some key regulatory processes could also be used
to monitor and reduce the volume of associated natural gas flared or vented from oil and gas
production process. They may include: Creation of very strict permission to flare procedure,
imposition of reasonably huge fines on flaring and venting of associated gas, facility design
guidance to eliminate or reduce flaring and venting,..etc. [18].
1.5.3 Application of New Technologies
Some new technological developments have been applied to either reduce the volume of
natural gas being flared or vented or convert the associated natural gas which would have
been flared into another product [18].
1. The Automatic Ignition System
Eliminates the issue of small amount of pilot gas which is always needed to keep the
conventional flare system burning. The system is designed in such a way that the flare is
automatically ignited when there is process failure and need to The natural gas burned in a
flare or vented to the atmosphere is a natural resource which could be effectively used as a
source of energy or for production of beneficial chemicals and petrochemicals [18].
2. Liquefaction Technologies
Have been designed to convert natural gas to liquids which are easily transported over far
distances where markets are available [18].
3. Pilot Projects
Have also been used to convert natural gas to other easily marketable products. Small gas-
fired mini turbine generators have been used to generate electricity from natural gas from oil
fields [18].
5
1.6 Objectives
1. Highlight the gas flaring and its environmental impact as well as the possible solution
for flaring reduction.
2. Study the possibility of utilization of flare gas fire electricity production.
3. Perform a steady state simulation of the combined power cycle to ensure its
applicability and productivity.
6
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
CHAPTER TOW LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Petroleum and Its Properties
Petroleum crude oils are composed of numerous hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are

chemical compounds made up of predominantly carbon and hydrogen. Hydrocarbons
found in crude oils generally also contain the elements sulfur and nitrogen. Many
crude oils also contain absorbed levels of the toxic gas hydrogen sulfide (H2S).[19]
Additionally, crude oils may contain trace amounts of metals such as nickel and
vanadium, as well as salts. Most of the non-hydrogen, non-carbon elements found in
crude oils are undesirable and are removed from the hydrocarbons in total or in part
during refinery processing.[19
Oils are named and grouped into broad categories typically based on the
geographic location of origin, along with the level of sulfur contained in the crude
and/or density of the crude oil.[19]
One of the key attributes for characterizing the hydrocarbons composing crude oils
is by boiling point. this attribute is determined through laboratory test methods by
measuring the temperature at which the components of the crude oil will evaporate at
a given pressure (typically atmospheric pressure unless stated to be a different
pressure basis) [19].
2.1.1 Composition of crude oil
The crude oil mixture is composed as shown in Figure 2.1 and can be also
composed as the following groups:
 Hydrocarbon compounds (carbon (84-87%) and hydrogen (11-14%)).

 Non-hydrocarbon compounds (Sulfur (0-3%), Nitrogen (0-0.6 %)).
 Organo-metallic compounds and inorganic salts (metallic compounds) [19].
Crude Oil
Hydrocarbons
Non-hydrocarbons Ometallic-
(Paraffins, compunds (Nickel
Naphthene, (sulfur, Nitrogen,
oxygen) Vanadium, salts)
Aromatics)
Figure 2.1: Composition of crude oil[19].
8
2.1.2 Properties of crude oils

Crude oil (petroleum) is a naturally occurring brown to black flammable Liquid,
and as produced in the oil field is a complex mixture of hydrocarbons ranging from
methane to asphalt.
The following are some of the important tests used to determine the properties of
crude oils:
 Density, Viscosity.
 Specific gravity.
 The API (American Petroleum Institute) gravity.
 Sulfur content.
 Salt Content.
 Octane number.
 Pour point.
 Flash point.
 Vapor pressure.
 Carbon, salt residue …..ect.
2.2 The categories of the operation refining
Upgrading is the broad term applied to refinery processing which significantly

increases the market value of the hydrocarbons processed. This is accomplished
through chemical reactions to yield more desirable hydrocarbon compounds. The
upgrading reactions result in either improving product specification qualities or
rearranging the molecular structure (i.e., converting) so that the hydrocarbons boil in a
more desirable boiling range. In General, the principal refining operations fall into
four categories as shown in Figure 2.2 [19]:
a) Separation of crude oil into various cuts.

b) Quality enhancement of the certain cuts.
c) Transformation of heavy cuts into lighter cuts (conversion).
9
d) Final preparation of finished products through blending.
Products
Finishing Crude oil
Conversion Fractionatio
processes n
Figure 2.2: The Principal Refining Operations.
Nearly every aspect of our modern lifestyle is affected by oil. Oil is used to power
our vehicles, to create medicines that keep us healthy, and to make the plastics,
cosmetics, and other personal products that enhance our daily lives. However, none of
these products would exist without the refining process [19].
2.2.1 The Purpose of refining
The purpose of refining is to convert natural raw materials such as crude oil and
natural gas into useful saleable product. In refineries, they are transformed into
different products as [19]:
 Fuels for cars, trucks, aero planes, ships and other forms of transport.
 Combustion fuels for the generation of heat and power for industry and
households
 Raw materials for the petrochemical and chemical industries
 Specialty products such as lubricating oils, paraffin's/waxes and bitumen.
 Energy as a by-product in the form of heat (steam) and power (electricity).
10
2.2.2 The type of petroleum refinery
In the world of oil Refining there is two type of Refinery, these are:
 Small Refinery's: will take in 2000 to 10000 tons of crude oil/ day.
 large Refinery's :will take in 20000 to 40000 tons/day and these are a few
refineries larger than this up to 60000 tons/day.[16]
2.3 Refinery diagram
Petroleum refineries are complex plants, where the combination and sequence of
processes is usually very specific to the characteristics of the raw materials (crude oil)
and the products to be produced.[26]
The crude oil passed first though furnace that where the crude oil is heated.
Because the separation of crude oil into fractions according to boiling point and
charged to an atmospheric distillation tower, where it is separated into (LPG + gases,
LSR, HN, Kerosene, gas oil and atm-residue). [26]
The downstream (atm-residue) is send to (vacuum –distillation tower) and

separated into (vac-gas oil, and vac-residue), the vac-residue is thermally cracked in
delayed Coker to produce (wet gas, Coker gasoline ,and Coke). [26]
2.3.1 Libyan oil refinery overview
Libya, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC),

holds the largest proven oil reserves in Africa and is an important contributor to the
global supply of light and sweet crude. It has five domestic refineries, all of them are
simple hydro-skimming units. Therefore, the upgrading projects in many oil refineries
must be considered to cover the local consumption of gasoline, Table 2.1 shows the
Libyan oil refinery [22].
11
Table 2.1: Libyan Refinery Capacity.[27]
Company Location CDU Capacity (bbl/day)
Azzawiya Oil Refining CO Azzawiya and Benghazi 120
Ras Lanuf Oil, Gas

Ras Lanuf 220
Processing
Sarir Refining Sarir 10
Sirte Oil CO Marsah ElBrega 8
Tobruk Refining Tobruk 20
Total crude oil Distillation

- 378
capacity
2.4 Fundamental of petroleum refining processes

In the modern refinery, the refining processes are classified as either physical
separation or chemical conversion ones. Examples for each class are given in Table
2.2.[19]
Table 2.2: Major Refining Processes in Modern Refineries. [19]
PHYSICAL PROCESSES CHEMICAL PROCESSES

(Separation) (Conversion)
Catalytic Thermal
Distillation Reforming Delayed Coking
Solvent Extraction Hydrotreating Flexicoking
Solvent Dewaxing Hydrocracing Visbreaking
Solvent Deasphalting Alkylation / Isomerization /
12
2.4.1 Atmospheric distillation units
The first refinery upgrade process after atmospheric distillation involves

reprocessing the residual oil (a.k.a. resid or bottoms) that comes out of atmospheric
distillation. In a simple refinery, this residual oil would be sold as heavy fuel oil –
perhaps to a shipping company or a power generator. The value of such heavy oil is
often lower than the crude oil it was made from. Some overseas refineries sell their
fuel oil to complex refineries that can then put the oil through the upgrading process
we are describing here. That fuel oil is known as “straight run” fuel oil – because it
just ran straight through atmospheric distillation. [19]
2.4.2 Vacuum distillation unit

The first upgrade process is to run the residual oil through a vacuum distillation
unit, where the vacuum distillation process recovers gas oil from the residual oil. In
general, vacuum distillation involves heating the residual oil in a vacuum so that the
boiling point temperature is reduced. [19]
This allows distillation at temperatures that are not possible in atmospheric
distillation because the crude would solidify. Vacuum distillation vaporizes light and
heavy vacuum gas oil in a distillation column. This output gas oil is then fed into the
cracking process that we will get to next. [19]
2.4.3 Catalytic Reforming

The demand of today’s automobiles for high-octane gasoline's has stimulated the
use of catalytic reforming. Thus, catalytic reforming primarily increases the octane of
motor gasoline rather than increasing its yield; in fact, there is a decrease in yield
because of hydro-cracking reactions which take place in the reforming operation. [19]
2.4.4 Catalytic Cracking

Catalytic Cracking (CC) is the most important and widely used refinery process for
converting heavy oils into gasoline that is more valuable and lighter products. [19]
2.4.5 Fluidized Catalytic Cracking

The Fluidized Catalytic Cracking (FCC) process unit is considered by many
refiners to be the heart of the petroleum refinery. In this process converts heavy gas
oils into lighter products which are then used as blend stocks for gasoline and diesel
fuels. The olefinic FCC catalytic naphtha product exhibits a very high-octane value
for gasoline blending [19].
13
2.5 Difference between flaring and venting

