Guidelines For Venting Optimization

REPORT MARCH
675 2024
Guidelines for venting minimization

and vent recovery systems
Acknowledgements
This guideline was prepared by the Flares and Vents Task Force of the Low
Carbon Energy Efficiency Committee.
Front cover photography used with permission courtesy of

© ksl/Shutterstock and © curraheeshutter/Shutterstock
About
This guideline identifies venting sources and discusses the design and operation
of vent systems and Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) recovery systems, as well
as the situations in which these systems can be employed to minimize venting.
This guidance has been developed to assist engineering and operations

staff at upstream production facilities and may be useful to midstream and
downstream owners and operators, engineering staff at design consultancies,
and engineering, procurement, and construction contractors.
Feedback
IOGP welcomes feedback on our reports: [email protected]
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this publication, neither IOGP nor any of its Members past present
or future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which
liability is hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms
of this disclaimer. The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.
Please note that this publication is provided for informational purposes and adoption of any of its recommendations is at the discretion of the user. Except
as explicitly stated otherwise, this publication must not be considered as a substitute for government policies or decisions or reference to the relevant
legislation relating to information contained in it.
Where the publication contains a statement that it is to be used as an industry standard, IOGP and its Members past, present, and future expressly disclaim all
liability in respect of all claims, losses or damages arising from the use or application of the information contained in this publication in any industrial application.
Any reference to third party names is for appropriate acknowledgement of their ownership and does not constitute a sponsorship or endorsement.
Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are © International Association of Oil & Gas Producers. Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided
(i) that the copyright of IOGP and (ii) the sources are acknowledged. All other rights are reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be
exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
REPORT MARCH
675 2024
Guidelines for venting minimization

and vent recovery systems
Revision history
VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS
1.0 March 2024 First release

Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Contents
Introduction 6
1. General description of venting 7

1.1 Definition of venting and outline of vent system 7
1.2 Venting versus flaring 7
1.3 Venting arrangements 8
1.4 Motivations for venting 8
2. Sources of venting 9
2.1 Offshore upstream 9
2.1.1 Emissions from platforms 9
2.1.2 Emissions from FPSOs 11
2.2 Onshore upstream 12
2.2.1 Typical sources of emissions 12
2.2.2 Existing literature and guidelines on emissions avoidance and capture 13
3. Vent sources and their recovery or elimination 16

3.1 Glycol dehydration systems 16
3.1.1 Sources of vent gas 17
3.1.2 Reduction and recovery of glycol dehydration flash gas 17
3.1.3 Regenerator vent gas 18
3.2 Acid gas removal units 19
3.2.1 Acid gas stream venting from amine gas treatment units 19
3.2.2 Acid gas stream venting from membrane separation units 20
3.3 Compressors 21
3.3.1 Reciprocating compressors 21
3.3.2 Centrifugal compressors 22
3.3.3 Rotary screw compressors 23
3.3.4 Other methane sources from compressors 24
3.3.5 Reduction and elimination of compressor emissions 24
3.4 Fuel gas header supply upstream of fired equipment 27
3.5 Sampling systems 28
3.6 Produced water treatment and closed drains 29
3.6.1 Produced water 29
3.6.2 Closed drains 30
3.7 Blanketing of expansion vessels and tanks 30
3.8 Pipelines (flexible risers) 31
3.9 Storage tanks 32
3.9.1 Hydrocarbon products 32
3.9.2 Chemical storage tanks 33
4
3.10 Other process and control sources 33

3.11 Pipeline operations 33
3.11.1 Pigging 33
3.11.2 Depressurization for intervention 34
3.11.3 Other reduction measures for gas transmission operations 34
3.12 FPSOs 34
3.12.1 Venting systems on FPSOs 34
3.12.2 Use of inert gas blanketing and implications for venting 35
3.12.3 Use of Hydrocarbon (HC) gas for blanketing 38
4. Vapour recovery units 44

4.1 VRU components 44
4.1.1 Compressors 44
4.1.2 Ejectors and eductors 45
4.1.3 VRU separation technologies 46
4.1.4 Avoidance of oxygen intake to vent and VRU systems 49
5. Installation of vapour recovery units 50

