Environment
and Safety
Selecting flare gas recovery system
for a greenfield refinery
Overall energy management and op-
erational conservation have become
crucial factors for profitability in today’s
refining segment. Many existing and new
refineries are initiating programs to save
energy and reduce emissions as a part of
an energy management initiative (EMI).
Losses from flaring, including process
gas and fuel gas, collectively account for
one of the largest shares of a facility’s to-
tal energy loss. Flare gas recovery systems
(FGRSs) help achieve the economic and
environmental benefits of near-zero flar-
ing. Recovered gas is reused as a fuel or
feedstock, leading to cost savings and an
improvement in overall energy efficiency.
A properly designed FGRS is capable of
handling any continuous process gas vent
connected to a flare system, limiting flaring
to upset/emergency releases and sched-
uled maintenance.
In a real-time situation, an FGRS is
economically viable in existing facilities
where the losses to flare are significant
(approximately 0.1 wt% of the refinery
throughput). Normally, in such cases,
the capacity of the FGRS is selected by
measuring and monitoring the overall
flare gas losses in the facility over a pe-
riod of time.
For an initial estimate of a greenfield
facility, the data to calculate the potential
flare gas loss figure is limited or nonex-
istent. In such cases, historical data and
prevalent practices in operating refineries
can be utilized to define FGRS capacity.
However, a more accurate estimate of to-
tal leakage in a flare system can be con-
ducted during the detailed engineering
phase, as leakages from the control valves,
S. CHAUDHURI and S. SENGUPTA,
Process Technology, Fluor Daniel India Pvt. Ltd.,
Gurgaon, India
relief valves, continuous/intermittent/ compressed flare gas is then routed to an
machinery vents, piping systems, etc., appropriate treating system to be compat-
connected to the flare are identified. ible to blend in the refinery fuel gas sys-
A major refiner in North America tem. Flare gases can have widely varying
(NA) designed a plan to build a 12-MMt- compositions that must be evaluated in
py grassroots refinery using indigenous the design of the recovery system.
crude oil. In alignment with global flare Streams with the potential for contain-
reduction initiatives, the refiner intended ing materials that are incompatible with
to evaluate the feasibility of an FGRS for the FGRSs and refinery fuel gas system
this greenfield facility. Useful insights must be evaluated to determine if they
concerning the requirements and con- should be designed to bypass the recovery
figuration of an FGRS for a grassroots system. Typically, an acid flare system is
refinery based on technical and economic not considered to be hooked to an FGRS,
evaluations are provided here. owing to high sour gas content.
A case study is highlighted that dis- Flare systems are used for both occa-
cusses the design and requirements of a sional normal process releases and emer-
system to recover the flared gases from gency releases. An FGRS is not sized for
hydrocarbon flare headers of a new re- design flare loads. An analysis is made to
finery complex. The study also discusses determine an economically optimum size
strategies to arrive at a technically and based on flare gas rate, frequency and du-
economically viable FGRS capacity for a ration. Flare loads vary widely over time,
new refinery with a payback period that and the “normal” rate may represent some
coincides with the first scheduled mainte- average flare load, or a frequently en-
nance of the refinery (normally 5 yr). countered maximum load. Actual loads
on these systems will vary widely, and an
FGRS overview. An FGRS consists of FGRS must be designed to operate over
a compressor(s) with suction that is di- a wide range of dynamically changing
rectly connected to the flare header. The loads. In the phases of front-end design,
TABLE 1. FGRS capacity information as installed in different refineries
Capacity, Yr in operation when Installed FGRS Wt% of refinery Compressor
Refinery MMtpy FGRS installed capacity, tpd throughput sparing
Refinery 1 27 4 (*) 52 0.07 2 × 100%
Refinery 2 6 42 (**) 10 0.06 2 × 100%
Refinery 3 13 FEED (***) 36.7 0.1 2 × 100%
Note:
* Refinery commissioned in April 1999. FGRS installed in November 2003. Capacity reported as in 2003.
** Refinery commissioned in 1964. Refinery expansion in 2002. FGRS installed in 2006.
*** FGRS included during front-end engineering design (FEED) phase.
Hydrocarbon Processing | AUGUST 2018 67
 Environment and Safety