2.5.1 Flaring
Flaring is the controlled burning of natural gas in the course of routine oil and gas
production operations. This burning occurs at the tip of a flare stack or boom. A
complete flare system consists of the flare stack or boom and pipes which collect the
gases to be flared. The flare tip at the end of the stack or boom is designed to assist
entrainment of air into the flare to improve burn efficiency. Seals installed in the stack
prevent flashback of the flame, and a vessel at the base of the stack removes and
conserves any liquids from the gas passing to the flare. A flare is normally visible and
generates both noise and heat. During flaring, the burned gas generates mainly water
vapour and carbon dioxide. Efficient combustion in the flame depends on achieving
good mixing between the fuel gas and air, and on the absence of liquids. Low pressure
pipe flares are not intended to handle liquids and do not perform efficiently when
hydrocarbon liquids are released into the flare system. The percentage combustion
efficiency of a well-designed and operated flare are often higher than 98%. The gas to
be flared at the flare stack in oil and gas production process may come from a variety
of sources. It may be the excess gas not used for power generation, unburned process
gas from the process facilities, gas from process upsets, equipment changeover or
maintenance. Occasionally, production shutdowns may require the temporary flaring
of all the gas stored on or arriving at a facility, to release high pressure and avoid a
catastrophic situation occurring [20].
2.5.2 Venting
Venting is the controlled release of gases into the atmosphere in the course of oil
and gas production operations. These gases might be natural gas or other hydrocarbon
vapours, water vapour, and other gases, such as carbon dioxide, separated in the
processing of oil or natural gas. In venting, the natural gases associated with the oil
and gas production are released directly into the atmosphere and not burned. Safe
venting is assured when the gas is released at high pressure and is lighter than air such
that the strong mixing potential of high-pressure jets ensures proper mix of the
discharged hydrocarbon gases with the air down to safe concentrations at which there
is no risk of explosion. Venting is normally not a visible process. However, it can
generate noise, depending on the pressure and flow rate of the vented gases. In some
14
cases, venting is the best option for disposal of the associated gas. For example, in
some cases, a high concentration of inert gas is present in the associated gas. Without
sufficiently high hydrocarbon content, the gas will not burn and flaring is not a viable
option. Sometimes the source of inert gas may come from the process systems. The
purging of process systems with inert gas may, in itself, justify venting as the safest
means of disposal [20].
2.6 Gas flaring composition
Generally, the gas flaring will consist of a mixture of different gases. The
composition will depend upon the source of the gas going to the flare system.
Associated gases released during oil-gas production mainly contain natural gas.
Natural gas is more than 90 % methane (CH4) with ethane and a small amount of
other hydrocarbons; inert gases such as N2 and CO2 may also be present. Gas flaring
from refineries and other process operations will commonly contain a mixture of
hydrocarbons and in some cases H2. However, landfill gas, biogas or digester gas is a
mixture of CH4 and CO2 along with small amounts of other inert gases. There is in
fact no standard composition and it is therefore necessary to define some group of gas
flaring according to the actual parameters of the gas. Changing gas composition will
affect the heat transfer capabilities of the gas and affect the performance of the
measurement by flow meter. An example of waste gas compositions at a typical plant
is listed in Table 2.3 [21].
Table 2.3: waste gas compositions at a typical plant. [21]

Gas
Gas flaring Gas flaring,
composition,
constituent %
%
Min. Max Average
Methane CH4 7.17 82.0 43.6

Ethane C2H6 0.55 13.1 3.66
Propane C3H8 2.04 64.2 20.3
n-Butane C4H10 0.199 28.3 2.78
Isobutane C4H10 1.33 57.6 14.3
n-pentane C5H12 0.008 3.39 0.266
Isopentane C5H12 0.096 4.71 0.530
15
neo-pentane C5H12 0.000 0.342 0.017

n-Hexane C6H14 0.026 3.53 0.635
Ethylene C2H4 0.081 3.20 1.05
Propylene C3H6 0.000 42.5 2.73
1-Butene C4H8 0.000 14.7 0.696
Carbon
CO 0.000 0.932 0.186
monoxide
Carbon dioxide CO2 0.023 2.85 0.713
Hydrogen
H2S 0.000 3.80 0.256
sulfide
Hydrogen H2 0.000 37.6 5.54
Oxygen O2 0.019 5.43 0.357
Nitrogen N2 0.073 32.2 1.30
Water H2O 0.000 14.7 1.14
The value of the gas is based primarily on its heating value. Composition of flared
gas is important for assessing its economic value and for matching it with suitable
process or disposal. For example, for transport in the upstream pipeline network, the
key consideration is the H2S content of the gas. Gas is considered sour if it contains
10 mol/kmol H2S or more [22].
2.7 Environmental concerns of flaring and venting
Gas flaring is one of the most challenging energy and environmental problems
facing the world today. Environmental consequences associated with gas flaring have
a considerable impact on local populations, often resulting in severe health issues.
Generally, gas flaring is normally visible and emitted both noise and heat.
Ghadyanlou and Vatani calculated the thermal radiation and noise level as a function
of distance from the flare using commercial software for flare systems. The results are
presented in Table 2.4a. [23]
16
Table 2.4a Thermal and noise emissions from flaring [1]

Distance Thermal radiation Noise level
M Kw/m2 dB
10 5.66 86.3
20 5.87 86.19
30 6.04 86.02
40 6.14 85.78
50 6.17 85.50
60 6.14 85.18
70 6.04 84.83
80 5.88 84.46
90 5.67 84.08
100 5.42 83.68
The technology to address the problem of gas flaring exists today and the policy
regulations required are largely understood. Global emissions from gas flaring stand
for more than 50 % of the annual Certified Emissions Reductions (624 Mt CO2)
currently issued under the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanisms. However, flaring
is considered as much safer than just venting gases to the atmosphere. Pollutants of
flare and their health effect are summarized in Table 2.4b [24].
Table 2.4b pollutants of flare and their health effect [24]

Chemical name Health effect
In low densities eye will stimulate and
Ozone in land in high densities especially children
and adults it will cause respiratory
problems.
In low densities it will effect on eye
Sulphide hydrogen and nose which result in insomnia and
headache.
It will effect on depth of lung and
respiratory pipes and aggravates
Dioxide nitrogen symptoms of asthma. In high densities
it will result in meta-haemo-globins
which prevents from absorption of
oxygen by blood.
Particles matter There is this believe that it will result in
cancer and heart attack.
Dioxide of Sulphur It will stimulate respiratory system and
as a result aggravating asthma and
17
bronchitis.
In low densities it will result in
Alkanes: Methane, Ethane, Propane swelling, itching and inflammation and
in high densities it will result in eczema
and acute lung swelling.
Alkenes: Ethylene, Propylene It will result in weakness, nausea and
vomit.
It is poisonous and carcinogenic. It
influences on nerve system and in low
Aromatics: Benzene, Toluene, Xylene densities it will result in blood
abnormalities and also it will stimulate
skin and result in depression.
CO2 and CH4 are Green House Gases ‘GHG’ that, when released directly into the
air, traps heat in the atmosphere. The climate impact is obvious, suggesting a great
contribution to global GHG emissions. For example, about 45.8 billion kW of heat
into atmosphere of Niger Delta from flared gas daily released As a result of the
environment, gas flaring has raised temperatures and rendered large areas
uninhabitable. CO2 emissions from flaring have high global warming potential and
contribute to climate change. CO2 emissions come from only the combustion of fossil
fuels for about 75 % . CH4 is actually more harmful than CO2. It has about 25 times
greater global warming potential than CO2 on a mass basis .It is also more prevalent
in flares that burn at lower efficiency .Therefore, there are concerns about CH4 and
other volatile organic compounds from different operations[22,23].
Other pollutants such as sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile
organic components (VOC) also released from flaring. Studied of emissions in US
from a number of oil refinery flare systems in the Bay Area Management District
(California) have been done. They concluded that, the emissions ranged from 2.5 to
55 tons/day of total organic compounds, and from 6 to 55 tons/day SOx.[20]
Therefore, flare emissions may be a significant percentage of overall SO2 and VOC
emissions. In addition, gaseous pollutants like SO2 that are once emitted into the
atmosphere have no boundaries and become uncontrollable and cause acid deposition.
Several toxicological/epidemiological investigations during the last few decades have
shown that the effect of this gas is severe. SOx and NOx are the major causes of acid
rain and fog which harm the natural environment and human life. Also ozone has
been revealed to cause damage. Ozone is also produced by the photochemical reaction
of VOC and NOx as the main components of the oxidant. The oxidant accelerates the
18
oxidation of SO2 and NOx into toxic sulfuric and nitric acids, respectively. The
removal of VOC and NO is very important to reduce the concentration of ozone
[22,23] on the other hand, a smoking flare may be a significant contributor to overall
particulate emissions. Because the most flared gas normally has not been treated or
cleaned, pose demanding service applications where there is a potential for
condensation, fouling (e.g., due to the buildup of paraffin wax and asphaltine
deposits), corrosion (e.g., due to the presence of H2S, moisture, or some air) and
possibly abrasion (e.g., due to the presence of debris, dust and corrosion products in
the piping and high flow velocities) [22,23].
The quantity of the generated emissions from flaring is dependent on the

combustion efficiency. The combustion efficiency generally expressed as a
percentage is essentially the amount of hydrocarbon converted to CO2. In other words,
the combustion efficiency of a flare is a measure of how effective that flare is in
converting all of the carbon in the fuel to CO2. There are some factors effects in the
efficiency of combustion process in flares such as heating value, velocity of gases
entering to flare, meteorological conditions and its effects on the flame size. Properly
operated flares achieve at least 98% combustion efficiency in the flare plume,
meaning that hydrocarbon and CO emissions amount to less than 2 % of species in the
gas stream, demonstrated that properly designed and operated industrial flares are
highly efficient. Many studies concluded that flares have highly variable efficiencies
between 62 - 99 %. In order to increase the combustion efficiency, the steam or air is
used as assistant in flares, which create a turbulent mixing, and better contact between
carbon and oxygen. Excess air has implications on emissions, specifically related to
the creation of NOx. The availability of extra nitrogen found in the air and additional
heat required to maintain combustion temperatures are favorable conditions for the
formation of thermal NO. More-over, greater amounts of excess air create lower
amounts of CO but also cause more heat loss. As a results from the above, gas
flaring has a significant impact on environment due to possible presence of many
harmful compounds. The scale of impact depends on the flared gas composition. The
impacts of flare emissions can be concluded as the following [22.23]:
19
 The low quality gas that is flared releases many impurities and toxic particles
into the atmosphere,
 Harmful effects on human health associated with exposure to these pollutants
and the ecosystems.
 Products of combustion can be hazardous when present in high amounts,
 The waste gas contains CO2 and H2S, which are both weakly acidic gases and
become corrosive in the presence of water,
 Acidic rain, caused by SOx in the atmosphere, is one of the main
environmental hazards; acid rains wreak havoc on the environment destroying
crops, roofs and impacting human health,
 CO causes reduction in oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood, which may
lead to death
 uncontrolled NOx emission could be injurious to health.
 when NOx reacts with O2 in the air, the result is ground-level ozone which has
very negative effects on the respiratory system and can cause inflammation of
the airways, lung cancer etc.
2.7.1 Technical (Safety)
The availability of a flare or a vent is absolutely necessary in oil and gas