5.1 Considerations for VRU installation 50
5.1.1 Environment 50
5.1.2 Legislation 50
5.1.3 Business drivers 50
5.2 Potential impact of vapour recovery unit 51
5.2.1 Reduction in venting 51
5.2.2 Increased equipment items 51
5.2.3 Increased energy usage 51
5.2.4 Fuel gas systems 52
5.2.5 Increased backpressure 52
5.2.6 Negative pressure 52
5.2.7 Restriction or blockage 52
5.2.8 Reliability and SIL requirements 52
5.2.9 Utility requirements 53
5.3 Brownfield and greenfield VRU implementation 53
5.3.1 Concept select phase 53
5.3.2 FEED phase 54
5.3.3 Detail engineering phase 54
5.3.4 VRU performance metrics 55
Glossary 56
References 59
5
Introduction
This document provides guidance on the minimization of venting and provides the preliminary
evaluation and design considerations for vapour recovery units (VRUs). The document focuses
on the upstream oil and gas industry; however, many of its principles and practices can be
applied to the midstream and downstream sectors. This document is not a design manual
or a regulatory compliance document, but rather offers general guidance on vent minimization
and VRU design considerations.
This document provides an overview of methane and other hydrocarbon emissions from venting and
industry experience in eliminating or recovering these emissions. It examines typical VRU systems
and their components, describing the motivations, justifications for, and the potential implications of
installing a VRU. Finally, it describes key design features of VRUs and their major components and
ancillary systems.
These guidelines do not address flare systems or flare gas recovery systems.
6
1. General description of venting
1.1 Definition of venting and outline of vent system

For the purposes of this guideline the following definition1 of venting has been adopted:
“Venting is the controlled release of unburned gas directly to the atmosphere for gas
disposal or for safe facility operation. Venting excludes fugitive gas releases from piping
and equipment leaks and includes gas purges.”
This definition thus excludes escape of process gas through leaks2, as slippage in
combustion systems or flares or otherwise through systems which are not designed as
vents. These are considered fugitive emissions.
For further information on methane emissions, please see IOGP Report 661 –
Recommended practices for methane emissions detection and quantification – upstream.
1.2 Venting versus flaring

In the absence of a vapour recovery system, flaring of hydrocarbon streams is
environmentally preferable to venting. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC)3 estimate in their Assessment Reports that the global warming potential (GWP) of
methane is significantly higher than that of carbon dioxide per tonne.
While flaring is preferable to venting to minimize GWP of historically vented streams, vapor
recovery systems are the ultimate solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and design
of hydrocarbon production facilities should follow a general hierarchy when addressing
waste gas streams:
1) Minimize generation of waste gas streams
2) Recover and route the streams back into the process for export or use as fuel gas
3) Send streams to the flare system for combustion
4) Vent to atmosphere
However, considerable methane venting still occurs because:

• Flare systems are likely to be more complex to install and operate than a vent system.
• Venting is often used where a system operates at close to atmospheric pressure or
when depressurization of a system from flare backpressure to atmospheric pressure
is needed (e.g., depressurization of spared equipment or train for maintenance
outside of a total plant shutdown). The site flare system may be required to operate at
a significant positive pressure (e.g., under some high relief-rate conditions).
• Vendor requirements for specific systems such a flexible pipelines/carcass vents (see
Section 3.8) that cannot tolerate any backpressure.
1
World Bank Group - Global Gas Flaring Reduction (GGFR) - Report 29555
2
Note that a leak is defined as 20% LEL @ 10 cm from the source by The Norwegian Oil and Gas Association Handbook - Process Safety
for HC leak prevention, 2021.
3
IPCC AR6, Table 7.15 (2021)
7
• Connection to a flare or recovery system of many smaller or intermittent hydrocarbon

vents spread over a large site or facility will entail considerable design and
construction requirements.
• Some installations generate disposal mixtures with low heating value that cannot be
readily flared.
1.3 Venting arrangements

Arrangements of vents will vary depending on a number of installation specific
considerations, such as safety/personnel hazard avoidance, local regulatory requirements,
operating scenarios, and escalation scenarios. Vapours may be vented to atmosphere
through a vent local to the equipment or group of equipment items which they emanate
from, or should, local venting lead to hazards or other problems, disposal into a dedicated
system will be required. More details on vent system design can be found in American
Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 521 – Pressure-relieving and Depressuring Systems,
7th edition.
1.4 Motivations for venting