it is not practically possible to calculate capability, which often makes them un- • Ability to handle gas containing
the normal flaring rate for the sizing of acceptable for an FGRS. A sliding vane condensate and particulates,
an FGRS. The capacities of the FGRS compressor can also be an option for flare as well as toxic and corrosive gases
in such cases are primarily determined gas application, if the pressure is too high • Works without lubricants
based on the FGRS capacities of existing for a roots blower but too low to justify a • System is significantly
refineries of similar scale under operation. reciprocating compressor. tolerant for sudden gas
If the gas is always dry (which is sel- and condensate surges
Compressor selection. Insights into dom the case for a refinery flare), then • The intensive contact between
optimum compressor type selection a screw compressor is another choice. It the gas being conveyed and the
and sparing, as well as positive pressure caters to higher turndown, lower power operating fluid leads to only
requirements in the flare header, are dis- draw and low cooling water consumption, a slight rise in the temperature
cussed here. The selection of compres- and has no need for water makeup and a of the gas being conveyed
sor for an FGRS is a critical decision, as discharge separator/cooler, such as a liq- • Since the compression is
its service involves long stretches of con- uid ring compressor. However, a screw- achieved with contact-free
tinuous operation, variable flowrates, a type compressor is not really tolerant for components, any local rise in
range of molecular weight of gases to be liquid and particulate carryover and the temperature is eliminated
handled, potential liquid carryover and handling of corrosive gases. • No metal parts that move
the existence of corrosive components in Considering all operating variables, against each other; therefore,
the recovered gas. a liquid ring compressor is the popular a high level of reliability in
A roots-type blower is the simplest, choice for this service, as it can handle service exists with a minimum
least expensive option for compression. the variable molecular weights and liq- of required maintenance.
However, the use of these blowers is uid carryover, in addition to the follow- The FGRS design using a liquid ring
constrained by limited casing pressure ing advantages: compressor was selected for the case study.

MP steam FGRS simplified schematic

Option 1:
FC
• Liquid ring compressors (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 1 5 tpd
HP flare • Flare gas recovery compressor knockout drums (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 15 tpd
Emergency LC • Flare gas recovery compressor knockout drum pumps (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 15 tpd
purge Utility • Seal water coolers (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 15 tpd
water To seal overflow
From HP PC
H
L
TC HP seal drum collection drum • Separator drum: 1 × 30 tpd
flare header
Option 2:
MP steam • Liquid ring compressors (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 30 tpd
HP flare • Flare gas recovery compressor knockout drums (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 30 tpd
KO drum • Flare gas recovery compressor knockout drum pumps (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 30 tpd
• Seal water coolers (1 operating + 1 spare): 2 × 30 tpd
FC • Separator drum: 1 × 30 tpd
Emergency Alky flare
LC
purge Utility
H water To seal overflow
From alky PC L TC Alky seal drum collection drum
flare header Flare gas recovery package
H2S To gas
Al
treatment
Alky flare MP steam and recovery
KO drum PY unit for amine
treatment
N2
FC O2
Emergency LP flare Al PC
purge Utility LC Liquid ring
H water To seal overflow compressor Stripped
From LP PC L TC LP seal drum collection drum
flare header sour water
makeup
LC
Seal water cooler Separator drum
LP flare
KO drum MP steam
To sour water
stripper
(non-phenolic)
FC Coker flare CWS CWR
Emergency
purge Utility LC

From cooker H water To seal overflow

flare header
PC L TC Coker seal drum collection drum

Cooker flare
KO drum

FIG. 1. A simplified FGRS schematic.