production operations. It ensures that safe disposal of the hydrocarbon gas inventory
in the process installation is possible in emergency and shut-down situations. Where
gas cannot be stored or used commercially, it is essential that the risk of fire and
explosion be reduced by either flaring or venting. Even where associated gas is being
sold or reinjected, small amounts of gas will still need to be flared or vented for safety
reasons. Oil and gas processing and storage equipment is often operated at high
pressures and temperatures. When abnormal conditions occur, the control and safety
systems must release gas to the emergency flare or vent to prevent hazards to the
employees or public. Good maintenance and operating strategies are the main
mechanisms used to keep this already small volume as low as practicable. Emergency
flares are normally fitted with pilot systems maintaining a small flame as the ignition
source in case the full size flare is activated. Recent technology has designed and
installed flare system to operate without pilot flame and hence without emission when
not active. The toxicity of the gases being disposed is another safety issue in the
20
application of flaring and venting. In some situations, the toxicity of the gas relative to
the toxicity of its combustion products may need to be considered when choosing
between flaring and venting as a means of disposal. An example would be where gas
containing hydrogen sulphide is being produced. Hydrogen sulphide gas can be fatal
if inhaled; even at low concentrations but if burned the resulting sulphur dioxide is
relatively less toxic [28].
2.7.2 Environmental effects and consequences
Environmental agencies independent to the oil and gas industry sometimes express
concerns about the environmental impacts of flaring and venting. One such concern
relates to the potential for global climate change. Both carbon dioxide and methane
(the major component of natural gas) are known as greenhouse gases associated with
concerns about global warming. Flaring produces predominantly carbon dioxide
emissions, while venting produces predominantly methane emissions. The two gases
have different effects, however. The global warming potential of a kilogram of
methane is estimated to be twenty-one times that of a kilogram of carbon dioxide
when the effects are considered over one hundred years. When considered in this
context, flaring will generally be preferred over venting the same amount of gas in the
design of new facilities where sufficient amounts of gas will be produced to run a
flare. While there are still many uncertainties in our understanding of the complex
issue of climate change, it makes sense to avoid the unnecessary release of carbon
dioxide or methane into the atmosphere, where practicable. This point to a need to
reduce emissions in a reasonably practicable way. Apart from the concern of global
climate change, flaring and venting also have the potential to contribute to local
environmental impacts such as local air quality; and thus this aspect need to be
properly managed. Although the global warming potential of methane when
compared to carbon dioxide usually suggests that flaring is a more environmentally
attractive option than venting, onshore oil and gas developments sometimes prefer
venting because it is less visible and produces less noise. In all cases, the company
has the responsibility to make parties involved aware of all aspects of the issue to
ensure reasoned decisions are taken and supported [28].
21
2.7.3 Resource conservation

The natural gas burned in a flare or vented to the atmosphere is a natural resource
which could be effectively used as a source of energy or for production of beneficial
chemicals and petrochemicals. This is another valid concern being expressed about
flaring and venting. The need to obtain as much value as practicably possible from the
production of hydrocarbon has kept the oil and gas industry in continuous search for
ways to minimize flaring and venting without violating safety considerations. Many
oilfields currently still in production were started several decades ago, when there was
less concern about conservation of resources than there is today. The issue of global
warming was not identified but oil and gas companies were constantly seeking
methods to reduce wastage of natural gas and maximize the financial returns from the
resources being developing. In 1950, the Indonesian oil industry flared 95% of the
total volumes of associated gas that it produced but this volume declined to
approximately 28% by 1985. The rate of improvement of the extent to which natural
gas resources were conserved in mature oil producing regions were dependent on
some factors among which were the availability of local markets for the gas and
governments incentives to consumers and suppliers / investors [28].
2.8 Measurement techniques in industry

Lack of monitoring equipment and limited oversight make it difficult to quantify
the scale of gas flaring around the world. For example, in some regions of Russia,
only half of the flares have flow monitors. In addition, many countries do not publicly
report gas flaring volumes, leading to significant uncertainty regarding the magnitude
of the problem. In fact, to avoid scrutiny, it may be in the producers or governments
interest to limit access to data on gas flaring levels. Much of the official information
on the amount of gas flaring comes from environmental ministries or statistical
agencies within various governments. However, during the last decade, increased use
of military satellites and sophisticated computer programs has been used to measure
gas flaring. These efforts seek to correlate light observations with intensity measures
and flare volumes to produce credible estimates of global gas flaring levels [25].
Enhancement the reliability, completeness and accuracy of flare data is expected to

improve flare reduction activities and investments. Recently, an increased has been
awareness by several countries worldwide towards emissions monitoring,
22
measurement and reduction for both environmental and economic reasons. The World
Bank estimates that between 150 to 170 billion cubic meters of gases are flared or
vented annually, an amount worth approximately $ 30.6 billion, equivalent to 25 % of
the United States’ gas consumption or 30 % of the European Union’s gas
consumption per year. The EPA estimates that the cost of compliance will rise to $
754 million per year by 2015 for gas wells alone. Geographic shows that a small
number of countries contribute the most to global flaring emissions. At the end of
2011, 10 countries accounted for 72 % of the flaring, and twenty for 86 %. In 2012
Russia and Nigeria accounted for about 40 % of global flaring [25]. Major flaring
countries around the world are shown on Figure 2.3 [25].
Figure 2.3: Top 20 gas flaring countries (NOAA satellite data) [25]
2.8.1 Government legislation
Flare gas is a significant waste of a valuable non-renewable energy resource and

harms the environment through GHG and other emissions. Flaring and venting
measurement has been identified as an important crosscutting issue where the Global
Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR) could make a meaningful contribution to
the global flaring reduction agenda by collecting and disseminating a best practice.
Regulations were implemented in 1993 relating to the measurement of fuel and flare
gas for calculation of CO2 tax in the petroleum activities on the Norwegian
continental shelf. Recently, with gas prices soaring, and new government legislation
on the horizon, producers, refineries and chemical companies have been looking for a
cost effective solution to reduce emissions, and to provide tighter control for both leak
23
detection and mass balance. To tolerate the extreme process conditions often found in
a flare line, yet provide accurate measurement to comply with regulators such as the
Energy and Utilities Board, the technology of choice is of most importance [25].
2.9 Gas flaring reducing and recovery
Environmental and economical considerations have increased the use of flare gas
recovery systems (FGRS) to minimize the amount of gas being flared. The recovery
of flared gas reduces noise and thermal radiation, operating and maintenance costs,
air pollution and gas emission and reduces fuel gas and steam consumption. In
recent years, there has been an international direction to reduce gas flaring and
venting through the World Bank global gas flaring reduction (GGFR) partnership
and the global methane initiative (GMI). Several countries are now signatories on
the GGFR partnership’s voluntary standard for flare and vent reduction, and both
the GGFR partnership and GMI actively promote demonstration projects to reduce
flaring and venting. Other regulations can be used to reduce flaring such as direct
regulation include Norway, where there is an enforced policy of zero flaring and
North Dakota in the U.S., where oil producers will be required to meet gas capture
targets or face having their oil production rates capped. Additionally, the United
Nations’ Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) by offering ‘Certified Emissions
Reductions’ provides flaring and venting reduction projects [22].
Several steps may be help to reduce the flared gas losses such as: proper
operation and maintenance of flares systems, modifying start up and shutdown
procedures. In addition, eliminating leaking valves, efficient use of fuel gases
required for proper operation of the flare and better control of steam to achieve
smokeless burning all contribute to reducing flare losses. Recovery methods may
also use to minimize environmental and economic disadvantages of burning flare
gas. Recently, several technology in flare tip design offers the greatest reduction in
flare loss. Even in most advanced countries only a decade has passed from FGRS,
thus the method is a new methods for application in refineries wastes. Of such
countries active in FGRS are USA, Italy, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Most
FGRS has been installed based primarily on economics, where the payback on the
equipment was short enough to justify the capital cost. Such systems were sized to
collect most, but not all, of the waste gases. The transient spikes of high gas flows
24
are typically very infrequent, meaning normally it is not economically justified to

collect the highest flows of waste gas because they are so sporadic. However, there
is increasing interest in reducing flaring not based on economics, but on
environmental considerations [21]. There is a range of methods to reduce and
recover flaring, it is summarized as the followings [22]:
1. Collection, compression, and injection/reinjection

a. into oil fields for enhanced oil recovery;
b. into wet gas fields for maximal recovery of liquids;
c. into of gas into an aquifer;
d. into the refinery pipelines;
e. collection and delivery to a nearby gas-gathering system;
f. shipping the collecting flared gas to treatment plants before subsequent use;
g. using as an onsite fuel source;
h. using as a feedstock for petrochemicals production;
2. Gas-to-liquid (GTL)
a. converting to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG);
b. converting to liquefied natural gas (LNG);
c. converting to chemicals and fuels;
3. Generating electricity
a. burning flared gas in incinerators and recovering exhaust heat for further use
(generation and co-generation of steam and electricity).
Decision of flaring or processing of gas depends on gas prices. Gas flaring would
be processed and sold if prices would remain high enough for a long period, and all
required infrastructure could be built for gas processing and transportation. On the
other hand, in order to select the best method for flared gas recovery and reduction,
operators must have a good understanding of how the flare gases are produced,
distributed and best consumed at the production facility. FGRS have been also
impeded by a number of technical challenges [21], such as a combination of highly
variable flow rates and composition, low heating value and low pressure of the waste
gases [22,23] . In the case of very large volumes of associated flared gas, gas-to-liquid
(GTL) conversion this gas into more valuable and more easily transported liquid
fuels, or production of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to facilitate transport to distant
markets, are potential options. Both GTL and LNG options require enormous capital
25
investments of infrastructure and must process very large volumes of gas to be

