Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and

Environmental Effects

ISSN: 1556-7036 (Print) 1556-7230 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueso20

Technical, economic, and environmental

assessment of flare gas recovery system: a case
study

Seyed Morteza Mousavi, Kamran Lari, Gholamreza Salehi & Masoud Torabi
Azad

To cite this article: Seyed Morteza Mousavi, Kamran Lari, Gholamreza Salehi & Masoud Torabi
Azad (2020): Technical, economic, and environmental assessment of flare gas recovery system:
a case study, Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, DOI:
10.1080/15567036.2020.1737597

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1737597

Published online: 13 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueso20
ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1737597

Technical, economic, and environmental assessment of flare gas

recovery system: a case study
Seyed Morteza Mousavia, Kamran Laria, Gholamreza Salehi b
, and Masoud Torabi Azada
a
Department of Physical Oceanography, North Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran; bDepartment of
Mechanical Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Concerns over the environmental impacts of GHG emissions have led Received 17 September 2019
refineries to deploy different FGR methods, most of which requiring new Revised 4 February 2020
equipment and costly design and construction. In this research, we study Accepted 26 February 2020
three main methods of FGR to reduce energy consumption and control
KEYWORDS
environmental pollution by the use of an environmental flow diagram and Flare gas; energy recovery;
HYSYS, Thermo flow and aspen software. Three main scenarios are investi- environmental pollution;
gated for FGR with a technical and economic assessment of energy con- environmental flow diagram;
sumption and total flare gas flow is 4.5 MMSCFD in a gas field in southern combined heat and power
Iran. The first scenario is pressurizing and injecting flare gas into oil wells,
the second is producing electricity and injecting surplus flare gas into oil
wells, and the third is producing power by using a combined heat and
power system (CHP) and an internal combustion engine. Flare gas pressur-
izing and injection to oil wells with an internal investment rate of 171% and
a payback period of 1.02 years is one of the best methods to reduce gas
flare. In addition, all soil, air, and water pollution quantities are investigated
together. After determining environmental indicators and collecting data an
Environmental Flow Diagram (EFD) is developed to illustrate contamination
sources and points and the relationship of units with respect to environ-
mental issues. In these fields, the amount of CO2, CO, NOX in the furnaces,
dehumidifier and flare were decreased by 100%, 100%, and about 57%
using EFD and according to the results for the collection of associate gases,
respectively.

Abbreviations and symbols EFD: environmental flow diagram; GTE: gas to

ethylene; PFD: process flow diagram; IRR: internal rate of return; RES:
reference energy system; LPG: liquefy petroleum gas; FGR: flare gas recov-
ery; CHP: combined heat and power; GHG: greenhouse gas; NPV: net pre-
sent value; UGS: underground gas storage; PBP: payback period; GTL: gas to
liquid: RVP: reid vapor pressure; APG: associated petroleum gas; BOD:
biochemical oxygen demand; MCDM: multiple criteria decision-making;
COD: chemical oxygen demand; GTG: gas turbine generator; EOR: enhanced
oil recovery; MMSCFD: million standard cubic feet per day; CO2: carbon
dioxide; CO: carbon monoxide; MW: megawatt; kWh: kilowatt-hour; barg:
gauge pressure; kW: kilowatt; MMm3: million cubic meter.

Introduction
Flaring causes the unwanted gaseous streams released into the atmosphere, which makes it an
environmental concern. The demand for oil and gas production has been increased around the
world, so it has led to associated gas flaring. This, consequently, has made energy management in oil
and gas industries provided with new concepts as well as successive reduction of hydrocarbon fuel

CONTACT Gholamreza Salehi rezasalehi20@gmail.com Department of Mechanical Engineering, Central Tehran Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 S. M. MOUSAVI ET AL.