68 AUGUST 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Environment and Safety

Positive pressure requirements.
Introducing a compressor into a flare
collection network always poses the risk
of sucking in air from the atmosphere,
and the formation of an explosive
mixture within the flare network.
Provisions must be made to prevent the
backflow of air from the flare into the
flare gas recovery system.
All compressors should be equipped
with a highly reliable, low-suction pres-
sure shutdown system.
The most positive and preferred meth-
od for preventing air ingress from the flare
back into the collection system is the in-
stallation of a water seal between the flare
knockout drum and the flare tip. The seal
provides a relatively constant, low back-
pressure on the flare header and a narrow,
but usually adequate, control range (ap-
proximately 1,000-mm water column) for
the flare gas recovery control system. The
water seal should be designed to func-
tion over the pressure range in which the
FGRS is designed to operate. At higher
release rates, flare gas flows through the
water seal and to the flare.
Where process requirements
dictate that the narrow operating
ranges afforded by water seals cannot
be accepted, alternate methods are
implemented using a fail-open pressure
control valve and a high-capacity, pilot-
operated pressure relief valve, rupture
disk or buckling pin around the control
valve. This is illustrated in Figure 14 of
API Standard 521.1 However, this option
is not considered for the purpose of this
case study, as conventional water seal-
based systems are proven to function
adequately for refining applications.
Case study system configuration. The
refining complex under study had four in-
dependent hydrocarbon flare systems.

TABLE 2. Indicative equipment list for CAPEX estimation

Option 1
Design press: kg/cm2g/ Material
Equipment item Capacity/size Temp, °C of construction
Flare gas recovery compressor, liquid ring— Capacity: 15 tpd; Differential pressure, Casing: SS;
2 × 50% kg/cm2: 7.4; mol wt: 19.3; power: 92.3 kW Rotor: SS
Separator (two phases, 1 × 100%) Diameter × T/T length, mm: 1,900 x 4,600 9/70 Killed CS
Cooler: Shell and tube, 2 × 50% Duty: 33 kW; area: 6 m2 Shell: 9/70 Shell: KCS;
Tube: 10/80 Tube: CS
Line from FGRS to sat gas plant Nominal pipe size = 6 in.; length = 1,360 m 9/70 CS
Line from HP flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size = 12 in.; length = 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Line from LP flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size = 20 in.; length = 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Line from COK flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size = 20 in.; length = 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Line from ALK flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size = 12 in.; length = 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Flare header take-off line control valve 2 × 20 in.
2 × 12 in.
Control valve in the line from FGRS 6 in.
to sat gas plant
Analyzer O2, N2
Option 2
Design press: kg/cm2g/ Material
Equipment item Capacity/size Temp, °C of construction
Flare gas recovery compressor, Capacity: 30 tpd; differential pressure, Casing: SS;
liquid ring—2 × 100% kg/cm2: 7.4; mol wt: 19.3; power: 178 kW Rotor: SS
Separator (two phases, 1 × 100%) Diameter × T/T length, mm: 1,900 × 4,600 9/70 Killed CS
Cooler: Shell and tube, 2 × 100% Duty: 62.3 kW; area: 11 m2 Shell: 9/70 Shell: KCS;
Tube: 10/80 tube: CS
Line from FGRS to sat gas plant Nominal pipe size: 6 in.; length: 1,360 m 9/70 CS
Line from HP flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size: 12 in.; length: 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Line from LP flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size: 20 in.; length: 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Line from COK flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size: 20 in.; length: 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Line from ALK flare header to FGRS Nominal pipe size: 12 in.; length: 70 m 3.5/400 KCS
Flare header take-off line 2 × 20 in.
control valve 2 × 12 in.
Control valve in the line from FGRS 6 in.
to sat gas plant
Analyzer O2, N2