economic [22].
However, reinjection of the gas flaring has been successfully used at several sites
to dispose of residual “acid-gas” (primarily hydrogen sulphide, H2S, and CO2 with
traces of hydrocarbons) from gas sweetening plants where the costs of reinjection are
less than the costs of sulphur removal. The use of flared gas to generate electricity for
on-site use is a demonstrated option, but this approach is not always economic and
can be limited by the on-site demand for electricity. By contrast, the collection and
compression of gas into pipelines for processing and sale is a well-established and
proven approach to mitigating flaring and venting [22].
Rahimpour and Jokar compared three methods for recovering the flared gas of
Farashband gas processing plant in Iran. These methods are GTL production,
electricity generation with a gas turbine and compression and injection into the
refinery pipelines. The results showed that the electricity production gives the highest
rate of return (ROR), the lowest payback period, the highest annual profit and mild
capital investment [22].
With increasing awareness of the environmental impact and the ratification of the
Kyoto protocol by most of the member countries, it is expected that gas flaring will
not be allowed in the near future. This will require significant changes in the current
practices of oil and gas production and other processes. As reported by the World
Bank (2005), economic viability of flare gas recovery projects is constrained in many
countries mainly due to high project development costs, lack of funding and lack of
distribution infrastructure. In Norway, several concepts and technologies of FGRS
have been proven and extensively applied in offshore oil-gas production fields. For
example, the gas flaring is pumped back down into the reservoir, to maintain the
pressure and flow rate of the oil being produced in the Oseberg field in Norway. By
reinjection the flared gas in the oil production industry, they are able to recover much
higher percentage of oil than if they were to simply inject water for example. Qatar
gas company has made significant progress flaring from its LNG trains in line with
the increased national focus on flare minimization and the company`s desire to reduce
its emissions and carbon footprint. Enhanced acid gas recovery and operational
excellence initiatives on source reduction and plant reliability at Qatar gas` older,
26
conventional LNG trains have successfully reduced flaring by more than 70 %

between 2004 and 2011. A summary of Qatar gas engineering projects and their
expected flare reductions and implementation timelines is provided in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Summary of Qatar gas flare reduction projects [22]
In Nigeria several efforts have been made to reduce gas flaring, including the
establishment of a liquefied natural gas plant, a pipeline to transport gas to some
neighbouring countries, and legislative measures to regulate the oil and gas industry.
According to Al-Blaies, Nigeria flared a total of 15.2 billion m3 of gas in 2010, the
second largest in the world. When compared with the quantity of gas flared in 2005
there is about 29 % decrease in gas flaring in Nigeria, mainly due to the
implementation of some flare reduction projects. Even then, the quantity of gas flared
in Nigeria is still substantive, and as at 2010, the country remains one of the worst
offenders when it comes to natural gas flaring, second only to Russia. Since 2000,
Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) of Nigeria began an ongoing
multiyear program to install equipment to capture gas from its facilities. In total
SPDC flaring dropped by more than 60 % between 2002 and 2011 from over 0.6
billion ft3 /day to about 0.2 billion ft3 /day [22].
Tengizchevroil (TCO) executed with excellence multiple capital projects to reduce

flaring (see Figure 2.5). TCO has invested $ 2.8 billion on environmental programs
27
over the last 14 years. Since 2000, TCO has reduced flaring volume by more than 93
%. At the same time, TCO has achieved a 99 % gas utilization rate and increased its
oil production volumes by 158 % [22].
Figure 2.5: TCO gas flared from 2000 to 2013 [22]
2.9.1 Gas flaring collection and compression

The collection and compression of flared gas for transport in pipelines or other
ways for processing and sale is a well-established and proven approach to reduce
flaring and venting. During recent years in Iran, several projects have included the
collection of associated gases. In Alberta in 2008, about 72 % from 9.72 billion m3 of
associated gas produced during production of oil and heavy oil was collected and sold
into pipelines. An additional 21 % was used as onsite fuel (such as for process heaters
or to drive natural gas fired compressors). The remaining amount of gas about 0.69
billion m3 was flared or vented [22].
Tahouni et. al., integrated flared gas stream to the fuel gas network with waste and
fuel gas streams in the refinery case study. A fuel gas network was collected fuel
gases from various source streams and mixed them in an optimal manner, and
supplied them to different fuel sinks such as furnaces, boilers, turbines, etc. This study
proved that the optimal fuel gas network could be reduced energy costs and flaring
emissions by using flared gas stream to the network [22].
Environmental and economic considerations have increased the use of FGRS to

recover gases for other uses. By using recent technology in this field, a gas
28
compression and recovery system (FGRS) can be used to reduce the volume of flared
gases. Figure (2.6) shows a general view of a FGRS. To recover flared gas, after
collecting from flare header, it is diverted to the FGRS downstream of the knock-out
drum by a liquid seal vessel and passes through a compressor. The compressed gas is
then discharged into a mixed phase separator. The liquid is pumped through a heat
exchanger and back to the service liquid inlet on the compressor. The compressed gas
is separated from the liquid and is piped to the plant fuel gas header, or other
appropriate location. The compressor recycle valve is regulated with control signals
based on the inlet flare gas pressure. This ensures that the flare header is under
positive pressure at all times. In the event that the flow capacity of the FGRS is
exceeded, the liquid seal vessel will allow the excess waste gas to go to the flare
where it is safely burned. Based on refinery structure or related unit, the compressed
gases used as a feed or fuel. If required, to reach entrance gas temperature to FGRS
and external gas temperature from this unit to an optional temperature, heat
exchangers are used [22].
Figure 2.6 A view of a flare gas recovery system [22]
The compressor is the main part of the FGRS. The most suitable compressor design
for FGRS depends on many factors such as initial cost, process requirements, physical
size, efficiency, operating and maintenance requirements. Over the last 35 years
several compressor types including dry screw compressors (DSC), sliding vane
29
compressors (SVC), reciprocating compressors (RC), liquid ring compressors (LRC)

and oil injected (or oil flooded) screw compressors (FSC) both single and dual screw
designs are used [22]. In general, LRC or RC are used to compress gases and to
design FGRS. Advantage of LRC is that gas is cooled during compression by heat
transfer of gas through fluid inside compressor (usually water). It is possible to use
amine instead of water in such compressor to separate H2S from flare gases [21]. LRC
are also used because the design of the compressor can process two-phase flow that
commonly exists in flare headers. RC are purchased easily than LRC, also spare parts
provision, repair and maintenance is much easier. If using RC, but it will explode if
temperature exceeds over allowable limit [22].
FGRS are seldom sized for emergency flare loads. FGRS often are installed to comply
with local regulatory limits on flare operation and, therefore, must be sized to
conform to any such limits. The normal flare loads vary widely depending on the
plants throughput and operating mode. To enable recovery of over 90 % of the total
annual flare load and keep flaring to a practical minimum, the compression facilities
should be designed to handle about 2 to 3 times the average normal flare load. In
other plants, such as chemical plants, may have lower normal variation in flare rates.
For this reason, the installations may be sized for a lower flow range [22].
The composition of the flared gas is the strongest influence parameter on the
FGRS. In general, changes in molecular weight in the gas stream going to the FGRS
can generate the potential for overloading the compressor, leading to possible damage
and a large increase in the specific heat ratio. Changing in molecular weight can also
increase the gas discharge temperature after compression [23]. Generally, if the
variation in the gas composition remains within the ranges specified in the data-sheet,
the compressor performance can be achieved [22].
FGRS significantly reduced the GHG emissions from the different industries, and
the harmful impacts normally associated with flaring. Duck reported that about 60
MMBTU/hr of flare gas was recovered by using FGRS in oil refining plant in
Dushanzi-China. FGRS including LRC is a skid-mounted packaged system located
downstream of the knock-out drum since all the flare gases are available at this single
point. The results of using FGRS showed that, the plant prevented annually about
32.5, 176.8 and 67,000 metric tons of NOx, CO and CO2 from being emitted to the
30
atmosphere, respectively. Additionally, thermal radiation from the flames was greatly
reduced which resulted in an increase in overall safety of the plant. Light and noise
were also greatly reduced. Furthermore, the FGRS installation allows substantial cost
savings because the recovered gases can be used as fuel or process feedstock.
Assuming a fuel gas cost of $ 5.00/MMBTU the plant will save more than $
5,000,000 per year on fuel gas costs if the FGRS operate at full capacity. With an
expected operating cost of $ 300,000 per year, the cost of the FGRS could be
recovered in less than 9 months [22].
FGRS including LRC for reducing about 163,000 tCO2e/year of baseline emissions
from Suez oil refinery company in Egypt was presented. For about 94 % of gas
emissions will be decreased and a payback period of about 2 years. Another FGRS in
Farashband gas refinery in Iran, using piston compressors operate to recover about
4.176 MMSCFD of flared gas, provides a compressed natural gas with 129 bar
pressure for injection to the refinery pipelines [22].
In Uran plant (205 Km from the Mumbai High offshore field), FGRS was used to
recycle all of the flare gases and process them to recover and utilize valuable
hydrocarbon of about 30,000 - 150,000 SCMD from gas processing in order to
achieve technical zero flaring. Screw compressor (oil flooded) was used in this FGRS
and designed to capable of handling gases of molecular weight between 19.5 - 36.2
(flare gas molecular weight varies as per flaring from different plant and sources).
FGRS has significantly reduced the CO2 emissions released into the environments.
The total estimated reduction about 977,405 tCO2e from 2007 - 2008 to 2016 - 2017
considering the avoidance of 44 MMSCM of gas per year. Another FGRS at Hazira
plant (232 Kms from the Mumbai offshore oil field) was designed to recover and
utilize the tail gas of about 14,000 - 73,000 SCMD from gas processing plant in order
to achieve technical zero flaring [22].
Zadakbar et. al. presented the results of two case studies of reducing, recovering
and reusing flare gases from the Tabriz Petroleum Refinery and Shahid Hashemi-
Nejad (Khangiran) Natural Gas Refinery in Iran, including eleven plants of petroleum
refineries, natural gas refineries and petrochemical plants. In the Tabriz petroleum
refinery, the recommended FGRS includes two LRC, two horizontal 3-phase
separators, two water coolers, piping and instruments. For about 630 kg/hr flare gas
31
will be used as fuel gas by $ 0.7 million capital investment corresponds to a payback
period of about 20 months, and also 85 % of gas emissions will be decreased. In the
Shahid Hashemi-Nejad (Khangiran) gas recovery, three LRC, three horizontal 3-
phase separators, three water coolers, piping and instruments, proposed FGRS. For
about 25000 m3 /hr flare gas will be used as fuel gas by $ 1.4 million capital
investment corresponds to a payback period of about 4 months, and 70 % of gas
emissions will be decreased [22].
Sangsaraki and Anajafi studied the design criteria of FGRS and steady sate and
dynamic simulation of the FGRS. The recovery of 5916 normal m3 /hr of sweet
natural gas, 24 ton/hr of gas condensates and production of 297 m3 /hr of acid gas
would be possible, according to steady state simulation results. Also, the changes in
the temperature of the gases sent to the flare during total shutdown of the refinery as
well as the impact it had on FGRS behavior was studied. It is obvious that the
efficiency of the compressor is reduced due to the increase in the temperature of the
gas sent to the flare network; therefore, the value of separation in two and three-phase
separator shows a drastic change [22].
2.9.2 Gas-to-liquid technology
Gas-to-liquid (GTL) technology is one of the best methods for reducing gas flaring
in the application of environmentally friendly technologies. It is one of the most
promising topics in the energy industry by the conversion of flare gas to hydrocarbons
due to economic utilization of control waste gas to environmentally clean fuels.
Another environmental issue is the regulatory pressure to reduce the volume of flared
gas, which has serious environmental consequence. Recently the development of GTL
technology has been an increased interest. GTL technology plays an interest role in
delivering gas to markets as both fuel and/or chemicals. The products from GTL have
interest environmental advantages compared to traditional products, giving GTL a
significant edge as governments pass new and more stringent environmental
legislation. So, conversion of flare gas (associated gas) to synthetic fuel has attracted
more attention in some countries because of the economic and environmental benefits
derive from it [22].
Gas flaring to liquids conversions can be achieved via several chemical reaction
processes resulting in a range of end products. The Fischer-Tropsch (F-T)
32
technologies are the most widely deployed. In F-T technology, associated gas firstly
pass through a steam methane reformer to produce syngas (a mixture of CO and H2,).
After that, syngas feeds into an F-T reactor that coverts to longer chain hydrocarbons
(synthetic crude oil), water, and a "tail gas" comprising H2, CO and light hydrocarbon
gases at an elevated pressure and temperature. The synthetic crude oil is then
delivered to a conventional refinery for onward processing. The excess heat generated
from the reaction has typically been removed by inserting boiler tubes that carry
water. F-T products are of high quality, being free of sulfur, nitrogen, aromatics, and
other contaminants typically found in petroleum products, which is especially true for
F-T-gasoline with a very high octane number. However, drawbacks also exist for the
F-T process: the capital costs of F-T conversion plants are relatively higher and the
energy efficiency of producing F-T liquids is relatively lower than the one for other
alternative fuels such as hydrogen, methanol, dimethyl ether and conventional
biofuels [22].
In the history of F-T technology process development, the various types of