reserve. Flaring gas streams has released a great amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases (GHG) to atmosphere. So this leads to two major concerns in the world; global warming and
environmental pollution. Iran burns 30 MMm3 of natural gas in oil fields every day. Optimization of
energy consumption has been on the agenda of the government and the National Iranian Oil
Company. Flare gas recovery (FGR) is regarded as a way to reduce the emission of greenhouse
gases (GHG) from oil and gas refineries. There are many refineries around the world that emit huge
amount of gases to the atmosphere by flaring. Flare gas recovery (FGR) is one of the most desirable
methods to improve energy efficiency in oil and gas refineries. Comodi, Renzi, and Rossi (2016)
reviewed energy efficiency improvement in oil refineries by gas recovery plans. They stated that gas
recovery is the best way to improve energy efficiency in refineries and to reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Zadakbar, Vatani, and Karimpour (2008) studied FGR in oil and gas refineries. In
this study, a process stability and a flare tip increment, as the impact of the flare gas recovery system,
were proposed. It should be mentioned that this has been done without any impact on the existing
safety relief system.
In order to reduce GHG emissions and environmental pollutants and to prevent hydrocarbon
losses, FGR is important for industries. There are two general methods to recover flare gas. The first
method requires less possible further operations such as transporting flare gas via pipeline (PNG),
flare gas injection into oil and gas reservoirs for capturing and sequestration (CCS) and underground
gas storage (UGS). To investigate gas storage, Laval et al. (2017) injected gas into reservoirs. They
present an overview of common-associated gas (AG) solutions and examining their relative strengths
and weaknesses relative to this case study in the absence of a gas market. The management of AG
often poses a serious challenge to the development of oil fields, resulting in potentially stranded gas
resources. An increase in stringent carbon constraints has made gas flaring an undesirable solution,
although it was the default one. One of the potential solutions is injecting the AG into underground
reservoir for temporary storage, but it re-produces the same when a viable gas market becomes
available as one of the ways to prevent the burning of flare gases. From a practical perspective, three
common ways to reduce flare gas are transmission of gas and flare gas conversion into electricity,
compression, and new methods such as gas-to-liquid technology. Rahimpour and Jokar (2012)
studied how to reduce gas supply and to implement such methods as GTL production, gas
compression, and re-injection into pipelines, as well as power generation using gas turbines. The
results show that the first method produces 365 barrels per-day of valuable GTL products.
The second method provides a compressed natural gas with 129 barg to inject into the refinery
pipeline and the third method provides 25 MW electricity. The electricity option gives the highest
rate of return (44%) as well as the lowest payback period (PBP) of 2.3 years, which makes it the most
economically appropriate method. Rahimpour et al. (2012) surveyed FGR in a gas refinery. They
simulated methods such as GTL production, electricity generation by a gas turbine, as well as
compression and reinjection to pipelines. According to the simulations, 48,056 barrels per-day of
GTL products are produced by the first method. The second method provides 2130 MW of
electricity. The third method also provides a compressed natural gas with 129 barg to inject into
the refinery pipelines. The results show that GTL production provides the greatest rate of return for
the 356.5 MMSCFD of gas flared from the Gas Refinery. However, GTL requires the greatest capital
investment. Gas compression results in the next highest rate of return, which makes it the best
option for the gas refinery due to the lower capital requirements.
Russia is one of the countries that have the highest levels of flaring gas in the world. Loe and
Ladehaug (2012) surveyed the ways to reduce gas flaring in Russia. They claimed that in a time of
domestic economic insecurity, as well as in Russia’s primary export market in Europe, authorities are
likely to prioritize keeping the status quo to ensure political stability at the expense of investments
and structural reform. It may be a premise to reach the associated petroleum gas (APG) utilization
goal. Heidari, Ataei, and Rahdar (2016) investigated some methods to generate power from flare gas.
They also studied burning the mixture of flare gas and conventional fuel, and sending flare gas to an
intermediate stage of a gas turbine. The results show that the second method is preferable from
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 3