Reasons for venting at facilities, and the challenges posed when considering eliminating
venting or installing vent recovery systems includes the following:
• Safety considerations (e.g., gas dispersion analysis, low backpressure requirement)
• High content of inert gases or other components that make it difficult to recover and
flare the waste gas
• Pressure conditions, requiring added compression for recovery
• Marine/classification society requirements (for floating production units and ship
specific issues)
• Space, weight or loading limitations (for example, offshore)
• Unacceptably high cost of implementing waste gas recycling or flaring
• Small isolated or scattered facilities with no export route for recovered gas (likely
remote onshore)
• Limited options for recovered gas re-use
• Minimal facilities, e.g., wellhead platforms/wellpads
• Very low rate and/or low intermittent gas release
• Maintenance and inspection
8
2. Sources of venting
This chapter identifies typical vent sources of methane emissions from offshore and onshore
upstream activities. It has been developed from a survey of existing information and includes
a summary of existing guidelines and recommendations for venting minimization.
2.1 Offshore upstream
2.1.1 Emissions from platforms

A comprehensive study of offshore methane emissions was completed for the Norwegian
Environment Agency looking at methane emissions from all Norwegian offshore
installations4. Many sources of methane emissions were identified in the study, with examples
in Figure 1. The largest categories are the darker boxes, which are detailed in Figure 2.
Figure 1 - Sources of methane emissions for offshore upstream operations
In the Norwegian study, these sources of methane were assessed in detail for a subset of 16
platforms using a combination of measured and estimated values. Figure 2 plots the data for
categories having the largest emissions. The vent header category is a general description
of metered gas emissions from the header that could not be attributed to a particular
source. Slippage in combustion systems, unburnt flare gas (slip), and fugitive emissions fall
outside the scope of this document which suggests that key offshore items to examine when
considering a vent elimination and recovery strategy are wet and dry compressors seals,
produced water treatment, purge and blanketing gas, and TEG regeneration.
4
Husdal et al (2016)
9
Dry gas compressor seals
Vent header (measured values)
Produced water treatment system
HC purge and blanket gas

Gas leaks / fugitive
Flare gas not burnt

Triethylene glycol regeneration
Compressor wet seals
Other sources
Figure 2 - Major methane emissions sources in the Norwegian offshore sector by percentage
of contribution
The study concludes with a short summary of major emissions sources and
recommendations for recovery or prevention of these emissions, most of which also appear
in the NORSOK Environmental Care Standard5.
It should be noted that a combination of the nature of the hydrocarbons produced and local
regulations means that the Norwegian offshore sector has a very low CO2 intensity per
unit of energy produced. The relative percentage of emission sources may not reflect the
relative percentages in other oil and gas producing regions.
Limited data from the Gulf of Mexico is reported in a study by the Argonne National
Laboratory for the United States Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE)6.
This includes an overview of current venting and flaring regulations and a summary of
the gas volumes vented for authorized events (as illustrated in Figure 3). A number of
approaches are evaluated in a cost-benefit analysis to capture these emissions, including
additional gas compressors, blowdown to LP systems, and maintaining pressure in
shutdown compressors to avoid the need for venting or flaring.
5
NORSOK (2017)
6
Argonne National Laboratory (2017)
10
Other/unsure
Well
Weather
Platform start up
Gas plant shut-in
Vapour recovery unit
Process equipment
Pipeline
Miscellaneous
Glycol unit
Flash gas compressor
Compressor
Figure 3 - Authorized venting emissions in the US Gulf of Mexico
2.1.2 Emissions from FPSOs

It is important to note that the scope of this document is production facilities, not
transportation. This section concerns venting from FPSOs. References are made to tankers
since some regulations and practices concerning tankers are relevant to this section and
apply to FPSOs. Venting and recovery of vapours from oil, chemical, and gas carriers is
subject to a wide range of existing guidance7,8.
2.1.2.1 Causes of venting from FPSOs

Emissions from the storage tanks on FPSOs can arise via a range of mechanisms.
The following mechanisms for VOC generation were identified from:

• OGMP-TGDP69:
– Flash
- evolved during loading fluids with dissolved gases from a higher-
pressure system.
– Working – evolved as fluid is circulated to and from other tanks.
– Standing – day to day losses as atmospheric pressure and tank temperature varies.
7
IMO (1974)
8
IMO (2009)
9
CCAC – O&G Methane Partnership (2017c)
11
• OCIMF (2019)10:
– Displacement
of tank atmosphere during loading of produced crude from
topside process system into cargo tanks.
– Vaporization and boiling of tank contents.
• Additional activities/conditions which can lead to increased emissions:
– Crude oil washing of cargo tanks
– Venting of fuel gas in emergencies (e.g., dual fuel boilers)
– Vessel motions:
– With additional VOC from crude oil in storage due to sloshing/agitation
– Motions causing upset to topside process systems, leading to process
shutdown and venting, if applicable
2.1.2.2 Level of emissions