reactors, including multi-tubular fixed bed reactor; bubble column slurry reactor;
bubbling fluidized bed reactor; three-phase fluidized bed reactor; and circulating
fluidized-bed reactor, have been considered [22].
The F-T process was first developed by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch used
ironbased catalyst followed by using both iron and cobalt-based catalysts in Germany
between 1920s and 1930s. From 1950s to 1990s, South Africa SASOL developed F-T
commercially (in conjunction with coal gasification) to convert coal to hydrocarbons
with total capacity 4,000,000 Mt/year in three plants; two still in operation. From
1980s to present, Shell using F-T to convert natural gas to fuels and waxes in Bintulu,
Malaysia. From 1980s to present, a number of entrants into the fields, a number of
projects announced and planned (including demonstration projects), Qatar and Nigeria
have started design and construction on world scale GTL facilities. Oguejiofor
discussed some aspects of using GTL technology for reducing flare gas in Nigeria.
The main issue in Nigeria is to gather gas from more than 1000 wells by building gas
collection facilities at the oilfields and constructing an extensive pipeline network to
carry gas to an industrial facility where it turns into liquids for transportation. Gas
flaring in Nigeria was reduced from roughly 49.8 % in 2000 to fewer than 26 % in
2006 [22].
33
A small scale simpler F-T processes can be deployed in small modular units to
process associated gas. The smallest potential plant evaluated by the study would
convert 2000 - 10000 MCF/day of gas into 200 - 1000 bbls/day of liquid products. A
novel catalyst using atomic layer deposition in small-scale mobile systems was
developed for convert low-value natural gas to high value synthetic crude oil (GTL).
A novel catalyst yields 2.5-times more synthetic crude with high conversion about 90
% and low methane selectivity for about 6 wt% than state-of-the-art catalysts for
GTL. Additionally, it is robust and has a low deactivation. Preliminary economic
assessments predict that the scaled-up 100 bbl/day process using 1 MMSCFD natural
gas, having a $5 MM - $7.5 MM total investment, would achieve a 15 - 30 % IRR at a
breakeven price of $20 - 75 per bbl depending on natural gas cost. However, flared
gas from the Farashband gas refinery in Iran is produced 563 bbl/day of valuable GTL
products from the 4.176 MMSCFD of gas flared by GTL production [22].
The application of microchannel technology to F-T enables cost effective

production at the smaller-scales appropriate for both onshore and offshore GTL
facilities for stranded and associated gas reserves. The micro-channel technology to
steam reforming of methane and FT synthesis using cobalt as catalyst was studied.
The steady state CO conversion was over 70 % and selectivity to methane was under
10 %. The reactor operated steadily and had minimal change in conversion level even
after 1,100 hr of operation. Branco et. al. estimated that total emissions from an
offshore microchannel GTL plant in Brazil. The results showed that this plant allows
the production of low-sulfur diesel, reducing gas flaring and co-producing high-
quality naphtha, additionally, an average of $ 37.00 per tCO2e reduced [22].
Knutsen investigated the simulation of operational performance and optimization

of a GTL plant based on autothermal reforming and a multi tubular fixed bed reactor
together with a cobalt catalyst. The economics optimized process was found to
produce of syn-crude with a carbon efficiency of about 77 % and thermal efficiency
of about 62 %. Ultimately a production cost of $ 16.10 per bbl and revenue of $ 59.89
per bbl was obtained. With current crude oil price at $ 98.90 per bbl it indicates a
good economical environment for the GTL process [22].
Rahimpour et. al. compared the performance of the two cascading membrane
dualtype reactors in the form of fluidized-bed and fixed-bed for F-T synthesis.
34
According to the results, fluidized-bed reactor is superior to fixed-bed reactor for F-T
synthesis in GTL technology owing to achieving 5.3 % increase in the gasoline yield
and 12 % decrease in CO2 yield, in addition, excellent temperature control and a small
pressure drop and consequently higher gasoline yield and lower CO2 yield [22].
2.9.3 Electricity production
Power is a basic part of nature and it is one of the most widely used forms of
energy. It is as a secondary energy source, from the conversion of many sources of
energy such as coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear power and other natural sources. Natural
gas was produced about 16 % of the power. To be reduce the thermal emissions from
several industry, such as petrochemicals, industrial gases, synthetic organic fibers, and
agricultural chemicals, in which high-temperature exhaust is released that could be
recovered for power generation. The other method for FGRS is the conversion of flare
gas as a primary source into electricity. An electric power station uses a turbine,
engine, water wheel or other similar machines to drive an electric generator. A turbine
converts the kinetic energy of a moving fluid (liquid or gas) to mechanical energy.
Gas turbines are commonly used when power utility usage is at a high demand. Gas
flaring can be burned to produce hot combustion gase that pass directly through a
turbine, spinning the blades of the turbine to generate power. Electricity generation
with a gas turbine provides 25 MW electricity from the 4.176 MMSCFD of gas flared
from the Farashband gas refinery in Iran. Gas flaring can also be used to produce
electricity in gas-fired turbines called “micro-turbines”, to be an energy source to
provide power for industry operations, like pumping, compression machines and gas
processing. The electricity can even be sold, if they do not need all of it [22].
Two scenarios are described the electrical power generation by use of flared gas.
Gas turbine working in a simple Brayton cycle is a simulation of power generation in
the first scenario. In the second scenario, cooling inlet air of a simple cycle of gas
turbine by Fog method is added to improve the efficiency. Heydari et. al. compared
the two scenarios from both technical and economical point of view. The results
indicate that, the power generation has a better situation in the second scenario, but
the first one is more economically justified. The power generation in the first and
second scenario are 38.5 MW and 40.25 MW respectively, while payback periods are
35
3.32 and 3.48 years. It should be also mentioned that, in order to increase the fuel
pressure from 6 bar to 23.7 bar, a compressor with an efficiency of 90 % is used [22].
There are other cycles to generate power. Steam Rankine Cycle (SRC), the most
commonly used system for power generation from waste heat involves using the heat
to generate steam in a waste heat boiler, which then drives a steam turbine. Steam
turbines are one of the oldest and most versatile prime mover technologies. Organic
Rankin Cycles (ORC), other working fluids, with better efficiencies at lower heat
source temperatures, are used in ORC heat engines. ORCs use an organic working
fluid that has a lower boiling point, higher vapor pressure, higher molecular mass, and
higher mass flow compared to water. So, the turbine efficiencies of ORCs are higher
than in SRC. Additionally, ORC systems can be utilized for waste heat sources as low
as 148 ºC, whereas steam systems are limited to heat sources greater than 260 ºC.
ORCs have commonly been used to generate power in geothermal power plants, and
more recently, in pipeline compressor heat recovery applications [22].
In 2007, the World Bank commissioned a large study by PFC Consulting to