technical and economic aspects for all of the flare and natural gas flow rates except when the amount
of flare gas in the plant is lower than 0.8 kg/s. Fallah, Belghaieb, and Hajji (2019) studied and
analyzed the potential of electricity generation from AG produced in a Tunisian oil company. They
used Olga software to investigate the possibility of transporting AG into the same pipeline that
carries oil and water. In order to investigate the process feasibility, a technical, economic, and
environmental assessment was performed. From the economic viewpoint, the eliminating flare
process showed a net present value (NPV) of about 408 USD,315 and a PBP of 3.2 years.
To make decisions in the presence of multiple, conflicting criteria is known as multiple criteria
decision-making (MCDM). MCDM problems are large scale and more complicated problems in
a business context. While MCDM, as a discipline, has been a concern for only about 30 years,
MCDM problems are usually widespread. The development of the MCDM discipline has a close
relationship with the advancement of computer technology. On one hand, conducting systematic
analysis of complex MCDM problems has been made possible by the rapid development of computer
technology in recent years. On the other hand, a huge amount of information has been generated by
the widespread use of computers and information technology. It makes MCDM increasingly
important and useful in supporting business decision-making. In recent years, some researchers
have focused their studies to find the best methods to reduce flare gas. MCDM can be used, as
a method, to compare FGR options. Bakhteeyer and Maroufmashat (2014) used this method to
compare FGR options. They reviewed methods such as pipeline usage, combined heat and power
system (CHP), injection to oil fields, and liquid fuel production. CHP usage is chosen, with
availability as the most important criterion. Tahouni, Gholami, and Panjeshahi (2016) studied the
integration of flare gas with fuel gas network (FGN) in refineries. Integration and use of waste and
flared gases with FGN is an effective way to reduce GHG emissions, and to conserve energy in
refineries. An FGN was proposed for a refinery case study with the integration of flare gas streams. It
resulted in a 12% reduction in natural gas consumption compared to the non-integrated flare gas
stream case. It also showed a 27.7% reduction compared to the base case with no FGN.
Demands for oil and gas production in the world have increased, which resulted in an associated
gas flaring. There is a flare network in all facilities in refineries for safety and pressure relief at
abnormal situations. Hajizadeh et al. (2018) analyzed FGR in a refinery from technical and
economic views. This includes gas compression units and liquefy petroleum gas (LPG) production.
The results indicated that operating flash drum at 1 barg pressure would lead to maximum liquid
extraction from flare gas, while operating at 0.75 barg would give maximum LPG production. More
than 80% of flare gases could be recovered using FGR methods. This can prevent about 205 tons/day
CO2 equivalent emission. Finally, it has been found that rate of return (ROR) for liquefaction and
LPG methods were above 200% using the economic analysis. Zolfaghari, Pirouzfar, and Sakhaeinia
(2017) studied three methods including gas turbine generator (GTG), GTL, and gas to ethylene
(GTE) for FGR. According to the results, one of the most economical ways is to produce electric
power from flaring gases. GTG method, with an annual profit of about 480 USDe+006, has a greater
ROR. Bilgili and Sahin (2009) studied the electric power plants in Turkey. In order to update electric
energy statistics, their capacities and resources used in electricity generation were analyzed. They
identified energy resources used for electricity generation. They also classified the status of thermal,
hydro, wind, and geothermal power plants in Turkey according to the electricity utilities. Heidari
et al. (2013) compared the effect of gas injection strategy, simultaneous water-alternating gas
(SWAG), water-alternating gas (WAG), and continuous gas injection (CGI) on recovery in immis-
cible, near-miscible, and miscible modes of injection. Results show that, with this technique, gas
breakthrough was postponed by tapering, and less amount of gas was injected. This makes tapering
economically and operationally favorable. There were experiments with different gas–water ratios
and the results showed that gas–water ratio and the ultimate oil recovery during SWAG injection
were independent. Du and Nojabaei (2019) studied the feasibility and efficiency of gas injection
approaches, including gas flooding and huff-n-puff injection in shale oil/gas/condensate reservoirs
with a discussion based on the results of in-situ pilots, as well as experimental and simulation
4 S. M. MOUSAVI ET AL.

studies. In each section, one type of shale reservoir was discussed, in which the following aspects
were covered: (1) experimental and simulation results for different gas injection; (2) different gas
injection mechanisms; and (3) gas injection enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and enhanced gas
recovery (EGR). Gas injection is seen as a potential method for EOR and EGR in shale reservoirs,
based on some experimental and simulation studies, and some field tests. For different experiments
with different rock/fluid properties or models including different effects and shale complexities, the
enhanced recovery factor differs. Based on the simulation studies and successful field pilots, it is
possible, through gas injection and huff-n-puff regimes, to capture CO2 in shale gas reservoirs.
Oguejiofor (2006) discussed some aspects of the Sasol Chevron gas-to-liquid (GTL) technology that
uses the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) technology as its background. They also reviewed and presented the
annual magnitudes and trends of Nigeria’s natural gas production, consumption, and disposal by
flaring from 1970 to 2001. The annual levels and profiles of pollutants emitted by gas flaring and
venting were also discussed and reported. The economic value of flared gases in the Phase 12 gas
refinery was studied by Hashemi-fard and Shafiee (2019). They examined economy from two
perspectives. The first was the conversion of fired gases to electrical energy. In the second view,
the volume of flared gases was equivalent to the amount of gas consumed in industries, households,
and exports. According to the results, the gross profit from the conversion of flaring gas into electric
energy was 123 USD,125 per year. It should be noted that the volume of flared gases was equivalent
to the consumption volume of power plants the equivalent of 3.3%, the consumption volume of the
industries was 1.24%, and the domestic and commercial consumption was 0.3%. Talebi et al. (2014)
studied how to control flare gases pollution. According to the results, it is imperative to find an
efficient and economical way to determine pollutant emissions. The aim of their study was to find
new parametric emission factors for CO, CO2, and NOX gases by direct measurements in a pilot-
scale flare. The results showed variations in the emission factors with regard to flared gas composi-
tion. Furthermore, emission factors values were significantly affected by steam and excess air
addition to gases. Tanha- Ziyarati et al. (2019) proposed a model to estimate the flow rate and
composition needed for the calculation of GHG emission from the flare network of a natural gas
processing plant in Asalouyeh, southern Iran. This model, which is based on flared gas sources,
makes it possible to determine the source of each flared gas mixture and the reliability and
availability of the processing units. The proposed model also makes it possible to monitor the
flare network online. Moreover, making decisions about flare gas reduction is facilitated. All of the
above researches only investigate the use of common FGR method, technical and economic
evaluation or GHG emissions which are discussed briefly. We investigated to see how much CO,
CO2, and NOX of the field decrease by the use of novel EFD, and to study three technical and
economic methods including two novel methods. In this research, the process of a refinery by
HYSYS, Aspen, and Thermo Flow software is simulated. The best technology to reduce energy
consumption is also applied. Three main methods including two novel methods are investigated for
the FGR system. The first method provides a compressed natural gas with 110 barg pressure for
injection to the oil fields. The second method provides 3180 kW electricity and the third method
provides 9300 kW electricity and they are analyzed from technical and economic perspectives. In
addition, an environmental flow diagram (EFD) is designed based on a process flow diagram (PFD)
and reference energy system (RES) to monitor and decrease air, water, and soil pollution. In this
research, by coding in visual basic program EFD designed for determining sources of pollutants.
Unlike other researches, studies have only focused on one of the pollutions. We compare economic,
technical, and environmental pollution impacts of scenarios. Then, the novel EFD program is
designed and a solution for all three main pollutions (soil, water, air) is found.

