flare monitoring using visr technology

Spring 2018

Flare Monitoring

Using VISR Technology

Instructor: Yousheng Zeng, PhD, PE

Providence Photonics

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

OUTLINE

Introduction

Working principle of Video Imaging Spectral Radiometer (VISR) as it applies to flare monitoring

Features of VISR flare monitor

Validation of VISR flare monitoring technology

Flare monitoring regulations

Topics on VISR flare monitoring applications▪ For fixed installations

▪ For short-term flare studies

▪ For methane emission quantification

Questions and answers

2

INTRODUCTION

3

INTRODUCTION

Introduction to class attendees

Historical background

▪ Flare as a safety device

▪ Evolved into a dual-purpose device: safety and emissions control

▪ 1986: EPA promulgated emission standard for flare under NSPS

Subpart A (40 CFR 60.18). Amended 1998 and 2000.

o No visible emissions – determined by EPA Method 22

o Presence of flame (pilot)

o Vent gas net heating value (VG NHV) must be 300 Btu/scf or greater for

assisted flare, and 200 Btu/scf or greater for non-assisted flare

o Flare tip velocity must be less than 60 ft/sec or determined by formula

4

INTRODUCTION

Historical background (cont’d)

▪ 2000 Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS) and 2006/2007 TexAQS II

▪ 2010 TCEQ Flare Study

▪ 2014-2015: EPA residual risk and technology review (RTR) for

refinery sector required by Clean Air Act, including 2011 EPA

information collection request (ICR)

▪ Multiple flare consent decrees (CD)

5

INTRODUCTION

Historical background (cont’d)

▪ December 2015: EPA promulgated new emission standards for flare

under NESHAP Subpart CC (40 CFR 63.670)

o Effective date: February 1, 2016

o Compliance deadline: January 30, 2019

oMost significant changes

• Continuous monitoring

• From vent gas net heating value (VG NHV) to combustion zone net heating value

(CZNHV)

6

INTRODUCTION

Fundamental problem – Flare burns in open air. No practical

method to monitor flare performance (… until now)

▪ Flare is probably the only process unit at refineries and chemical

plants for which operators have no feedback on how the unit is

working

▪ Flare is regulated based on surrogate parameters on what is fed to

the flare, not how the flare is performing – more discussion later

The answer to this problem – VISR flare monitor

7

WORKING PRINCIPLE OF VISR

8


Video Imaging Spectral Radiometer (VISR) – What’s in the name?

▪ “Video Imaging”o Not a point or path measurement. It images the entire flame

o Video frame rate - ~30 frames per second (or 30 Hz)

▪ “Spectral”: capturing images in multiple spectral bands to target different species in the flame

▪ “Radiometer”: meaning the measurement in each spectral band is calibrated to the same radiometry standard, enabling quantitative analysis of the images

Commercial VISR product is made and marketed by Providence Photonics under the brand “Mantis”

9


VISR is different from other flare measurement methods

▪ Extractive

▪ Passive FTIR (or PFTIR)

10

Extractive Sampling

- Point measurement

- Not suitable for routine

monitoring

PFTIR

- Path measurement

(the path is reduced

to a point)

- Not suitable for

routine monitoring

VISR

- 3-D measurement (3-D

flame is reduced to a 2-D

image)

- Suitable for autonomous

monitoring or short-term

study


11

Differences between VISR and PFTIR

VISR PFTIR

Mode of

operation

Entire flame is imaged

• No aiming

• Autonomous operation

Path measurement:

• Must be aimed at certain region of the flame

• Results could be different when aimed at different

regions of the flame

• Operator needs to constantly chase the flame

Data

acquisition

cycle

Frame rate is 30 Hz. Actual integration

time is even shorter. Analogy: High

speed camera taking a picture of fast

moving object (flame) → clear picture.