examine economic options for associated gas monetization in Russia. Electric power
generation and development of gas processing plants were found to be the most
efficient ways to use flared gas. In addition, it was concluded that at a netback price of
around $1.42 per MMBTU close to 80 % of Russia’s associated gas could be
economically recovered [22].
Use of flared gas as a feed of fuel cell can be considered as a new approach to
FGRS. Fuel cells are power-generation systems that convert directly the chemical
energy of fuel to electricity. Among the various types of fuel cells, solid oxide fuel
cell (SOFC) is more efficient. SOFC is known as an environmental friendly power
generation technology. SOFC is a kind of fuel cell contains two porous electrodes,
which are separated by a nonporous oxide ion-conducting ceramic electrolyte. SOFC
operates at temperatures between 600 - 1000 ºC and uses H2 containing gas mixture as
a feed and O2 of air as an oxidant. The high operation temperature leads flexibility of
using various fuel types such as methane, methanol, ethanol, biogas etc. SOFC
technology reduces CO2 emission by about 55 %. Additionally, there are
approximately zero emissions of criteria pollutants (NOx, SOx, CO, particles and
organic compounds) and very low noise emission. Saidi et al. developed an
36
electrochemical model for a steady state, planar SOFC by considering the direct
internal methane steam reforming for flare gas recovery of Asalouyeh gas processing
plant in Iran. In this configuration, there is no pre-reforming and the sweetened flare
gas is fed to SOFC directly. The using of this SOFC generates about 1200 MW
electrical energy, and decreases the equivalent mass of GHG emission from 1700 kg/s
to 68 kg/s. In addition, the total capital investment of this method is significantly
lower than other no gas flaring approaches [22].
Tianjin Municipal Government in China was initiated a project to recover landfill

gas, which was otherwise being released into the atmosphere, and burn pretreated
landfill gas for electricity generation or discharged to flaring. The produced landfill
gas consists of 50 % CH4 and 50 % other gases, such as CO2 and additional gases
including non-methane organic compounds. The project will obtain revenues from the
sale of electricity, which over the project’s life; will amount to $ 36.2 million. The
project has been registered as a CDM project under the Kyoto protocol and reached an
agreement with the World Bank to purchase the certified emission credits (CERs)
from the project [22].
37
CHAPTER THRE CASE STUDY
CHAPTER THREE
Case Study
38
CHAPTER THREE CASE STUDY
3. Process description and simulation setup
3.1 Process description
As in figure 3.1 fuel gas production has been estimated based on the average years of
2002, 2004, 2005, from the following sources [26]
 Topping overhead accumulator 11V3 / 11V4.

 Naphtha hydrotreating unit 20V2 / 20V3
 Platforming unit 21V3
 Light naphtha and LPG stabilizer 22V3 / 22V4
figure 3.1: Block flow diagram of fuel gas system in Zawia oil refinery.[27]
The fuel gas from the above described units is collected in the fuel gas drum 670V1
where it is separated into tow outlet streams, the first one is the fuel gas used in the
plant for operation of boilers, heaters and Furnas, while the second one is sent to flare
system shown in figure 3.2.
In the flare system, the gas first received in a seal drum to insure safe operation and
prevent the backflow of the atmospheric air to the system, outlet gas from the seal
drum is sent to the flare tip.
39
figure 3.2: Block flow diagram of fuel gas system in Zawia oil refinery.[28]
40
3.2 Preselection of applicable gas use technology

The alternative system of the gas flaring is selected to utilize the flare gas for power
generation, where the selection criteria were done based on the process evaluation
chart shown in figure 3.3.
figure 3.3: Process evaluation chart.[26]
1. Gas condition evaluation
The first step in the process evaluation chart is to analyze the available fuel gas
sources at the Zawia oil refinery, where it found that the total amount of fuel gas
available is about 17593 kg/h, with a specification shown in table 3.1 [27].
Material balance made by Basem Alzawaly 2017, show that the amount of gas flared
is about 2000 kg/h with the same composition shown in table 3.1.
41
Table 3.1 Fuel gas Weight Composition [27]

Component Wt % Kg/h
H2 8.39 1.476
C1H4A 14.74 2.594
C2H6 24.03 4.227
C3H8 29.30 5.155
i-C4H10 9.29 1.634
n- C4H10 13.97 2.457
i-C5H12 0.16 28
n- C5H12 0.12 21
Total 100 17.593
C3-C5 52.84 9.296
2. Preselection of applicable gas use technology
Because of a relatively low amount of flare gas from the Zawia oil refinery, large
conventional power plant fired with a flare gas did not come into concentration,
therefore the research focus on the following technologist for a decentralized
application: gas turbine, microturbine and gas engine. All three technologies are well
suited for power generation out of the existing energy source within the flare gas and
are robust enough to resist load variation.
Turbine and microturbine are based on same principle as the name itself indicate, a
microturbine is a turbine with a lower performance level. Although there is no clear
border between turbine and microturbine a micro turbine would typically correspond to
Performance level lower than 500 kW
gas engine are available in Broad spectrum of power engine ranges typically between
20 and 1500 kw.[2]
3. Evaluation of gas treatment technology
By analyzing the flare gas composition, we can see clearly that, the gas quality
sufficient for pre-selected utilization technology, and there is no need for pretreatment
since the gas does not contain any acid gases.
42
3.3 Plant simulation and flow sheet development
The proposed flow sheet is based on two main scenarios: the first one is a direct use of
heat generated at the flare tip using a heat recovery steam generator WHRS, and the
second is based on redirect the flare gas to be used in a combined power plat.
First Scenario
Heat is just recovered using an evaporator, and it is used in a WHRS system as shown
in figure 3.4.
Figure 3.4: Schematic presentation of waste heat recovery system WHRS.
Since the heat is high it is first used to generate a steam to operate a steam turbine and
the remaining heat is then used to operate an ORC. Thermodynamic analysis concerns
a flare gas waste heat recovery system using an STC and ORC cycle as depicted by
Figure 3.4. The thermodynamic study was performed based on a couple of assumptions
summarized as follows:
 Toluene is used as a working fluid.

 Steady state operating mode of the ORC cycle
 Neglecting pressure drops at each side of the heat exchangers
 Neglecting both variation of both kinetic and potential energies
 Turbine and feeding pump isentropic efficiencies fixed at 0.8
 Tev = 300 oC, considered as the highest temperature for the high-temperature
working fluid.
43
 Tc = 120 oC; fixed based on the corresponding saturation pressure, Psat = 1.31
bar > Patm
 Ideal conversion from mechanical to electrical power
 Sub cooling and super heating respectively fixed at ∆Tsub = 5 oC and ∆Tsup = 0
o
C for the basic configuration.
Second Scenario
In this case, the flare gas is combusted in a combustion chamber and then sent to a gas
turbine to generate a power. The exhaust gas out of turbine sent to WHRS to generate
a steam for operation of steam generator, moreover, the ORC is with a toluene as
working fluid is incorporated for more power production. The Schematic presentation
of the proposed system is shown in figure 3.5 which containing a gas turbine GT, steam
turbine cycle STC, and microturbine for the organic rankin cycle ORC operation.
Figure 3.5: Schematic presentation of WHRS "Scenario 2".
3.3.1 ASPEN HYSYS Simulation Software
HYSYS is powerful engineering simulation tool, has been uniquely created with respect
to/w.r.t the program architecture, interface design, engineering capabilities, and
interactive operation. The integrated steady state and dynamic modeling capabilities,
where the same model can be evaluated from either perspective with full sharing of
process information, represent significant advancement in the engineering software
industry. The various components that comprise HYSYS provide an extremely
approach to steady state modeling. The comprehensive selection of operations and
property methods allow modeling a wide range of processes with confidence. Perhaps
even more important how the HYSYS approach modeling maximizes your return on
simulation time through increased process understanding
44
Assumptions
The following assumptions are applied during the process simulation
 Complete combustion of flare gas with a conversion 100%

 Compressor and turbines the efficiencies are adiabatic.
 Flare gas specifications are as given by the process-engineering department in
Zawia oil refining Company and results of previous study [27].
 Flare gas flow rate is about 2000 kg/h. [26].
 The flare gas in the feed comes directly from the seal drum at the atmospheric
pressure.
 Neglect mechanical losses and losses in each unit
Constraints
The constraints of the process are:
Temperature combustion < 1500 oC
Temperature steam turbine < 600 oC
Operating pressure of GT, STC, and ORC < 10 bar
3.3.2 Component list and fluid package selection
Since the feed stream containing only pure components, all the components required
for simulation are selected directly from database of ASPEN HYSYS software. For the
modeling and estimation of thermodynamic properties, Peng-Robinson equation of
state is used, which is strongly recommended by the author (ASPEN TECH.) for
hydrocarbon processing systems, due to its high accuracy and capability two/three
phase system.
3.3.3 Setup of reaction sets
In this process, only complete combustion reactions considered with excess air, and
only water and carbon dioxide are produced as a following:
45
2H2 + O2 → 2H2O
CH4 + 2O2 → 2H2O + CO2
C2H6 + 3.5O2 → 3H2O + 2CO2
C3H8 + 5O2 → 4H2O + 3H2O
i-C4H10 + 6,5O2 → 5H2O + 4H2O
n-C4H10 + 6,5O2 → 5H2O + 4H2O
i C5H12 + 8O2 → 6H2O + 5H2O
n C5H12 + 8O2 → 6H2O + 5H2O
3.3.4 Simulation setup
Scenario one
The feed stream S1 is simulated using the data in table 3.2, where the gas flow rate is
2000 kg/h.
Table 3.2: Flare gas specification S1.[27]

Operating condition
Temperature 25c
Pressure 1.013bar
mass flow 1.7E4 kg/h
Composition
Hydrogen 0.599
Methan 0.132
Ethan 0.115
Propane 0.096
i-Butane 0.023
n-Butane 0.035
i-Pentane 0.000
n-Pentane 0.000
Nitrogen 0.000
Oxygen 0.000
46
Atmospheric air is used for combustion of flare gas with specifications shown in table
3.2, where the inlet flow rat of air is calculated using material balance with a 50% excess
air and 100% conversion during the complete reaction.
Table 3.3 Feed air specification S2

Condition
Temperature 25C
Pressure 1 bar
Molar flow 1450 kgmole/h
Composition
Oxygen 0.21
Nitrogen 0.79
The Feed gas S1 and air are compressed in compressors K-101 and K-102 to a pressure
of 5 bar, where the set tool is used to control the outlet pressure . Specifications of both
compressors are the same and are shown in table 3.3.
Table 3.4 Specification of compressor K-101 & K-102