Material and methods

Total daily gas produced is 44.9 MMSCMD and gas consumption in furnaces is 29.9 MSCMD and in
this situation, the quantity of flaring gas is about 4.5 MMSCFD. The gas extracted from the fields
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5

enters the gas refinery for processing. The refinery includes finger type clusters for separation of gas
from liquid, two-phase and three-phase separators, six distillation units of gas with tri-ethylene
glycol, a hydrocarbon dew point depression unit, a condensate stabilization unit, a storage tank,
a station loading fluid, pig launcher, receiver systems, and condensate pumps, which are shown in
Figure 1.
The gas produced by the refinery is mainly based on the feed from two gas fields. As required, it
can be injected into oilfields for recovery enhancement with a 42-inch 328-km-long pipeline to
National Iranian South Oil Company or by 30-inch 26-km-long pipelines and 16-inch 25-km-long
pipelines to the gas pipelines No. 3 (IGATIII) and 2 (IGATII) for general consumption. Also, the
produced condensate is transferred by 8-inch 153-km-long pipelines to the Fajr gas refinery and then
to Taheri Port for export or by 8-inch 220-km-long pipeline or by tanker to Shiraz Refinery. HYSYS,
Aspen and Thermo flow software are used to simulate all of the three methods to determine the new
conditions. Therefore, the methods are compared by the use of IRR, NPV, and PBP to find the best
method. Net present value (NPV) is a method to determine the current value of all future cash flows
generated by a project, including the initial capital investment. Internal rate of return (IRR) is the
interest rate at which the net present value of all the cash flows (both positive and negative) from
a project or investment that equals zero. Internal rate of return is used to assess a project or
investment to see whether it is desirable. In order to determine the time needed to recoup the initial
investment on a project, the payback period formula is applied. It is also used for quick calculations,
yet it is not generally considered as an ultimate evaluation to see whether to invest in a particular
situation.
In this paper, we compared three methods in the power generation scenario. The net output will
be 9370 kW from the consumption of 3.17 MMSCFD of gas when a CHP system is used, but it will
be 13029 kW from the consumption of 2.9 MMSCFD of gas when an internal combustion system is
incorporated. In the power generation scenario and the injection of surplus gas into oilfields, the
injection rate of surplus flare gases will be 3.36 MMSCFD and the net output power will be 3093 kW
for power generation from 1.14 MMSCFD of gas.
Assumptions made for all scenarios are:

● The number of years of operation has been taken into account as 15 years,
● The number of days taken into account is 330,

Figure 1. Gas Refinery Schematic

6 S. M. MOUSAVI ET AL.

● Electricity sales are 0.067 $/ kWh,

● Electricity purchases are 0.036 $/ kWh, and
● Flare gas price is 2$/ m3.