1 Hz or longer, assumes flame is not moving during

that time. Analogy: a camera with shutter setting of

1 sec to catch a fast moving object → picture

blurred

Spectral

resolution

Low, but adequate for the intended

purpose

High, but unnecessary, and undesirable for

autonomous and continuous monitoring – too much

data

Data

reduction

No spectral deconvolution. Each spectral

band is measured independently

Complicated spectral deconvolution


Each pixel represents a

column of gases in the

flame

Unburned hydrocarbons

and combustion product

(CO2) in the flame are

measured separately

and simultaneously

If there is no unburned

hydrocarbon, CE=100%

for that pixel

12


Flare CE is determined only on

the “combustion envelope” of

the flame where combustion

has ceased

Flare CE is spatially averaged

over pixels on the combustion

envelope, and then averaged

temporally across all frames

captured in one second

13

Flame footprint

Combustion envelope

FEATURES OF VISR FLARE MONITOR

14

FEATURES OF A VISR FLARE MONITOR

VISR flare monitor remotely, directly, autonomously, and continuously monitors the following flare performance metrics:▪ Combustion Efficiency (CE)

▪ Smoke Index (SI)

▪ Flame Stability (FS)

▪ Flame Footprint (FF)

▪ Heat Release (HR)

All metrics are averaged spatially across the combustion envelope, and temporally to 1-sec (and other average periods as desired)

Results can be streamed to other process control systems through industry standard protocols (e.g., Modbus TCP)

15

VISR ENABLED FLARE MONITORING

Continuously monitor flare performance

16

▪ Red: CO2

▪ Green:

unburned HC

▪ White/blue:

smokeUp to 1000 ft.

COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY (CE)

Example TP11

17

VISR flame image Flame footprint Combustion envelope

For this Test Point 11▪ CE=99.1% (Ex)

▪ CE=98.7% (VISR)

▪ SI=1.22

▪ FS=93

▪ FF=217 sq. ft.

▪ HR=3,171 Btu/min

SMOKE INDEX (SI)

Smoke Index (SI) is derived from radiance of carbon particles in the flame▪ SI=0: no smoke

▪ SI=10: Highest rating for smoke

▪ SI ~ 1-1.5 begin to see visible smoke

Examples

18

TP01

SI = 5.6

TP06

SI = 1.58

TP11

SI = 1.22

SMOKE INDEX (SI)

Examples – visible and VISR images

19

TP01

SI = 5.6

TP11

SI = 1.22

▪ Red: CO2

▪ Green: unburned HC

▪ White/blue: smoke

FLAME STABILITY (FS)

Flame Stability (FS) is a measurement of consistency in terms of thermal energy released by the flare. It is measured in the range of 0 to 100:▪ FS=0: most unstable

▪ FS=100: most stable

Examples:

20

TP11, FS=93

TP12, FS=92

TP13, FS=64

TP14, FS=28

FLAME STABILITY (FS)

VISR images of stable and unstable flames

21

TP11

FS = 93

TP13

FS = 64

FLAME FOOTPRINT (FF)

Flame Footprint (FF) is a measure of the size of the flame. The default measure is the cross section area perpendicular to the direction of VISR flare monitor line of sight. In addition, the length of the major axis of the flame can also be reported to provide a measure of flame length.

A significant portion of the flame is not visible to the naked eye, but is part of the flame and detectable by VISR

22

TP11, Frame 1

FF = 238.5 sq. ft.

(Flame length = 37.8 ft.

TP27, Frame 1

FF = 38.1 sq. ft.

(Flame length = 13.3 ft.)

HEAT RELEASE (HR)

Heat Release (HR) is a measure of the amount of thermal

energy, in Btu/min, released by the flare due to combustion.

HR represents only a portion of the thermal energy in the

wavelength of VISR flare monitor’s spectral range (within 3-5

μm).

HR is expected to be correlated with the total heat released

(Btu/min) from the flare under similar conditions.

