Roger E. Blanton, P.E. Business Development Manager John ...content.4cmarketplace.com/presentations/FlareGasRecovery4C2015.pdfFlare Gas Recovery System Page 4 Project Considerations

Page 2Flare Gas Recovery System

Project Considerations

Roger E. Blanton, P.E.

Business Development Manager

John Zink Company LLC

Tulsa, OK



The information contained in these materials is for informational purposes only and is

provided “AS IS”, without warranties of any kind. Your use of the information contained

herein is at your sole risk. We expressly disclaim any express or implied representations,

warranties or guaranties, including without limitation, the implied warranties of

merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. We will have absolutely no liability

(whether direct, indirect or consequential) in connection with these materials (and/or the

information contained therein) including without limitation, any liability for damage to

person or property. We also reserve the right to make subsequent changes to the

materials without prior notice. For purposes of this notification, “We” includes John Zink

Company, LLC and its affiliates and their respective employees, partners, principles,

agents and representatives, and any third-party providers or sources of information or

data.

©2015 John Zink Company LLC.

JOHN ZINK HAMWORTHY COMBUSTION is a trademark of John Zink Company LLC.

Important Notice



Review Flare Gas Recovery (FGR) General Process Diagram

Design Basis Considerations

Flare System Safety Relief Valves

FGR Project Results

FGR Project Timeline

FGRS Equipment Installed Cost

Liquid Seal Vessel (LSV) Water Seal Level

LSV Cost





Identify Use for Recovered Gas

Characterize Flare Gas Flow Rates

Evaluate Flare Gas Composition

Determine Needs for Gas Conditioning

Reliability Considerations



Gas Composition

Pay attention to gas constituents

Lighter Constituents – require further verification of FGR

capacity

Heavier Constituents – require additional considerations for

ancillary equipment

H2S – NACE requirements, may require Amine treatment

O2 - accelerated corrosion in carbon steel components



Flare Flow Profile ExampleCOMBINED FLARE FLOW PROFILE

Valero Houston Refinery

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

7,000

03 M

ay 2

006

04 M

ay 2

006

05 M

ay 2

006

06 M

ay 2

006

07 M

ay 2

006

08 M

ay 2

006

09 M

ay 2

006

10 M

ay 2

006

11 M

ay 2

006

12 M

ay 2

006

13 M

ay 2

006

14 M

ay 2

006

15 M

ay 2

006

Fla

re F

low

(M

SC

FD

)



Compressor Considerations

Water Quality – Liquid Ring

Oil Selection and Conditioning – Flooded Screw

Hydrogen and H2S – Sliding Vane



FGRS Flare System Safety Relief Valves

API 521 design proven unsuitable for FGRS

Process information requirements for sizing



FGR Project Discussion



FGRS Economic Benefit Examples



Example One

Plant Oil Refinery

Location Western U.S.

FGR Design Recovery Flow

Rate4.9 MMSCFD

FGR Mean Recovery Flow

Rate

2.4 MMSCFD (97% of flare activity

production)

Year 1 Value of Recovered Gas 3,700,000 USD

Flare Emissions Reduction NOx 34.6 Ton/Year

CO 188 Ton/Year

HC 71.4 Ton/Year

SOx 74.8 Ton/Year

Payback in ~14 months



Example Two

Plant Large Refinery Process Flare

ObjectiveTo maximize economic nuisance

flaring reduction

FGR Design Recovery Flow

Rate17.3 MMSCFD

FGR Mean Recovery Flow

Rate15 MMSCFD

Flaring Reduction 82%

Year 1 Value of Recovered Gas 11,300,000 USD

Recovered Gas HV 688 BTU/scf (Utilized as Fuel Gas)

Payback in ~20 months



FGRS Project Timeline

FGRS Project

Time, weeksLRC SVC OFSC DSC

Project Scoping/

Specifications~ 24

Engineering &

Fabrication~ 50 ~ 42 ~ 54 ~60

Installation ~ 18

Startup ~ 2

Total Weeks ~ 94 ~ 86 ~ 98 ~ 104



FGRS Equipment Installed Cost

LRC SVC

$/acfm flare gas $4-14k $4-8k

Project price dependent on several variables

• Linear feet installed pipe

• Number of affected flares





Liquid Seal Vessel (water seal)

Selection Criteria

• API 521 design – unfavorable track record with FGRS

• Saw-tooth down comer vs. cone-shaped distributor

• Liquid – water preferred

• Liquid level

• Single flare – 30” ideal, easy to control

• Multiple flares – up to 120” for staging




Design Information

• Maximum flaring rate & outlet static pressure

• Smokeless flaring rate & outlet static pressure

• Expected inlet pressures (max & smokeless)

• Single or multiple flares downstream

• Flare gas composition

• Vessel mechanical design specifications

• Instrumentation requirements

• Ladders & platforms required?




Regardless of the chosen type

of compression equipment, a

Liquid Seal Drum directly

upstream of the flare stack is a

critical component for

successful operation of the

Flare and FGRS.

Flare Gas In

Flare Gas Out

Water

Drain

Siphon

Liquid

Flare Purge Gas In

Disclaimer: sketch only for illustrative purposes




Typically new deep

liquid seals are required

for FGRS

In some applications,

new internals can be

installed in an existing

liquid seal



FGRS Equipment Cost - LSV

Budget price $150 – 400k

• Fully instrumented

• Cost mostly dependent on associated flare

• maximum design release



Questions?



Roger E. Blanton, P.E.

Business Development Manager

John Zink Company LLC

918.234.2999

[email protected]

Documents

Roger E. Blanton, P.E. Business Development Manager John ...content.4cmarketplace.com/presentations/FlareGasRecovery4C2015.pdfFlare Gas Recovery System Page 4 Project Considerations