Hydrocarbon Processing | AUGUST 2018 69

 Environment and Safety

In addition to the high-pressure [(HP),
catering to relief from sources with a set
pressure of 7 kg/cm2g and higher)] and
low-pressure [(LP), catering to relief from
sources with a set pressure of 3.5 kg/cm2g–
7 kg/cm2g] systems, there were dedicated
flare systems for the delayed coker unit
(DCU) and alkylation (ALK) unit due to
high governing relief rates.
The FGRS for the case study was de-
signed to recover gases from all four flare
headers. The flare gases withdrawn from
the HP, LP, coker (COK) and ALK flare
headers under pressure control are routed
to a set of liquid ring compressors.
Stripped phenolic sour water from a
sour water stripper (SWS) unit is used as
the motive liquid for liquid ring compres-
sors. Alternatively, service water can be
used as motive fluid. The liquid is routed
to an SWS (phenolic) unit under level
control while emptying the separator dur-
ing maintenance.
Liquid levels in the seal drums of the
HP, LP, COK and ALK flares are suitably
selected to maintain a constant pressure
of 1.1 kg/cm2 (abs) in the flare headers,
thereby ensuring a constant suction pres-
sure for the compressor system in absence
of significant relief.
TABLE 3. Economic evaluation—the CAPEX/OPEX values presented
are for comparison only1
CAPEX, $MM/yr
Product, utility and power load
Service Units
Recovered fuel gas Tpd
Seal water cooler MMkCal/hr
OPEX estimation
The compressed gas is separated from
the liquid in the separator. The liquid
from the separator is cooled in a cooler to
remove the heat absorbed by the motive
fluid, and then recycled back to the liquid
ring compressor.
The seal liquid is considered to have
enough pressure head for circulation and
transfer to an SWS unit in case of turn-
around operation. For the purpose of this
case study, the seal liquid recycle pumps
and seal liquid transfer pumps to the SWS
unit were not considered.
The compressed gas, free from liquid,
is routed to a gas treatment and recovery
system (sat gas) for amine treatment to
remove sour impurities, if any. The gas
is then finally routed to the refinery fuel
gas system.
The compressor train is provided with
100% recycle. Safety interlocks are pro-
vided to isolate the FGRS from the flare
header and trip compressor on the follow-
ing conditions:
• Low flare header pressure
• High flare header velocity
(high flow)
• High oxygen content in flare
header (measured by an O2
analyzer at FGRS inlet)
Option 1 Option 2 Differential
2.64 2.76 0.12
Option 1 Option 2 Differential
10 10 0 culated based on an estimated velocity of
0.0284 0.0536 0.252
• High nitrogen content in
flare header (measured by
an N2 analyzer at FGRS inlet)
• High temperature in flare header.
Considering the composition of the
gases to be handled, the refinery operating
philosophy and capital/operating costs,
the decision was made to have 2 × 100%
or 2 × 50% spare for the FGRS compres-
sor and other associated equipment. The
study covers both of these options to pro-
vide high-level guidance (FIG. 1).
Arriving at the sizing basis. An FGRS
is economically viable in existing refiner-
ies, and the implementation decision is
made after executing an economic viability
study. FGRS capacity is selected by con-
tinuously measuring and monitoring the
overall flare gas loss in the refinery for a
considerable period of time.
As no method exists to calculate this
potential flare gas loss figure for a green-
field refinery during the basic engineer-
ing phase, historical data and the preva-
lent practices in operating refineries are
utilized to determine FGRS capacity
(TABLE 1).
During the engineering phase, a rea-
sonable estimate of total flare system leak-
age can be achieved by assuming a per-
centage of leakage for the control/relief
valves once all relief valves, control valves
and continuous/intermittent/machinery
vents connected to the flare system are
identified. Conservative leakage values
for pressure relief devices can be obtained
from API Standard 527. The total fuel
gas purge quantity can be accurately cal-
purge gas through the flare header that is

approximately 0.03 ft/sec. (0.01 m/sec).

FGRS compressor kW 92.3 178 85.7
The flare header sizes are finalized based
Utility consumption and maintenance, $MM/yr on the design flare loads for the facility.
Item Unit cost Option 1 Option 2 Differential Components of the preliminary
Power $120/MWhr 0.092 0.178 0.086 capacity calculation include:
Refinery throughput: 250 Mbpd
Cooling water $0.049/m 3
0.002 0.003 0.001
Onstream factor: 95%
Maintenance 0.5 % of CAPEX/yr 0.0132 0.0138 0.0006 Operating hr: 365 × 24 × 0.95
Total OPEX, $MM/yr 0.1076 0.1942 0.0866 = 8,322 hr
Product cost, $MM/yr Crude oil density: 924 kg/m3
Refinery throughput: 36,729 tpd
Item Unit cost Option 1 Option 2 Differential
Weighted average of refinery capacity
Recovered fuel gas $6/MMBtu 0.878 0.878 0 (i.e., FGRS capacity for all refineries
Profit/yr (Product cost – OPEX), $MM/yr Option 1 Option 2 Differential listed in TABLE 2 is 0.074%)
0.7702 0.6838 0.0864 Estimated FGRS capacity: 0.074 ×
36,729/100 = 27.3 tpd
Payout period (CAPEX ÷ profit) Option 1 Option 2 Differential
Taking a 10% margin, FGRS capacity:
3.4 4 0.6 27.3 × 1.1 = 30 tpd
70 AUGUST 2018 | HydrocarbonProcessing.com
 Environment and Safety