23

HEAT RELEASE (HR)

24

Test data has shown HR correlates with Btu input from vent gas

The correlation is weaker when there is significant smoke or a significant portion of the hydrocarbon is not combusted

Potential to use VISR to estimate mass emission rate

VALIDATION OF VISR FLARE MONITORING TECHNOLOGY

25

VALIDATION TEST – NOV. 2014

26

Test conducted at Zeeco

Test Facility in Tulsa, OK

Three types of flares tested– QFS: air assisted, 16”

– AFDS: air assisted, 10”

– MPGF: sonic, 4”

Three types of fuel tested

– Propane and propane/nitrogen blend

– Propylene

– Natural gas

Range of fuel firing

– 237 lb/hr to 7,994 lb/hr

QFS:

Steam

assisted

flare

MPGF:

Multi-point

sonic flare

AFDS: Air

assisted

flare


27

Trailer for

Extractive Testing

Heated sample line

VISR Imager prototype

Each run: 30 sec.

Imager to flare

ground distance:

300 ft.

Extractive

sampling

apparatus

Test Setup


28

Flare Operating Conditions

AFDS air assisted 10” flare– Fuel:

• Propane: 237-7,994 lb/hr

– Air• 9,107 SCFM

constant, 33% -1,123% SA

– NHVdil• 5-1,437 Btu/sq.

ft.

MPGF sonic 4” flare– Fuel:

• Propane: 5,079 lb/hr

• Propylene: 4,952 lb/hr

• Propane/Nitrogen: 2,448 / 1,285 lb/hr

• Natural Gas: 3,300 lb/hr

QFS steam assisted 16” flare– Fuel:

• Propane: 1,537-5,105 lb/hr

• Propylene: 539-4,910 lb/hr

– Steam• 0-2,350 lb/hr

• Steam/HC ratio of 0-4.36 lb/lb

– CZNHV• 192-2,281 Btu/scf


29

A total of 39 test runs

– 28 runs for CE validation (9 for AFDS, 11 for QFS, and

8 for MPGF)

– 4 runs under heavy smoke conditions to evaluate

“Smoke Index” metric

– 5 runs to evaluate VISR range capability

– 2 runs to evaluate VISR ability to detect flare pilot flame


30

Example of extractive sampling and VISR test


31

VISR Performance – Accuracy

28 test runs are compared.

Average difference between the extractive method and VISR is 0.5%

The difference is smaller in the high CE range, and larger in the low CE range (e.g., when CE is in 60-80%)


32

Comparison of VISR, PFTIR, and Extractive Sampling Data

Data provided by Zeeco. PFTIR and VISR tests were done under the same flare op. conditions, but at different times


33

VISR Performance – Linearity

CE measured by VISR

correlates well with CE

measured by extractive

testing; r2 = 0.9856

based on 28 test runs

regardless of flare

types, fuel types, and

combustion conditions.


34

VISR Performance – Precision/Repeatability

During the test, duplicated measurements were

made for 11 test conditions (covering all three flare

types and fuel types). The difference between two

duplicated CE values was obtained:

– For extractive sampling, the average difference over the 11 paired tests was 0.07% in CE measurement.

– For VISR, the average difference over the 11 paired tests was 0.20% in CE measurement.

Very good repeatability

VALIDATION TEST – SEPT. 2016

Test conducted at Zeeco Test Facility in Tulsa, OK

– Steam flare: QFS, 16”

– Air flare: AFDS, 10”

– Fuels tested: propylene, natural gas (NG), and NG/nitrogen (N2) blend

Performance measured by Combustion Efficiency (CE)

– Extractive method

– VISR method

35

Extractive

Sampling

VISR Flare

Monitor

VALIDATION TEST – SEPT. 2016

36

28 test runs are compared; 14 on steam flare and 14 on air flare.

Average difference between the extractive method and VISR is -0.7%, excluding tests with heavy smoke and when CE is < 80%.