Results and discussion

Three main scenarios for FGR are investigated with the technical and economical assessment of
energy consumption. The first scenario is pressurizing and injection of flare gas into oil wells.
The second scenario is electricity generation from the gas field and surplus flare gas injection into
the oil wells. The third scenario is power generation by using a CHP system (a gas turbine and an
internal combustion engine). The compositions of gas to pipeline for injection and to flare are shown
in Table 1. In the first scenario enhanced oil recovery of reservoir will increase. In the second
scenario the electricity of the refinery is supplied and EOR of reservoir is increased by surplus gas. In
the third scenario, the whole flare gas produces electricity.

Scenario 1: increasing pressure for injection into oilfields

The flue gas of condensate stabilization unit is pressurized in one step and its pressure is increased
from 7 to 17 barg which is equal to the pressure of the gas in the condensate storage tank. Then, it is
mixed with the flue gas outlet from the condensate storage tank and its pressure reaches 40 barg,
which is the pressure of the outlet gas from the three-phase separator. Then, the output of the
exhaust gases increases in two stages from 40 barg to 110 barg pressure, which is the pressure of the
gas, sent for injection into oil wells (Figure 2) to increase EOR of reservoir. The internal rate of
return (IRR) for the proposed solution is 171% and the PBP is 1.02 years. Economic and design
calculations of this scenario are shown in Table 2.

Scenario 2: electricity required in the region and the surplus gas injection into oil wells
Converting flare gas into electricity is another method. In this way, the generated electricity can be
used for on-site production to supply the electricity needed for oil production facilities or for sale to
the national grid. The use of flare gases in this method also has the benefits of:

● Reducing the volume of combustion gases

● Reducing demand for electricity in oil-producing facilities
● Reducing the demand for liquid fuels used in power generation

The solution assumes that 3000 kW of electricity required in this area is generated by the combus-
tion of the flue gases from the dew point stabilization unit, a part of the condensate storage tank, and
the rest of the area’s flue gases after pressurizing and injecting into the oil wells. A schematic of the

Table 1. Composition (Mole %).

Component Gas to IGAT Gas to flare
Nitrogen 9.47 4.09
CO2 2.09 3.48
H2 S 0.00 0.00
Methane 85.30 85.44
Ethane 1.59 3.44
Propane 0.95 2.02
i-Butane 0.13 0.31
n-Butane 0.16 0.41
i-Pentane 0.08 0.19
n-Pentane 0.05 0.13
H2 S 0.00 0.16
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 7

Figure 2. Flow diagram of injection process to Maroon field

Table 2. Economic and calculations design.

Compressors
Compressor name k-100 k-101 k-102 k-103
Required power (kW) 38 87 110 110
Gas flow (MMSCFD) 0.8 2 4.5 4.5
Adiabatic efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Adiabatic head(m) 1.49*104 1.39*104 7768 7661
Air coolers
Cooler name Ac-100 Ac-101 Ac-102 Ac-103
Air inlet temp. (oC) 42 42 42 42
Cooling power (kW) 67 148 324 382
Total air flow m3/h 70000 360000 150000 150000
Total required power (kw) 105 235 344 492
Economic analysis
Total equipment cost (MM$) 1.5
Net present value (MM$) 57.8
Internal rate of return (% IRR) 171
PBP (year) 1.02

HYSYS simulated gas injection station is shown in Figure 3. Gas turbine design calculations were
performed using Thermo Flow software. The gas injection station is designed for pressure boosting
and injecting excess flue gases with a value of 3.36 MMSCFD. This amount of flare gas comes from
two sources; one outlet gas from the condensate storage tank and the other outlet gas from the three-
phase separator. In the first stage, the surplus gas pressure from the condensate storage tank is
increased from 17 to 40 barg and is then mixed with the gas from the three-phase separator. Then, it
goes through a two-stage pressurization process and sent to be injected into oilfields with 110 barg
pressure to increase EOR of the oil field. Table 3 shows the compression and air coolers design. The
gas turbine specifications are shown in Table 4. The economic calculation of this scenario is shown
in Table 5 for different price options of FGR. As can be seen, this method has a 24% annual profit
and a 40% annual profit regardless of the cost of gas consumption. Therefore, if the price of flare gas
is not included in the current costs of the plant, the plan is economically justifiable.
8 S. M. MOUSAVI ET AL.

Figure 3. Simulated gas injecting flue gas surplus into oil wells

Table 3. Calculation design of compressors and air coolers.

Compressors
Compressor name k-101 k-102 k-103
Required power (kW) 37 80 80
Gas flow (MMSCFD) 0.86 3.36 3.36
Adiabatic efficiency 0.75 0.75 0.75
Adiabatic head (m) 1.382*104 1.382*104 1.382*104
Air coolers
Cooler name Ac-100 Ac-101 Ac-102
Air inlet temp. (oC) 42 42 42
Cooling power (kW) 80.4 187.2 232.7
Total air flow m3/h 360000 150000 150000
Area of bare tubes (m2) 95 39 39
Total required power (kW) 117.2 267.2 312.7

Table 4. Gas turbine specification.