The amount of purge gas used for
purging the hydrocarbon flare headers is
estimated as 10 tpd.
Installation options. For installation
Option 1, 30 tpd of compression capac-
ity is installed in two trains of 15 tpd
each. It is assumed that for the first 4 yr,
flare loss gases are essentially only purge
gases; therefore, one of the 15-tpd com-
pressors will operate while the other acts
as a standby. After 4 yr, when leakages
from relief and control valves increase,
the second 15-tpd compressor will also
start operating continuously.
For this installation option, it is as-
sumed that the refinery can sustain op-
eration without the FGRS for a limited
period of time without any significant
impact. In Option 1, the FGRS operates
without a spare after the first 4 yr of refin-
ery operation.
For installation Option 2, it is sug-
gested to install 30 tpd of compressing
capacity with 100% spare. The FGRS
compressor should always have installed
spare capacity in the case of Option 2,
thereby ensuring high availability and re-
liability of the FGRS (TABLE 3).
Takeaway. For the case study, FGRS
installation (both Options 1 and 2) are
observed to recoup their capital cost
around the first planned refinery-wide
maintenance operation, which is typically
in the first 4 yr of production. This is very
encouraging in view of an overall refinery
design life of 20 yr.
Between the two options presented,
it is observed that the capital investment,
as well as variable costs, are higher in the
case of Option 2, with only a 0.6-yr incre-
mental payback period. The incremental
capital cost and payback period for Op-
tion 2 are offset by the increased operat-
ing flexibility and reliability in terms of
100% sparing capacity.
As an outcome of the case study, the in-
stallation of an FGRS was recommended
for the new NA refinery. While it is dif-
ficult to quantify the economic viability
of an FGRS due to the uncertainty in the
amount of gas that can be recovered and the
variable nature of recovered gases, which is
a strong function of refinery housekeeping
practices, the outcome of the techno-eco-
nomic analysis was positive.
NOTE
The conclusions presented here are solely those of
the authors and cannot be ascribed to Fluor Corp., nor
to any of its subsidiaries.
LITERATURE CITED
1
API Standard 521, “Pressure relieving and depres-
suring systems,” 6th Ed., 2014.
SUSHREE CHAUDHURI is a
Process Engineer with Fluor
New Delhi. She has 17 yr of
experience in petroleum refining,
petrochemicals, offshore oil and gas
and flare systems, and front-end
and detailed design. Ms. Chaudhuri
earned BS degrees in chemistry and chemical
engineering from the University of Calcutta.
SAUMYA SENGUPTA is a Principal
Specialty Engineer with Fluor New
Delhi. He has 25 yr of experience in
petroleum refining, petrochemical
complex and utilities/offsites, and
front-end and detailed design.
Mr. Sengupta earned BS degrees
in chemistry and chemical technology (petroleum
refinery engineering) from the University of Calcutta.

11th ANNUAL
NATIONAL ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANK
•
•
F REE T RA DE S HOW
Conference Sessions
Free Trade Show
CONFERENCE & TRADE SHOW • Welcome Reception
September 12-13, 2018 • Cocktail Mixer on the
Trade Show Floor
Moody Gardens | Galveston, Texas
• Golf Tournament

NISTM
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR STORAGE TANK MANAGEMENT
www.NISTM.org | 800.827.3515
International 011.813.600.4024

Hydrocarbon Processing | AUGUST 201871