ALL VALIDATION TESTS

As of spring 2018, 72 validation

tests have been conducted using

extractive sampling as a reference

method, 44 of them were blind

tests administered by third party

37

Accuracy:

within 1% !!!


A wide range of process conditions have been covered by

validation tests

❖Flare type: steam, air, and pressure assisted flares

❖Vent gas flow rate: 10 lb/hr to 10,000 lb/hr

❖Steam or air flow rates: various to achieve desired combustion

zone net heating value (NHVcz)

▪ For steam flare: 120 to 1,250 Btu/scf. (Ref.: 270 Btu/scf. in the new RSR)

▪ For air flare: Dilution Net Heating Value (NHVdil) from 6.7 to 244 Btu/ft2

(Ref.: 22 Btu/ft2 in the new RSR)

❖Fuel composition: Methane, propane, propylene, and natural gas,

pure or blended with nitrogen or hydrogen (up to 75% H2 by vol.)

38


A wide range of environmental conditions have been covered by validation tests❖Distance: 150 – 700 ft. Any distance is acceptable as long as there

is a recognizable flame in the image

❖Wind direction (crosswind, wind oriented towards VISR imager, and wind oriented away from VISR imager)

❖Wind speed

❖Time of day (daytime, nighttime)

❖Sky (blue sky, overcast, moving clouds)

❖Sun in the field of view

❖Rain (light/moderate rain has been tested, no data under heavy rain conditions)

❖Fog (dense fog can introduce a small bias, ~1-2% in CE)

39

FLARE MONITORING REGULATIONS

40

SURROGATE PARAMETERS

41

Regulations are based on surrogate parameters to measure what goes into the flare, not necessarily how the flare performs. Two surrogate parameters are used:– Flare tip exit velocity

– Net heating value (NHV):• General flare rule (40 CFR 60.18) – Vent Gas NHV (VG NHV) must be

▪ ≥ 300 Btu/scf for assisted flare

▪ ≥ 200 Btu/scf for non-assisted flare.

• New rule for refineries [40 CFR 63.670 (e) and (f)] –▪ Combustion Zone NHV (CZNHV) must be ≥ 270 Btu/scf

▪ For flares with perimeter assist air, NHV Dilution parameter (NHVdil) must be ≥ 22 Btu/sq. ft.

▪ Compliance deadline: January 30, 2019

Do surrogate parameters track flare performance?

A CASE STUDY

Test conducted in Sept. 2016 at Zeeco Test Facility in Tulsa, OK, with the primary purpose of validating a new flare monitoring technology, Video Imaging Spectral Radiometer (VISR), with conventional extractive method used as the reference method

Flares tested:– Steam flare: QFS, 16”

– Air flare (perimeter air assist): AFDS, 10”

– Fuels tested: propylene, natural gas (NG), and NG/nitrogen (N2) blend

28 test conditions: 14 for steam flare and 14 for air flare

42

Extractive

Sampling

VISR Flare

Monitor

TEST RESULTS – STEAM FLARE, 40 CFR 60.18

40 CFR 60.18 requirements: VG NHV ≥ 300 Btu/scf

As a surrogate for combustion efficiency (CE), VG NHV worked in 12 test conditions out of 14

Failed 2 out of 14: VG NHV < 300 Btu/scf, but CE>96.5% (yellow bar with red border in the chart on right).

43

TEST RESULTS – STEAM FLARE, 40 CFR 63.670 (e)

40 CFR 63.670 (e) requirements: CZNHV ≥ 270 Btu/scf

As a surrogate for CE, CZNHV worked in 11 test conditions out of 14

Failed 3 out of 14: CZNHV < 270 Btu/scf, but CE>96.5% (yellow bar with red border in the chart on right).