Up to 330 tonnes of VOC is emitted when loading a Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC)11.
VLCCs are typically up to 250,000 tonnes, so this suggests that maximum losses during
loading a tanker would be to 1.3 kg VOC per tonne of cargo.
One report12 measured variations in emissions from 0.1 kg VOC per tonne of cargo (terminal
loading) to 2.8 kg VOC per tonne (offshore loading in bad weather). On this basis, VOC
losses can be estimated for an FPSO on the basis that they unload, (and hence load into a
shuttle tanker) their daily production each day. As an example, one FPSO, which produces
13,500 m3/day oil, will be loading approximately 11,000 tonnes of oil into an export tanker
per day. The accompanying VOC emissions could range from 1.1 to 30.8 tonnes/day. Note
that this FPSO is equipped with a VRU.
While the VOC compounds themselves do not necessarily have as high a GWP as methane,
the inert gas emitted is, (except during the final stages of tank filling) nitrogen with around
20% CO2. One major user of FPSOs report that their estimated VOC emissions for FPSO
loading and unloading are of the order of hydrocarbons equivalent to 7,000 tonnes/yr of CO2.
2.2 Onshore upstream

2.2.1 Typical sources of emissions
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks13 includes high level tabular summaries of emissions from US offshore and
onshore methane emissions. It must be noted that this data:
• Includes emissions from exploration, offshore production and refining
• Includes fugitive emissions
• Includes distribution and post meter emissions
• Includes gas engine slippage – i.e., un-combusted methane in the exhaust from
the engines
10
OCIMF (2019)
11
Kamel and Al Shehhi (2022)
12
Marinetek (2005)
13
US EPA (2022)
12
The EPA data is broken down into additional categories in further tables within the report.
From this, the following indicative plots (see Figure 4) of the relative magnitudes for
different categories of onshore upstream emissions in the US can be compiled:
Onshore gas Onshore oil
Gas well produced water Pneumatic controllers Pneumatic controllers Equipment leaks
Gas engines Production tanks Gas engines Produced water
Compressors Station venting Chemical injection pumps Other sources
Pipeline venting Oil transportation
Figure 4 - Major methane emission sources in the US onshore oil and gas industry, using EPA data
The EPA report highlights some key aspects regarding the emissions sources and volumes:
• Methane emissions from onshore gas systems are approximately twice those from
onshore oil systems, as reflected in the area of the two pie charts.
• Major emissions sources are:
– Gas driven pneumatic controllers
– Un-combusted methane (slip) from gas powered engines
– Compressors
– Station and pipeline venting
2.2.2 Existing literature and guidelines on emissions avoidance and capture

The following guidelines and documents highlight the main sources of methane emissions
and give some guidance on their recovery or prevention.
The Environmental Partnership Annual report of 202214 presented some of the EPA
greenhouse gas inventory data discussed in Section 2.2.1 and identifies six key emissions
reduction programmes, targeting the major sources:
• Leak detection and repair
• Pneumatic controller
• Manual liquids unloading
• Compressor
• Pipeline blowdown
• Flare management
14
The Environmental Partnership (2022)
13
The Methane Mitigation Technologies15 is a web directory with links to 22 mitigation option
documents for methane emissions reduction generated by the US EPA from experience
of Natural Gas STAR Partners. The documents focus on reducing or preventing onshore
venting either by eliminating the source or by vent recovery methods. Several of these
documents cover fugitive emissions rather than venting.
Each document includes a detailed technical discussion of the source, estimates of the
methane emissions, a cost analysis of modifications and potential recovery performance.
Table 1 summarizes these:
Table 1 – EPA Star Partners technical notes on methane emissions reductions
Categories General approaches
Compressors/ Seal gas recovery, replace gas starters, reducing No. of

engines start-ups, PSV testing, reducing emission when taking offline,
eliminate units, automated fuel controls, cylinder unloaders,
replacing seals, electric compressors
Dehydrators Recover vent gases, replace small glycol units at remote

locations with methanol injection or desiccant systems,
optimise operation, replace gas driven pumps and controllers
Equipment leaks Maintenance and inspection changes
Other Flaring and improved flares (to avoid slip), Nitrogen Recovery
Unit optimization, PSV testing, ultrasonic meters
Pipelines Pigging gas recovery, pump down, inert gas for pigging,
re-route blowdown gas, PSV and valve testing,
Pneumatics/controls Primarily concerned with replacing gas driven pumps