Specification Quantity
Gas consumption (MMSCFD) 1.14
Gross output power (kW) 3180
Net output power (kW) 3093
Turbine Solar Taurus
Number of stage 1
Gross efficiency LHV (kJ/ kWh) 13646

Table 5. Results of economic calculations of the plan to use flare gas to generate electricity
needed for the region and injection of surplus gas into the oil wells.
Economical evaluation
Power plant capital investment (MM$) 2.8
Gas injection station capital investment (MM$) 0.95
Total capital investment (MM$) 3.8
Without flare gas price
Internal rate of return on investment (%IRR) 40,00
Years for payback of Investment (year) 3.54
Net Present value (MM$) 34.4
Including flare gas price
Internal rate of return on investment (%IRR) 24.00
Years for payback of Investment (year) 5.60
Net Present value (MM$) 17.8
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 9

Scenario 3-1 power generation outputs using the CHP system

Electricity and steam generation using gas turbine
At this refinery, a part of the operating gas is burned in the form of flare. Another part is related to
safety issues burn batch but the other part of the flare gas is continuous in this process. The total
flow of flare gas that can be used in a gas turbine is 3.17 MMSCFD. A gas turbine with a heat
recovery system from combustion gases can be used to generate electricity and steam in this refinery.
The economic and design calculation of the turbine in this refinery is shown in Table 6. As economic
calculations show, IRR and PBP for the proposed solution are 29.34% and 2.91 years, respectively.

Scenario3-2: Electricity and steam production powered by internal combustion motors

The average efficiency of the internal combustion engines is about 46% and these engines work at
low pressure with any type of gas and in any conditions with the least pollution. If heat recovery is
added to this power plant, the efficiency will increase up to 70 to 80%. This implies that IRR is 47.5%
and the PBP is 1.57 years. The economic and design calculation of internal combustion motors in
this refinery is shown in Table 6.

Environmental monitoring using environmental flow diagram (EFD)

In order to analyze the environmental situation in these gas fields, the EFD of the region has been
drawn on the basis of a RES and the PFD. For each industrial unit or company, environmental flow
diagram (EFD) is made based on two factors: energy reference system (RES) and process flow
diagram (PFD). In this paper, by coding in visual basic program environment, EFD is designed to
determine and to divide sources of pollutants flows based on polluted environment. It is also used to
explain how the solutions affect the energy optimization and environmental pollutants reduction.
EFD is software which can be suitable for all of the industrial companies as well as energy projects. It
helps to find a solution for environmental crisis and to get a significant knowledge of pollution level
of the area. All units are located at different levels of energy, and pollutants are divided according to
the pollutant receiving area (air, water, and soil). There are sources of water, soil, and air pollution in
this refinery. Flue gas is a crucial environmental pollutant in the region. There are 22 flues that can
pollute the environment and the air. The quantity of air, water, and soil pollutants are measured to
determine the sources of the pollutants and to find a way to reduce them by the novel EFD program.

Table 6. Economic and design calculations of gas turbine/engine.

Characteristic design Gas turbine Gas engine
(MMSCFD)Gas consumption 3.17 2.98
(kg/s)Steam production 7.363 2.29
(kW)Net outlet power 9370 13029
Turbine design
Type of turbine GE5 -
Number of stage/unit 2 3
(kW)Gross outlet power 4800 -
Gross efficiency LHV (kg/kWh) 29.13 -
(kg/s)Gas mass flow 17.69 -
(o C)Exhaust temp. 529.3 -
Steam cycle
Efficiency (%) HRSG 85.06 -
Net output steam power(kW) 19028 4279.08
Economic analysis
Year 15 15
Internal rate of return on Investment (%IRR) 29.34 47.49
Years for pay back of Investment (year) 2.91 1.57
Net present value (MM$) 71.3 103.3
10 S. M. MOUSAVI ET AL.

Table 7. GHG emissions of CO2 and air pollutants (ton per year).
Pollutant Boiler Dehydration Flare Burn Pit
CO2 8589.87 11464.6 84510.55 2298.26
CO 101.99 12.96 245.51 162.5
NOX 2.71 4.42 45.12 -
Amount of emissions after optimization
CO2 0 0 36466.79 2298.26
CO 0 0 105.34 162.5
NOX 0 0 19.36 -

By this diagram, the sources and impacts of environmental pollution are identified. Also, informa-
tion on the environmental impacts associated with these sources and pollutants is shown in Figure 4.
In addition to disposing of wastewater (without treatment or after a slight degradation) the
evaporation pond and burn pit can be considered as the other sources of pollution for soil and
water. Table 7 shows the quantity of air pollutants before and after flare gas control. The environ-
mental flow diagram of the area shows the sources of pollutants (air, soil, or water) and different
levels of energy, and we can manage and reduce each pollutant.