Compressors K-101 & K-102
Outlet Pressure 5 bar
Adiabatic Efficiency 100 %
47
After compression, the compressed gas and air are fed to the conversion reactor CRV-
100, which simulates the flare tip with a specification shown in table 3.4.
Table 3.5: Specification of compressor CRV-100

Operating pressure 5 bar
Operating temperature 1500 oC
The hot stream V out of reactor CRV-100 containing the combusted gases is sent to the
STC, where it passes through WHRS, which simulated as a S&T heat exchanger E-101
to exchange heat with a pressurized water in order to generate a steam that will be used
to derive a steam turbine, specifications of heat exchanger E-101 is shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Specification of heat exchangerE-101

Stream S5 500C
Temperature
Stream S6 200C
Tube side 0
Pressure drop
Shell side 0
48
The superheated steam generated in stream S6 at 5 bar and 400 oC is sent to a steam
turbine with a specification shown in table 3.7 to generate a power
Table 3.7: Specification of turbine K-103

Outlet pressure S7 1 bar
Isentropic efficiency 73.79
Stream S7 is then completely condensed in a condenser E-100 with a specification

shown in table 3,8,
Table 3.8: Specification of condenser E-100

Outlet temperature S7 99.61C
Pressure drop 0 bar
Sub-cooled liquid water S6 out of condenser E-100 is compressed in a centrifugal

pump P-100 with a specification shown in table 3.9. to the pressure of 5 bar, and it
cycled back to the heat exchanger E-100 to close the cycle.
49
able 3.9: Specification of pump P-100

Outlet Pressure 5 bar
Adiabatic Efficiency 100 %
Once the loop is closed, the cycle will be converged and power generated by the ST is
calculated as well as the water flow rate required for the cycle operation.
Since the stream S5 is still hot, the potential of production more power using an ORC
with a microturbie and toluene as a working fluid is investigated, where the stream S5
is sent to a heat exchanger E-102 to evaporate the toluene S13, and the superheated
toluene is produced in stream S10.
The simulation steps of ORC is the same as the STC, and all specifications and
condition required are shown in table 3.10.
Table 3.10: Specifications and conditions required for ORC simulation

Heat exchanger E-102
Stream S5 500C
Temperature
Stream S13 115.2C
Tube side 0 bar
Pressure drop
Shell side 0 bar
Turbine K-104
Outlet pressure S11 154C
Isentropic efficiency 74
50
Continue
Condenser E-103
Outlet temperature S12 115C
Pressure drop 0 bar
Pump P-101
Outlet Pressure S13 5 bar
Adiabatic Efficiency 75%
Scenario 2
In this case, the same procedure as in scenario 1 is applied for the process simulation
except that the gas turbine GT is incorporated, where the CRV-100 is used to simulate
the combustion chamber of a gas turbine, with a specification shown in table 3.11.
Table 3.11: Specification of turbine K-100

Outlet pressure S5 1E-2 bar
Isentropic efficiency 100
All specifications and operating conditions of the STC and ORC used to simulate
scenario 2 are the same as in the scenario 1, except the streams S5, S6 and S15 have a
specification shown in table 3.12.
51
Table 3.12: Specification of streams S1,S4, and S16

S5 510.4C
Temperature S6 300C
S15 200C
S5 1E-2 bar
Pressure S6 1E-2 bar
S15 1E-2 bar
The complete process flow diagram for the scenario 1 and scenario 2 are shown in the
figures 3.6 and 3.7 respectively.
52
Figure 3.6: Process flow diagram "Scenario 1".
53
Figure 3.7: Process flow diagram "Scenario 2".
54
CHAPTER FOUR
Result and Discussion
CHAPTER FOUR RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Result of material balance

The material balance have been made in order to calculate the theoretical amount of air
required for complete combustion of inlet gas stream, where it was 1450 kgmol/h, than
the actual inlet air is calculated based on assumed value of excess air (50%). All the
results are shown in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: specification of inlet air
Air specification
o
Temperature ( C) 25
Pressure (bar) 1
Inlet flow rate (kgmol/h) 1450
Composition
O2 21%
N2 79%
Material balance around the reactor CRV-100 is made to calculate the amount of
produced gases, and since the process is taken under steady state condition; the outlet
flow must satisfy the following mole balance equation
Accumulation = out - In + Generation - consumption

Table 4.2:mass around CRV-100
Inlet flow Cons./Gene. Outlet flow

Component
(kgmol/h) (kgmol/h) (kgmol/h)
Hydrogen 83.23413 -83.2341 0
Methane 18.37573 -18.3757 0
Ethane 15.98276 -15.9828 0
Propane 13.28889 -13.2889 0
i-Butane 3.196614 -3.19661 0
n-Butane 4.806964 -4.80696 0
i-Pentane 4.44E-02 -4.44E-02 0
n-Pentane 3.33E-02 -3.33E-02 0
Oxygen 304.5 -253.392 51.10752606
Nitrogen 1145.5 0 1145.5
CO2 0 122.6103 122.6102962
H2O 0 261.573 261.572991
Total 1588.963 -8.172 1580.791
Outflow = In + (Gen. –Cons) = 1588.963 + (-8.172)

Outlet flow = 1580.791 kgmol/h
56
The outlet of reactor CRV-100 is a mixture of flue gas with a composition shown in
table 4.3, where contain mainly water and carbon dioxide with the excess amount of
oxygen and nitrogen.
Table 4.3: specification of CRV-100 produced gas

Mole Molart flow
Component
fraction (kgmol/h)
Hydrogen 0 0
Methane 0 0
Ethane 0 0
Propane 0 0
i-Butane 0 0
n-Butane 0 0
i-Pentane 0 0
n-Pentane 0 0
Oxygen 0.0323 51.10752606
Nitrogen 0.7246 1145.5
CO2 0.776 122.6102962
H2O 0.1655 261.572991
Total 1 1580.791
In order to calculate the amount of steam required to operate the STC, and the amount
of toluene required to operate the ORC, the combined material and energy balance is
required, which will be explained in a while.
4.2 Result of energy balance

1. Energy balance around feed compressors
Since the process is operating at steady state condition, the energy balance around the
gas compressors K-101 and K-102 are done using the adiabatic efficiency 100%, in
order to calculate the power required to increase the gas pressure to 5 bar. The
compressor specifications are shown in table 4.4.
57
Table 4.4: specification of compressors
k-101 K-102
o
Outlet temperature [ C] 131.7 250.5
Adiabatic Head [m] 32885.772 17844.891
Polytropic Head [m] 32885.784 18957.756
Adiabatic Fluid Head [kJ/kg] 322.499 174.999
Polytropic Fluid Head [kJ/kg] 322.499 185.912
Adiabatic Efficiency 100 100
Polytropic Efficiency 100 79.677
Power Consumed [kW] 179.166 2711.370
Polytropic Head Factor 1.003 1.001
Polytropic Exponent 1.237 1.538
Isentropic Exponent 1.237 1.390
2. Energy balance around CRV-100
Since the reaction is exothermic, heat must be removed in order to keep the reactor
temperature within the limit of 1500 oC, where the result shown in table 4.5, and it can
be seen that about 9244 kw of heat must be removed and to achieve that about
1.591x106 kg/h of cooling water is required.
Table 4.5: specification of CRV-100

Reactor temperature [oC] 1500
Heat flow [kw] 9244
Cooling water flow 1.591x106
4.3 Result of scenario 1

In the first scenario, the heat of combustion is directly utilized to operate a steam turbine
cycle STC, where the combined mass and energy balance is performed to calculate the
net output power, amount of working fluid required, and heat must be add and removed,
as well as the operating condition. All the results are shown in table 4.6.
58
Table 4.6: specification of STC in scenario 1

P-100
Outlet pressure [bar] 5
Power Intput [kw] 3.602
K-103
o
Inlet temperature [ C] 200
Outlet temperature [oC] 99.6
Power output [kw] 1454
E-100
Outlet temperature [oC] 85
Cooling water flow rate [kg/h] 2.568x106
The main results of the STC is the net output power which calculated to be 1450.4 kw,
and this is achieved by steam flow rate of 2.354x104 kg/h as a working fluid, that enters
the steam turbine at 5 bar and 200 oC.
Since the temperature of stream S4 is high enough to operate an organic rankin cycle
ORC with a toluene as a working fluid, the stream S4 is used to vaporize the toluene in
order to operate the ORC, where the results of that cycle is shown in table 4.7.
Table 4.7: specification of ORC in scenario 1

P-101
K-104
Inlet temperature [oC] 183
Outlet pressure [bar] 1.327
Power output [kw] 351.5
E-103
o
Outlet temperature [ C] 115
The main results of the ORC is the net output power which calculated to be 345.422
kw, and this is achieved by toluene flow rate of 3.468 x104 kg/h as a working fluid, that
enters the steam turbine at 5 bar and 183 oC.
59
4.4 Result of scenario 2

In the second scenario, the flare gas is used to generate a power in gas turbine, where
the gas is first combusted in a combustion chamber of gas turbine where the power is
generated, and the result of that section is shown in table 4.8
Table 4.8 specification of GT in scenario 2

K-100
o
Since the outlet stream of gas turbine K-100 is hot, the heat utilized to operate a steam
turbine cycle STC, where the combined mass and energy balance is performed to
calculate the net output power, amount of working fluid required, and heat must be add
and removed, as well as the operating condition. All the results are shown in table 4.9.
Table 4.9: specification of STC in scenario 2

P-100
K-103
o
E-100
o
Outlet temperature [ C] 85
The main results of the STC is the net output power which calculated to be 1332.7 kw,
and this is achieved by steam flow rate of 1.802x104 kg/h as a working fluid, that enters
the steam turbine at 5 bar and 200 oC.
Since the temperature of stream S4 is high enough to operate an organic rankin cycle
ORC with a toluene as a working fluid, the stream S4 is used to vaporize the toluene in
order to operate the ORC, where the results of that cycle is shown in table 4.10.
60
Table 4.10: specification of ORC in scenario 2