and controllers
Tanks Eliminate unnecessary tanks, install VRUs, pressurised

condensate storage, recovery of gas during loading,
blanketing with inert gases or hydrocarbon (HC) gas.
Valves PSV testing, replace/service during other equipment

shutdowns, Excess flow valves, add secondary PSV to
bursting discs
Wells PSV testing, recovery of casing gas, replace gas driven

injector pumps, alternative methods of liquid unloading
15
US EPA (3 August 2023)
14
A further set of nine technical guidance notes covering methane emissions from
compressors, dehydrators, tanks and well venting is available at the Oil and Gas Methane
Partnership website16. Each guidance note includes a detailed assessment of how to assess
emissions and the options available to reduce or mitigate for each. In many cases, these
documents draw from the EPA documents described above.
Another recent guidance document is the Methane Guiding Principles on venting17.

This document lists different sources of emissions. It highlights mitigation strategies
and potential reductions in brief with references to further guides (including those
referenced above) on specific methods or technologies and gives the following general
recommendations to reduce methane emissions:
• Keep an inventory of emissions from venting
• Avoid or reduce venting from the following:
– Hydrocarbon liquid storage tanks
– Compressor seals and starter motors
– Glycol dehydrators
– Removing liquids from gas wells
– Well-completion operations
– Oil well casing head venting
• If methane needs to be released, use vapor recovery or flaring rather than venting
if possible
• Monitor vents and evaluate for further improvements and control
16
https://www.ccacoalition.org/content/oil-and-gas-methane-partnership-technical-guidance-documents
17
Methane Guiding Principles (2019)
15
3. Vent sources and their recovery or

elimination
This section of the guideline addresses the major sources of methane venting identified
in Section 2. It examines the recommendations of earlier onshore and offshore specific
guidelines and incorporates current practice and experience gathered from discussions
with IOGP Member Company experts. In addition to oil and gas production operations a
detailed discussion of venting reduction measures for FPSO operations is made in order
to provide a document useful to engineers, operators, designers, and owners across the
whole upstream oil and gas industry.
3.1 Glycol dehydration systems

In oil and gas production, glycols are used both as an absorbent in the dehydration of gas
to meet sales specifications as well as being injected into pipelines and low temperature
processing plants to prevent the formation of gas hydrates. For dehydration, triethylene
glycol (TEG) is more commonly used whereas for bulk injection it is more common to use
monoethylene glycol (MEG). In both cases, the glycol is recovered and regenerated. A
typical glycol dehydration and regeneration system is shown in Figure 5.
Condenser
Vent gas
Reflux drum
Rich TEG
Flash gas
Reflux pump
Regenerator
Lean TEG cooler
Contractor
Flash gas
Stripping gas
Flash drum Reboiler
Wet gas
Lean TEG
Heat exchanger
Rich TEG
Heat exchanger
TEG Glycol make-up

accumulator
Circulation pump
Figure 5 - Example glycol dehydration system
The process for MEG dehydration is broadly similar to that for TEG dehydration. However,
a key difference is that MEG does not need to be regenerated to as low a water content as
TEG so stripping gas is not used in the regenerator (see Section 3.1.3.2).
16
3.1.1 Sources of vent gas

Two main sources of hydrocarbon emissions arise from glycol plants. Flash gas is
released from the initial separation process of the heated rich glycol stream at the
glycol flash drum and a further vapour stream is produced from the vent on the glycol
regenerator column. In some cases, gas driven glycol circulation pumps are installed,
which adds to the vent sources.
In many systems, the TEG regeneration is enhanced by the injection of additional hydrocarbon
stripping gas (typically at around 7 to 22 Sm3/m3 TEG) into the regeneration column. In most
systems, this additional gas volume also exits through the glycol regenerator column vent
(subsequently producing a larger volume of hydrocarbon emissions).
3.1.2 Reduction and recovery of glycol dehydration flash gas