Reduction and control of greenhouse gases and air pollutants

The major sources of air release in this refinery are flares, combustion equipment, burn pit, and
dehumidification unit. Decreasing energy consumption in combustion equipment as well as redu-
cing the amount of burned gas in the flare will reduce GHG produced from these sources.

Impact of energy efficiency optimization on the amount of pollutants in the refinery

By enhancing the efficiency of the combustion equipment in Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) Setting unit
and the dehydration unit, the amount of energy consumption in the area can be reduced. Obviously,
by reducing energy consumption, pollutants such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide will also
decrease; the only exception is the increase in NOX of the boilers in the dehumidifying unit. NOX of
the boilers increases due to the increase in flame temperature. The more complete combustion
results in a rise in flame temperature. Therefore, more NOX will be produced. The use of
a compressor to pressurize the gas and to send it into the pipeline and produce electricity and
steam in order to use in the process can decrease gas pollutants like what is shown in Table 7 (after
optimization). We can see the impact of energy efficiency by using optimization process as
illustrated above in Table 9.

Analysis of the status of the industrial wastewater management system

One of the recommended solutions in the wastewater management section is their re-use to irrigate
trees and flowers or as artificial water supply of groundwater. According to the results of the analysis
of industrial wastewater entering the evaporation pond and fuel pit for the use of wastewater in
irrigation, parameters such as BOD and COD and oil are higher than the standard limits. So they
should be reduced to levels below the standard level in a wastewater treatment unit. Chemical and
biological methods can be used to reduce phenol in wastewater. Table 8 shows wastewater contam-
ination. In the case of water pollution analysis, wastewater will evaporate from the pond without any
purification process. According to the results of BOD, COD, oil, and phenol, their concentrations are
above the environmental standards. Therefore, we need purification before their disposal into the
environment. In terms of air pollution, some of the pollutants in the exhaust gas exceed
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 11

Figure 4. Environmental flow diagram of the area (EFD)

Table 8. Contamination in industrial wastewater.

Situation
Parameter Unit Evaporation point Fuel pit
BOD mg/l 2000 15
COD mg/l 8000 4000
Phenol mg/l 0.36 0.76
Oil & grease mg/l 1500 610
12 S. M. MOUSAVI ET AL.

Table 9. Summary of economic calculation of flare recovery scenario.

NPV(MM$) IRR (%) PBP (Year)
Generation of electricity and steam using gas turbine 71.3 29.3 2.91
Generation of electricity and steam using internal combustion motors 10.3 47.49 1.57
Increasing pressure of gas and injection into oil wells 57.8 171 1.02
Use of flare gases to generate electricity and injection of surplus gas into oil wells 34.4 40 3.54

environmental standards, e.g., sources like the outlet of combustion chimneys of different units and
the leakage of transmission units.

Conclusion
Gas flaring is one of the most severe environmental problems due to GHG emissions. These
emissions could cause global warming as well as a climate change. There are many methods to
minimize gas flaring in oil and gas refineries. In order to determine the best method for minimizing
gas flaring, a comprehensive monitoring of flow and composition of flare gases, as well as alternative
choices for FGR were investigated in this study. Therefore, process simulation and economical
evaluations are carried out. According to the results, the pressurizing and injecting flare gas into
oil wells has the highest IRR (171%) and the lowest PBP (1.02 year). Producing electricity and
injecting surplus flare gas into oil wells has a lower IRR (40%) and the highest PBP (3.54). Producing
power using a combined heat and power system (CHP) has the lowest IRR (29.3%) and PBP of
2.91 year. The economic and technical analysis of FGR scenarios are shown in Table 9. The
economic and technical aspects show that the first scenario of pressurizing and injecting flare gas
into oil wells is the best method to reduce the amount of flare gas and to optimize the energy
consumption. It also reduces the amount of environmental pollutants. When gas flare recovery
methods are used, the amount of CO2, CO, NOX in the furnaces, dehumidifier, and flare decrease by
100%, 100%, and about 57%, respectively.