44

TEST RESULTS – AIR FLARE, 40 CFR 60.18

45

40 CFR 60.18 requirements: VG NHV ≥ 300 Btu/scf

As a surrogate for CE, VG NHV worked in 7 test conditions out of 14

Failed 7 out of 14:

▪ VG NHV < 300 Btu/scf, but CE>96.5% (yellow bar with red border)

▪ VG NHV > 300 Btu/scf, but CE< 96.5% (yellow bar with purple border)

TEST RESULTS – AIR FLARE, 40 CFR 63.670 (f)

46

40 CFR 63.670 (f) requirements for perimeter air assist: NHVdil ≥ 22 Btu/sq. ft.

As a surrogate for CE, NHVdil worked in 8 test conditions out of 14

Failed 6 out of 14:

▪ NHVdil < 22 Btu/sq. ft., but CE>96.5% (yellow bar with red border)

▪ NHVdil > 22 Btu/sq. ft., but CE< 96.5% (yellow bar with purple border)

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO INDUSTRY?

Using CZNHV, VG NHV, or NHVdil for perimeter air assisted flare could over-regulate, i.e., CZNHV is below the required level, but flare CE is meeting or exceeding the intended targetOver-regulation means unmerited/excessive “deviations” or “violations”Unnecessarily adding supplemental fuel to bring CZNHV to 270 Btu/scf– Higher cost

– Higher emissions (e.g., higher GHG emissions)

– The monitoring methods specified in the rule further exacerbate these problems due to a long analytical cycle (e.g., 8 minutes in the 15-minute regulatory window), and supplemental fuel feed cannot be changed until the next data point.

47

FLARE MONITORING CHALLENGES

The indirect method specified in the RSR requires at least 10 instruments to derive a single surrogate parameter (combustion zone net heating value, or NHVcz) for compliance determination. It presents significant challenges:High cost – both initial capital cost and recurring O&M cost

Latency▪ Very little or no time to respond/make corrective actions within the 15 minute regulatory

window – number of compliance deviations could be very high

▪ Unnecessarily adding more supplemental fuel – higher fuel costs and more GHG emissions to be reported

System reliability and data availability issues due to the shear number of instruments involved and corrosive process stream – again, compliance risk

Scheduling challenges – installations need to coincide with scheduled turnaround or additional process shutdowns may be required

NHVcz may not reflect the true flare performance (combustion efficiency and destruction efficiency)

48

IF VISR FLARE MONITOR IS USED…

Short data cycle – 1 Hz

– Faster responses to avoid deviation in

the 15-min window

– Savings on supplemental fuel

Fewer instruments

Remote measurement

– No contact with process stream

– Minimal O&M expense

– Installation and maintenance: no need to

wait for turnaround or costly shutdown

49

1 = 10+


50

Flare 1

Mantis TM

Flare 2

DCS or

PLC

Vent GasSteam/Air

Vent GasSteam/Air

OperatorOr

Video output

Real-time data output

for CE and SI

Supplemental Fuel

Supplemental Fuel

Close loop flare operation/optimization

Less expensive than the surrogate methods

One VISR device monitors more than one flare – cost savings


51

Combination of CE and SI provides practical way to achieve incipient smoke point (ISP) and prevent flare from running off the road

CE SI

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=KbPqYTZej8J7TM&tbnid=IoL6aqVb66eXFM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http://www.walkerautoparts.com/Manuals.html&ei=Fy5hUtrVDoTA4AOhlYCwDQ&bvm=bv.54176721,d.dmg&psig=AFQjCNFOKtXieO2q4rgQJ3a_pNm8lTKQAw&ust=1382186872673188


52

Pilot flame can be monitored ✓ Monitor presence of pilot flame - EPA rule 40 CFR §63.670 (b)

✓ It’s based on pilot flame, not temp.

✓ Remote monitoring – easy to maintain

Pilots

➢ Blue portion:

metal pilot hood

➢ Red portion:

pilot flame


53

All regulatory requirements could be covered by this single device!

EPA Rule 40

CFR Part 63

Purpose of Rule Can VISR

Cover It?