Gas from the flash vessel will consist primarily of hydrocarbons and is continuously
produced. If installed, a flash vessel will typically remove 90% or more of the entrained
hydrocarbon gas and dissolved gases in the glycol leaving the contactor column.
Glycol flash vessels typically operate at 3-7 barg18, meaning there is generally a sufficient
pressure drop for the flash gas to commonly be routed to flare or a low-pressure fuel gas
system. If the composition of the flash gas prevents this, or there is no fuel gas system,
then a Vapour Recovery Unit (VRU) may be needed for recovery into other process units.
Minimization of the flash gas itself is also possible by optimizing the glycol flowrate,
such as by adjusting the dry gas water temperature specification based on accurate site
conditions because the water dew point needed could vary seasonally or from site to
site by using more accurate ambient temperature data. Typically, more stringent water
specifications are used (6 lb H2O/MMscf Gas) which require a higher flowrate of lean TEG
(with subsequently more gas being flashed).
Glycol systems are designed to meet peak gas dehydration duties19 and that in some
cases (usually on smaller unmanned onshore facilities) the initial glycol circulation
rate is maintained throughout the field life. Reducing glycol circulation rates as the gas
production rate declines will reduce methane emissions (and reduce the heating duty on
the glycol regenerator). However, reduction of the glycol circulation rate too close to the
minimum requirement could result in the production gas going off specification during
a process upset and subsequent flaring of the gas. Minimum equipment turndowns
should also be noted (e.g., reduced flowrates through the system) which can lead to
accumulation of fouling products in heat exchangers. Minimum liquid flowrates may be
needed to ensure the wetting of TEG absorber column packing.
18
OGMP (2017)
19
17
3.1.3 Regenerator vent gas
3.1.3.1 TEG Regeneration

TEG regenerators are operated at as low a pressure as possible (near atmospheric
pressure) and sometimes with stripping gas. This lowers the water content of the lean TEG
which in turn lowers the dewpoint that can be achieved in the treated gas.
The need for low operating pressure and the moisture content (often 50% H2O when using
stripping gas) poses a challenge for gas recovery and typically this gas is either vented
directly to atmosphere or sent to LP flare (where water can condense at it flows along the
flare lines and can be collected in the flare drum for return to process).
In a situation where the TEG regenerator is not connected to a LP flare, but the glycol flash
vessel is, operating the flash vessel at a minimum pressure that still ensures minimum
required flow of the TEG back to the reboiler is one means to minimizing TEG regenerator
vent gas whilst maximizing the flashed off hydrocarbon gas. In a new-build system, the
regenerator could be designed to operate at an increased pressure; however, this is likely
to add to equipment and operating costs as extra measures may be needed to achieve
sufficiently high TEG purity to meet the required export gas dewpoint.
Venting is still common from the TEG regeneration process due to less imposed back
pressure which in turn leads to a higher concentration of lean glycol at the same
temperature in the reboiler. If sending the gas to flare, an increase in the temperature
of the reboiler could be necessary to achieve equivalent TEG purity which may result in a
greater rate of thermal degradation of the TEG. The decision to flare the gas (a comparative
reduction in emissions) can be made during the design stage taking into account the
impact of back pressure on operation units.
Flaring of the TEG regeneration stream, although better from an emissions standpoint,
constitutes a significant flaring source and for operators making commitments to global
flaring initiatives, recovery options can be considered going forward. The moisture content
of the stream will need to be condensed out of the stream before recovery via a VRU or
FGRS is possible. Other options include the use of an ejector or a liquid ring compressor
(where the water condenses in the compressor liquid system and the liquid level build up
on the compressors is drained off automatically under level control) to route the gas to an
end user (e.g., produced water treatment flotation).
Another route to reducing GHG emissions from TEG regeneration is via more novel
process intensification. One case study20 used a process simulation to try and improve the
performance of the dehydration unit (minimizing the total annual cost and hydrocarbon
emissions associated with the process) through use of stripping gas rerouted from the TEG
Flash Drum within the regenerator column (instead of venting/flaring it).
The result of the study concluded that using flash gas as stripping gas will allow reduction
of the TEG circulation mass flow rate, whilst still achieving the water moisture specification
in the dry gas. Moreover, the reboiler duty, concentration of water moisture in the dry gas,
and the total annual cost in this specific case study were also reduced.
20
Affandy (2020)
18
Although promising, it should be noted that the results here apply only at a case study level
(meaning the process intensification has not yet been completed at an operational level).
For TEG regeneration systems not using stripping gas, the still vent stream is
predominantly comprised of H2O along with VOCs. Routes to still vent emissions reduction
can focus on the recovery and disposal (sometimes re-use) of benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX, a sub-group under VOCs). The still vent steam can be
condensed back to liquid, sent to a two-phase separator and collected and transferred to
storage, whilst the residual (uncondensable) VOC vapours can be sent either to a burner/
combustor (e.g., thermal oxidizer) to be incinerated or possibly sent back to fire the TEG
regeneration reboiler (thus offsetting fuel gas).
3.1.3.2 MEG regeneration