ORCID
Gholamreza Salehi http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7866-358X

References
Azin, R., R. Malakooti, A. Helalizadeh, and M. Zirrahi. 2013. Investigation of underground sour gas storage in
a depleted gas reservoir. Oil & Gas Science and Technology– Revue d’IFP Energies Nouvelles 69:1227–36.
doi:10.2516/ogst/2012003.
Bakhteeyer, H., and A. Maroufmashat. 2014. Iran’s gas flare recovery options using MCDM. International Journal of
Energy and Power Engineering 8:638–43. doi:10.1307/6892/9999337.
Bilgili, M., and B. Sahin. 2009. Electric power plants and electricity generation in Turkey. Journal of Energy Sources,
Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy 5:81–92. doi:10.1080/15567240801993291.
Comodi, G., M. Renzi, and M. Rossi. 2016. Energy efficiency improvement in oil refineries through flare gas recovery
technique to meet the emission trading targets. Energy 109:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.04.080.
Du, F., and B. Nojabaei. 2019. A review of gas injection in shale reservoirs: Enhanced oil/gas recovery approaches and
greenhouse gas control. Energies 12:2355. doi:10.3390/en12122355.
Fallah, T., J. Belghaieb, and N. Hajji. 2019. Analysis and simulation of flare gas recovery in oil and gas producing
company. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects. doi:10.1080/
15567036.2019.1680772.
Hajizadeh, A., M. Mohamadi-Baghmolaei, R. Azin, S. Osfouri, and I. Heydari. 2018. Technical and economic
evaluation of flare gas recovery in a giant gas refinery. Chemical Engineering Research and Design 131:506–19.
doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2017.11.026.
Hashemi-fard, K., and M. Shafiee. 2019. Recovering gas flares from the 12th gas phase of the south pars gas refinery.
Advanced Journal of Chemistry 3:49–51. doi:10.33945/SAMI/AJCA.2020.1.6.
 ENERGY SOURCES, PART A: RECOVERY, UTILIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13

Heidari, M., A. Ataei, and M. H. Rahdar. 2016. Development and analysis of two novel methods for power generation
from flare gas. Journal of Applied Thermal Engineering 104:687–96. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.05.099.
Heidari, P., N. Alizadeh, R. Kharat, M. H. Ghazanfari, and A. S. Larki. 2013. Experimental analysis of secondary
gas injection strategies. Journal of Petroleum Science and Technology 31:797–802. doi:10.1080/
10916466.2010.533140.
Lawal, K. A., M. I. Ovuru, S. I. Eyitayo, S. Matemilola, and A. T. Adeniyi. 2017. Underground storage as a solution for
stranded associated gas in oil fields. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 150:366–75. doi:10.1016/j.
petrol.2016.12.020.
Loe, J. S., and O. Ladehaug. 2012. Reducing gas flaring in Russia: Gloomy outlook in times of economic insecurity.
Energy Policy 50:507–17. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.049.
Oguejiofor, G. C. 2006. Gas flaring in nigeria: some aspects for accelerated development of Sasol Chevron GTL plant at
escravos. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 28:1365–76. doi:10.1080/
00908310600718908.
Rahimpour, M. R., and S. M. Jokar. 2012. Feasibility of flare gas reformation to practical energy in Farashband gas
refinery: No gas flaring. Journal of Hazardous Materials 209:204–2017. doi:10.106/j.hazmat.2012.01.017.
Rahimpour, M. R., Z. Jamshidnejad, S. M. Jokar, G. Karimi, A. Ghorbani, and A. H. Mohammadi. 2012.
A comparative study of three different methods for flare gas recovery of Asalooye gas refinery. Journal of
Natural Gas Science and Engineering 4:17–28. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2011.10.001.
Tahouni, N., M. Gholami, and M. H. Panjeshahi. 2016. Integration of flare gas with fuel gas network in refineries.
Energy 111:82–91. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.055.
Talebi, A., E. Fatehifar, R. Alizadeh, and D. Ahforoushan. 2014. the estimation and evaluation of new CO, CO2, and
NOx emission factors for gas flares using pilot scale flare. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects 36:719–26. doi:10.1080/15567036.2011.584117.
Tanha- Ziyarati, M., N. Bahramifar, G. Baghmisheh, and H. Younesi. 2019. Greenhouse gas emission estimation of
flaring in a gas processing plant: Technique development. Elsevier 123:289–98. doi:10.1016/j.psep.2019.01.008.
Zadakbar, O., A. Vatani, and K. Karimpour. 2008. Flare gas recovery in oil and gas refineries. Oil & Gas Science and
Technology- Revue de l’IFP 63:705–11. doi:10.2516/ogst:2008023.
Zolfaghari, M., V. Pirouzfar, and H. Sakhaeinia. 2017. Technical characterization and economic evaluation of recovery
of flare gas in various gas-processing plants. Energy 124:481–91. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2017.02.08.