P-101
K-104
o
Outlet pressure [bar] 1.327
Power output [kw] 137.1
E-103
The main results of the ORC is the net output power which calculated to be 135.618
kw, and this is achieved by toluene flow rate of 1.127 x104 kg/h as a working fluid, that
enters the steam turbine at 5 bar and 115 oC.
61
4.4 Comparison between scenarios

In this study, two scenarios are proposed and investigated to reuse the flare gas, where
in the first scenario the net power generated was a negative value means that this
scenario is unpractical. While in the second scenario when gas turbine is add to the
system, the net power generated was positive value, which mean that this scenario is
practical, and can be implemented. The results are shown in table 4.11 and chart 4.1.
Table 4.11: Comparison between scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
power consumption [kw] 2899.880 2893.980
power generation [kw] 1805.500 8247.100
Net power generation [kw] -1094.380 5353.120
Figure 4.1: Comparison between scenarios
62
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusion & Recommendation
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION
5.1 Conclusion
Gas flaring is one of the most environmental problems through greenhouse gases and
other emissions. These emissions have high global warming potential and contribute to
climate change.
The presented project investigated the implementation of the combined cycle as a key
solution for flare gas waste heat recovery. The study focused on thermodynamic
performance studies in terms of energy balance and net power generation. This was
followed by sensitivity analysis, aiming to highlight the most important parameters with
direct impact on the whole system’s performance. Two alternatives (scenario 1 and
scenario 2) were simulated using Aspen HYSYS v 11. Steam is used as a working fluid
in STC, while toluene is used in ORC.
The study compared the proposed alternatives in terms of net power produced. From
the study, it is concluded that the first scenario is eliminated because it is impractical
where the net power generation was a negative value means that the power consumption
is greater than the power generated. While the second scenario show that the net power
generated is positive means that the power generated is greater than the power
consumption which lead to that the second scenario is practical and good solution to be
implemented.
From the results we observe that the second scenario is capable of producing about 8.2
MW of power, while the power consumption during compression and pumping is about
2.9 M, which result in a net power generation of 5.3 MW, which will have a positive
impact on the energy efficiency in Zawia refinery.
64
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION
5.2 Recommendation
By the end of this research, one can propose some recommendation to be taken as a
starting point for future work as following:
 Perform a dynamic simulation of the proposed process to decide the control

strategy and doing an operability study.
 Study the ability of using one of acid gas techniques for CO2 treatment and
recovery.
 Including cost estimation for economy evaluation as the base price of the
materials used in this study were out of scoop of study.
 The last point is to implement of such techniques to reduce the gas flaring in
Libyan oil and gas industry.
65
Reference
[1] Zolfaghari, M.; Pirouzfar, V.; Sakhaeinia, H. Technical characterization and
economicevaluation of recovery of flare gas in various gas-processing plants.
Energy 2017, 124, 481–49
[2] Rahimpour, M.; Jamshidnejad, Z.; Jokar, S.; Karimi, G.; Ghorbani, A.;
Mohammadi, A. A comparative study of three different methods for flare gas
recovery of Asalooye Gas Refinery. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2012, 4, 17–28.
[3] Fawole, O.G.; Cai, X.-M.; mackenzie, A.R. Gas flaring and resultant air
pollution: A review focusing on black Carbon. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 216, 182–
197.
[4] Elvidge, C.D.; Zhizhin, M.; Baugh, K.; Hsu, F.-C.; Ghosh, T. Methods for global
survey of natural gas flaring from visible infrared imaging radiometer suite data.
Energies 2015, 9, 14.
[5] Andersen, R.D.; Assembayev, D.V.; Bilalov, R.; Duissenov, D.; Shutemov, D.
Efforts to Reduce Flaring and Venting of Natural Gas World-Wide; Norwegian
University of Science and Technology: Trondheim, Norway, 2012. [Google
Scholar]
[6] Elvidge, C.D.; Bazilian, M.D.; Zhizhin, M.; Ghosh, T.; Baugh, K.; chihsu, F.
The potential role of natural gas flaring in meeting greenhouse gas mitigation
targets. Energy Strategy Rev. 2018, 20, 156–162
[7] Knizhnikov, A. Russian Associated Gas Utilization: Problems and Prospects;

Annual Report within the Framework of the Project Environment and Energy:
International Context. Issue 1. WWF-Russia, Institute of World Economy and
International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2009.
[8] Rahimpour, M.R.; Jokar, S.M.: Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2012, 204-217.
[9] Combined Heat and Power Partnership, Waste heat to power systems, 2012.
available at: http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/waste_heat_power.pdf.
[10] Ismail OS, Umukoro GE (2012). Global Impact of Gas Flaring. Scientific
Research: Energy and Power Engineering Journal, 2012, 4, 290-302.
[11] David Shore (1996). “Making the Flare Safe”. Journal of Loss Prevention in
Process Industries, Vol 9, No. 6, pp363-381, 1996.
[12] Emam EA (2015). Gas Flaring in Industry: An Overview. Petroleum Coal

journal 57 (5) 532-553, December 2015.
]13[ Cheremisinoff NP (2013). Industrial Gas Flaring. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
]14[ Bott RD (2007). Flaring; Questions + Answers. Canadian Center for Energy
Information.
]15[ Marc mcdaniel (1983). Flare Efficiency Study Report EPA600/2-83-052. U.

S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC 20460, July 1983. .
]16[ Upadhyay M, Nophel P, Sivaraj TT (2013). Offshore Flaring and Venting

System – purpose, impacts and development. Paper presented at the University of
Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, SPE Fest 10-12 Feb 2013.
[17] Tkatschenko, 1990; Tyler, 1990; Bozai, 1990; Parker, 1990; Sanderson,
1990).
[18] International Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Analysis 2016; 4(6):

154-159
[19] Surinder Parkash, Refining Processes Handbook.
[20] Stanley Ngena, Environmental Implications of Flaring and Venting in Crude

Oil and naturalgas Production.
[21] Eman A. Emam, Gas Flaring In Industry.
[22] Johnson, M.R.; Coderre, A.R.: Canada, International Journal of Greenhouse

Gas Control. 2012, 8, 121–131.
[23] Ghadyanlou, F.; Vatani, A.: Chemical Engineering, Essentials for the CPI
Professional. 2015, chemengonline.com.
[24] Andersen, R.D.; Assembayev, D.V.; Bilalov, R.; Duissenov, D.; Shutemov,
D.: TPG 4140 – Natural Gas, Trondheim, Nov. 2012.
[25] Eman A.Emam, Environmental Pollution and Measurement of Gas Flaring.

[26] Basem Alzawaly, Feasibility study of flare gas recovery system at azzawiya
oil refining company, Dissertation. 2017.
[27] Process Engineering department, Zawia oil refining company.
[28] Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR) and the World Bank,
Guidelines on flare and vent measurement, 700, 900-6 Avenue S.W. Calgary,
Alberta, T2P 3K2 Canada,(Sep. 2008)

Final Print PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Print PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF LIBYA

Flare Gas Utilization to produce electricity

The Thesis was submitted in partial fulfillment of the

‫مسيتنا الدراسية ى يف‬ ‫ى‬

‫العاىل (والدينا األحبة)‪ ،‬أطال‬ ‫التعليم‬ ‫بلوغنا‬ ‫ف‬ ‫األول ى‬

‫كثي من العقبات والصعاب‪.‬‬ ‫ى‬

‫صياتة؛ ممن لم يتوانوا‬ ‫ى‬

‫نهدي لكم بحثنا‬

‫كبية ى يف بناء جيل الغد‪.‬‬ ‫الكثي ر ى‬

‫نتوجه بالشكر الجزيل إىل الذين تفضلوا ر‬

‫الخي فلهم منا كل التقدير‪.‬‬

Table 2.1: Libyan Refinery Capacity 12

Figure 2.1: Composition of crude oil 8

Figure 2.2: The Principal Refining Operations 10

Figure 2.3: Top 20 gas flaring countries (NOAA satellite data) 23

Figure 2.4: Summary of Qatargas flare reduction projects 27

Figure 2.5: TCO gas flared from 2000 to 2013 28

Figure 2.6: A view of a flare gas recovery system 29

Figure 3.3: Process evaluation chart 41

Figure 3.4: Schematic presentation of waste heat recovery system WHRS 43

Figure 3.5: Schematic presentation of WHRS "Scenario 2" 44

Figure 3.6: Process flow diagram "Scenario 1" 53

Figure 3.7: Process flow diagram "Scenario 2" 54

Figure 4.1: Comparison between scenarios 62

VOC Volatile Organic Compound

1.2 Electricity generation

1.3 Gas flaring

1.4 Flare gas recovery

1.5 flare gas utilization & reducing mechanisms

1.5.1 Commercialization of Associated Gas

This option could be achieved through access to international markets, development of

1.5.2 Regulation, Legislation and Promotion of Application of Best Practices

1.5.3 Application of New Technologies

1. The Automatic Ignition System

2.1 Petroleum and Its Properties

Petroleum crude oils are composed of numerous hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are

2.1.1 Composition of crude oil

 Hydrocarbon compounds (carbon (84-87%) and hydrogen (11-14%)).

Figure 2.1: Composition of crude oil[19].

2.1.2 Properties of crude oils

2.2 The categories of the operation refining

Upgrading is the broad term applied to refinery processing which significantly

a) Separation of crude oil into various cuts.

d) Final preparation of finished products through blending.

Finishing Crude oil

Figure 2.2: The Principal Refining Operations.

2.2.1 The Purpose of refining

 Energy as a by-product in the form of heat (steam) and power (electricity).

2.2.2 The type of petroleum refinery

2.3 Refinery diagram

The downstream (atm-residue) is send to (vacuum –distillation tower) and

2.3.1 Libyan oil refinery overview

Libya, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC),

Table 2.1: Libyan Refinery Capacity.[27]

Company Location CDU Capacity (bbl/day)

Azzawiya Oil Refining CO Azzawiya and Benghazi 120

Ras Lanuf Oil, Gas

Sarir Refining Sarir 10

Sirte Oil CO Marsah ElBrega 8

Tobruk Refining Tobruk 20

Total crude oil Distillation

2.4 Fundamental of petroleum refining processes

Table 2.2: Major Reﬁning Processes in Modern Reﬁneries. [19]