The level of hydrocarbons in the regenerator flash gas will depend on the operating
pressure of the flash vessel. In some simple systems a flash vessel is not used which will
lead to all hydrocarbons in the glycol leaving via the regenerator vent where the same
approaches for TEG can be taken to recover the gas (following the same evaluations with
respect to factors such as back pressure).
Despite simpler set-ups existing, commonly a flash vessel is still leveraged in the MEG
regeneration process and the flash gas is sent to flare, however, no stripping gas is
generally necessary for MEG regeneration. As such, the vapour exiting the top of the
regeneration tower is often more than 99%mol H2O.
In this instance, the moisture content of the stream (in comparison to the hydrocarbons
present) is likely too great to manage recompressing and recovery of the hydrocarbon gases
(with the water being sent to a closed drain system). Moreover, with such a small volume
of hydrocarbons present to recover, an evaluation by the designer would have to be made
with regards to the possible abated emissions against the risk of causing a process upset
(e.g., backpressure causing a trip) which ultimately leads to a much higher GHG emission
through safety venting or flaring.
3.2 Acid gas removal units
3.2.1 Acid gas stream venting from amine gas treatment units
The flowsheet for acid gas removal units is similar to that for glycol dehydration with the
rich amine from the absorber tower passing through a flash vessel (also at 3-7 barg) prior
to entering a heated regeneration column. If H2S is present, it will be absorbed in the rich
amine stream in the absorber tower and removed in the regeneration section (exiting via
the acid gas stream). A typical acid gas removal and amine regeneration system is shown in
Figure 6.
19
Condenser
Sweet gas Acid gas
Lean amine Rich amine Reflux drum

Make-up water
Absorber Regenerator Pump

Rich/lean
exchanger Vapour
Sour gas
Reboiler
Liquid
Rich amine
Flash drum
Lean amine
Pump
Figure 6 - Example acid gas removal and amine regeneration system
As for glycol regeneration, the majority of absorbed hydrocarbon is produced in the flash
vessel which is commonly sent to flare, or in the case of older assets still vented. Subject
to the removal of H2S at this stage, operators now use the suitable pressure to send
the stream to the fuel gas system or recompress it for other recovery means. A further
opportunity is minimization of the flash gas stream through optimization of the amine
circulation rate, which was achieved by one operator by installing wireless thermos-
sensors on the exterior of the amine absorbers to better understand the exothermic CO2
reaction. If such an optimization scheme to minimize the amine circulation rate allows
insufficient margins to accommodate minor plant upsets, there is the risk of the product
gas going off specification, and the resultant flaring would greatly exceed the flash vessel
emissions reduction achieved through the optimization.
The gas stream exiting the top of the amine regenerator on the other hand has a typical
CO2 content of over 90% with water vapour comprising the bulk of the remainder and
hydrocarbons ranging from 0.1-1mol%. As such, this stream is typically sent to acid gas
oxidizers, and subsequently vented, and not considered a priority for vent recovery unless
a suitable use for the produced CO2 is available (utilized in other industrial applications
and/or permanently sequestered in geologic formations), meaning this falls out of scope
for this guidance.
3.2.2 Acid gas stream venting from membrane separation units

Where a sales gas specification allows for higher CO2 content, membranes are typically
used for bulk removal of CO2 from the high CO2 gas feed. The low-pressure CO2 reject
stream from these plants contains methane and is usually sent to a low calorific value
flare, or vented. Note that the methane content in these streams can be low (the latest
membrane systems can achieve greater than 80% CO2 purity with a single stage) so care
must be taken not to extinguish the flare flame (e.g., additional gas may be needed to assist
combustion). At some onshore plants the reject gas can be routed to a thermal oxidizer.
20
In the absence of opportunities for gas re-injection, further stages of membrane separation
(which can reduce methane losses to below 2%) or other separation technologies could
potentially be used to improve methane recovery in such systems, but this would have to be
balanced against the energy costs of additional compression.
3.3 Compressors
Compressors are widely used in oil and gas processing and in export and transmission
of natural gas. The compressors used in the oil and gas industry are of two main types,
reciprocating and centrifugal. Rotary screw compressors are also used on flare recovery
and VRU applications.
3.3.1 Reciprocating compressors