§63.670 (b) Presence of pilot flame Yes

§63.670 (c) No visible emissions Yes

§63.670 (d) The three requirements are

designed to ensure sufficient CE

through surrogate parameters

Yes

§63.670 (e)

§63.670 (f)

REGULATORY PATH FOR VISR

54

Approval process (EPA Guidance Document GD-022)

Submittal – Request can be submitted NOW

✓Request letter – a draft template request letter has been prepared by

Providence

✓Supporting technical documents – Providence has been working with

EPA in parallel.

Criteria:

✓Adequacy

✓Stringency

✓Both criteria have been demonstrated through validation tests and

other technical data

REGULATORY PATH FOR VISR

55

Timing issue

One-year extension under 40 CFR 63.6(i)

✓Granted by delegated authority, i.e., state/local agencies (they

can consult with EPA if they wish).

✓Justified by the implementation of VISR.

✓Providence has discussed with a state agency, and obtained

verbal approval for the extension.

✓Providence will assist early adopters with submittal for one-year

extension request.

✓Nothing to lose, lots to gain!

TOPICS ON VISR FLARE MONITOR APPLICATIONS

56

FIXED INSTALLATION

Regulatory compliance

Process automation

Better methane emission quantification – see later slides

57

Flare 1

Mantis TM

Flare 2

DCS or

PLC

Vent GasSteam/Air

Vent GasSteam/Air

OperatorOr

Video output

Real-time data output

for CE and SI

Supplemental Fuel

Supplemental Fuel

FIXED INSTALLATION

Optimal distance to flareAdditional range can be achieved using site-specific lens or a dual-lens configurationPossible to monitor more than one flare with one Mantis flare monitorFactory calibrated, good for at least a yearRoutine maintenance –very minimal: clean the enclosure window if dust accumulates

58

BENEFITS OF USING VISR

59

Much simpler operation, more reliable, and less headaches

Cost savings

Reduce capital costs by ~50% (or more if one VISR device is used to monitor more than one flare)

Virtually eliminate annual O&M costs

More cost savings when VISR is also used for monitoring visible emissions and pilot flame

Reduce costs associated with unscheduled shutdowns, deviation/non-compliance, etc.

Eliminate/reduce costs for compliance with visible emission requirements

1 = 10+

BENEFITS OF USING VISR

60

Closed-loop control of flare

Incipient Smoke Point (ISP) operations

Fast response (one second data resolution with no latency vs. 8-12 minute data resolution for GC)

Minimizing deviations within the 15-min regulatory compliance time window

Supplemental fuel savings

Remote sensing

No need to interrupt process for installation or maintenance

No contact with potentially corrosive process streams – low maintenance

No calibration gases and other routine maintenance tasks associated with indirect method

SHORT-TERM OR TEMPORARY USE

Mantis flare monitor can be used on a short-term or temporary basis for:

▪ Compliance planning and readiness assessment

▪ Temporary coverage for other flare monitoring instruments

▪ Troubleshooting

▪ Engineering or design study

▪ Flare research

▪ Enclosed combustor or any open flame or hot combustion gases (temp ~1,000 F or higher)

61


Setup

62

Or

On vehicleOn tripod


No site preparation

Line of sight to the flare at distances from 100 ft. to 1,000 ft.

Powered by single 110 V/10A supply, portable generator or vehicle with an power inverter

Set up time is 15 min. or less

Test can be conducted day or night

Flare metrics available immediately, no need for data reduction or post processing

63

FRAME-BY-FRAME STUDY – GOOD COMBUSTION

64

A parcel of fuel gas is combusted in about 0.47 sec. (14 frames)

Frame 166Frame 167…

Frame 170…

Frame 173…

Frame 176…

Frame 179Frame 180

Fuel

CO2

Color in images:

Green: Hydrocarbon

Red: CO2Fuel

CO2

FRAME-BY-FRAME STUDY – SEVERE OVER-STEAMING

65

Frame 011

Frame 012

Frame 013

Frame 015

Frame 014

Frame 016Frame 017

Frame 018

Frame 019

What is happening when flare is pulsing…

0.033 sec.

