05.03.2014 Views

Part III: Flare Reduction Project Family - IPIECA

Part III: Flare Reduction Project Family - IPIECA

Part III: Flare Reduction Project Family - IPIECA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Section 7. <strong>Flare</strong> <strong>Reduction</strong> <strong>Project</strong> <strong>Family</strong><br />

EXHIBIT 7.3:<br />

<strong>Flare</strong> Gas Recovery for On-Site Power Generation, continued<br />

• The combustion and fugitive emissions associated with dehydration and compression<br />

of the associated gas for flaring in the baseline scenario are the same as dehydration<br />

and compression to prepare this gas for use as fuel in the generator engine drivers in<br />

the project scenario. Similarly, the minor combustion and fugitive emissions<br />

associated with oil-gas separation in the baseline scenario are unchanged by<br />

implementation of the project.<br />

• All of the gas flared in the baseline scenario is used as fuel in the project scenario.<br />

However the quantity of gas is sufficient to meet only 90% of the required annual fuel<br />

stream to the replacement engines, with the remaining 10% of the fuel still supplied in<br />

the form of crude oil.<br />

• Electric power generating capacity is 950 kW in the baseline scenario using the<br />

existing engines. The thermal efficiency of these engines burning only crude oil is<br />

28%. Most of the produced electrical energy is used to drive electric pumps for<br />

shipment of the remaining produced crude oil to an off-site destination.<br />

• Electric power generating capacity in the project scenario uses new, more efficient<br />

engines rated at 1350 kW, and these engines are configured to operate on both<br />

associated gas and crude oil fuel. Thermal efficiency of the replacement engines is<br />

33% on associated gas fuel and 30% on crude oil.<br />

• The quantity of crude oil used for power generation in the project scenario is 2,362<br />

barrels per year. This scenario thus enables 11,601 additional barrels of crude to be<br />

shipped to markets compared with the baseline scenario. The increase in fugitive<br />

emissions associated with this increment of crude oil shipping is negligibly small.<br />

Baseline Emissions<br />

Baseline emissions = CMB 1 + VENT 1 + FUG 1 + IND 1<br />

where,<br />

CMB 1 = Combustion emissions from the flared stream prior to the project and from<br />

the combustion of crude oil to operate the pump engines.<br />

VENT 1 = Vented gas from maintenance or upset conditions associated with gas<br />

separation, dehydration, and compression. The vented emissions also occur<br />

unchanged in the project activity and therefore cancel out in the calculation<br />

of project emission reductions.<br />

FUG 1 = Fugitive emissions from process units associated with gas separation,<br />

dehydration, and compression. These fugitive emissions also occur in the<br />

project activity and therefore cancel out in the calculation of baseline<br />

emission reductions.<br />

IND 1 = Indirect emissions would result from usage of electricity obtained from<br />

outside sources. No such purchased power is used for either the baseline or<br />

project scenarios.<br />

October 2009 51

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!