Color in the images

Green: Hydrocarbon

Red: CO2

Bluish/white: Carbon particles

or hot solid object


66

Frame 011

Frame 012

Frame 013

Frame 015

Frame 014

Frame 016Frame 017

Frame 018

Frame 019

What is happening when flare is pulsing…

0.033 sec.

Cycle time ~ 16

frames or ~0.5 sec.


67

Frame 015

Significant

amount of

unburned

hydrocarbon

(green color).

Too cold to

continue

combustion

Frame 011

Frame 012

Frame 013

Frame 015

Frame 014

Frame 016

Frame 018

Frame 017

Frame 019

Color in the images

Green: Hydrocarbon

Red: CO2

Bluish/white: Carbon particles

or hot solid object

TWO FLARES IN THE SAME FIELD OF VIEW

Technically feasible. This feature will be added in next version of the software

Two ways to monitor more than one flare with one Mantis flare monitor“Time sharing”: use a pan-and-

tilt platform with preset positions

Cover more than one flare in the same field of view. No need for pan-and-tilt platform. Algorithm will separate them.

68

A WEEK-LONG CONTINUOUS TEST

Small torches to simulate flares – the main purpose is to run

the system continuously for a longer period of time

69

Flare 2

Flare 1

VISR

Monitor


A week-long test

with sporadic

flaring events –

an overview

▪ Repeatable

results from day

to day

▪ Same results

from two

distances

70


A week-long test with sporadic flaring events

– zooming in to a flaring event

71

Avg CE Avg SI Avg CE Avg SI

March 22, 1:16 pm - 1:30 pm 99.4 0.0

March 22, 1:36 pm - 1:49 pm 99.2 0.0

March 22, 1:51 pm - 2:09 pm 97.5 6.4

Flare 1 Flare 2

VISR MONITOR FOR ENCLOSED COMBUSTOR

VISR can be used to test

enclosed combustors

Gas exiting from the top of

enclosed combustor must

be hot (~ 1,000 OF, which is

expected by design)

Same data will be

generated as for flare

testing

72

CE=89.0%

METHANE EMISSIONS

Methane is a Greenhouse Gas (GHG).

In recent years, there has been a lot of attention to methane emissions from Oil and Gas field.

73

Photo by WildEarth Guardians

Source: EPA

METHANE EMISSIONS

Significant portion of GHG emissions is from methane, and the methane’s contribution is much higher in the oil and gas industry, in which flares (including enclosed combustors in upstream oil and gas) make one of largest source categories

74

Source: EPA

METHANE EMISSIONS

Companies are

making

commitments to

reduce methane

emissions

75

METHANE EMISSIONS

Methane’s Global Warming Potential (GWP) is 28-36 on the 100-year scale and 84-87 on the 20-year scale. Per 2014 EPA emission factor, 25 is used for GHG reporting.

An uncertainty in flare CE can make a big difference in GHG reporting:

76

CO2

(mol)

Methane

(mol)

CO2

(g)

Methane

(g CO2e)

GHG

Emission

(g CO2e)

GHG

Emission

Change

Baseline: CE=98% 98 2 4,312 800 5,112If actual CE is 99% 99 1 4,356 400 4,756 -7.0%If actual CE is 96% 96 4 4,224 1,600 5,824 13.9%If actual CE is 90% 90 10 3,960 4,000 7,960 55.7%

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Providence wishes to thank Zeeco, Inc. for providing test facilities during the development of VISR technology

Providence received U.S. EPA Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) Phase I and Phase II for the development and commercialization of the VISR technology

77

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

78

QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS…

79

Yousheng Zeng, PhD, PE, CEO

[email protected]

Jon Morris, CTO

[email protected]

www.providencephotonics.com

+1-225-766-7400

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.providencephotonics.com/

flare monitoring using visr technology

Documents