Reciprocating compressors deliver high pressure ratios for a given weight and footprint,
are relatively easy to install, but require more maintenance than centrifugal units. They are
generally preferred for smaller flowrates and high-pressure ratio applications.
3.3.1.1 Hydrocarbon losses

Vented emissions from reciprocating compressors result from gas escaping through the
piston rod packing, which consists of a series of flexible rings in cups that surround the
piston rod and act as a seal to limit the release of process gas. Although the rod packing is
designed to prevent leakage, small amounts of process gas slip out from around the piston
rod packing when the piston is moving or in pressurized, standby mode. A US EPA Star
Partners case study21 reports that typical losses from a single piston with newly installed
and aligned packing components are low, but as the components wear, this loss rate can
increase significantly.
Leakage can be reduced through proper monitoring of gas losses and implementation of
a cost-effective assessment of when to replace packing rings and piston rods. Whilst new
ring materials and new designs for packing cases are emerging that reduce wear, the
study noted that other factors (good installation, effective lubrication and cooling) played a
greater role in wear on the piston rods reducing future gas losses.
In some installations the seals are purged with nitrogen to reduce emissions, the stream to
vent being a mix of nitrogen and process gas.
3.3.1.2 Hydrocarbon venting during shutdown

When taken out of operation the compressor will usually be vented to atmosphere and
isolated from the operating plant. Depressurization to flare and vent of a single compressor
can release a significant volume of gas and, once shut in, further fugitive emissions can
occur though the isolation valves.
21
21
Venting and depressurization will be necessary if the compressor is taken offline for
maintenance. For process shutdowns the compressors may also require venting as
reciprocating compressors must usually be started unloaded. If the compressor can remain
pressurized after shutdown, gas emissions will continue through the compressor piston
rod packing so this option is only beneficial if the compressor is fitted with static seals that
can reduce leakage through the packing when the compressor is not running.
3.3.2 Centrifugal compressors

A major advantage of centrifugal compressors is their ability to deliver high volumetric
capacity for a given weight and footprint. Multistage units are widely used on oil and gas
installations due to high processing volumes at relatively low-pressure ratios. Centrifugal
compressors have fewer moving parts than reciprocal units and are well suited for steady
operation. Under such conditions and with well specified ancillary systems, they combine
high reliability with relatively low maintenance.
3.3.2.1 Hydrocarbon leakage

Older centrifugal compressor designs relied on wet seals22 (shown in Figure 7) to prevent
leakage of process gas:
Seal housing
Seal oil inlet
Process gas leaks

Motor and shaft
through “inboard”
bearing side
labyrinth seal
“outboard”
Compressor side
“inboard”
“Outboard”
labyrinth
Spinning shaft
Seal oil Seal oil
(uncontaminated) (contaminated with gas)
Figure 7 - Wet Seal System
Gas leakage is prevented by inboard (process side) and outboard (environment side)
labyrinth seals. These are separated by a liquid seal provided by circulated high pressure
oil. Whilst gas leakage to the environment is minimized, the seal oil can absorb significant
amounts of process gas which must be purged from the seal oil (contaminated with gas) in
a flash vessel. Emissions arise when this flash gas is vented.
22
US EPA (2006)
22
Tandem rotating
rings with grooves Very little
process gas
leakage
(fugitive)
Motor
end
Spinning
Process gas leaks
shaft
through labyrinth Gas pressure Spring pushes
between rings stationary ring
prevents process against rotating
gas from leaking ring
Figure 8 – Dry gas seal
Newer designs of centrifugal compressors have moved to dry gas seal23 (DGS) designs
(Figure 8). These use two or more high pressure gas seals to prevent the passage of
process gas. The inner (primary) dry gas seal typically uses process gas whilst the
outermost seal (secondary) will use an inert gas (typically N¬2). Most of the primary seal
gas passes into the compressor casing but a small amount passes across the primary seal
where it mixes with some of the secondary seal gas and is routed to the primary vent.
Emissions arise from the process seal gas in the leakage flow through the primary vent.
Under normal operation, the vented gas via the secondary vent is all secondary seal gas
with no HC emissions. However, some seal failure scenarios can result in primary seal gas
reaching the secondary vent (resulting in emissions).
3.3.3 Rotary screw compressors

Rotary screw compressors used for flare recovery and VRU applications at lower pressures
are suited for lower flows and varying molecular weight of the gas. They can be either oil-
flooded or oil-free.
The oil-flooded will have one single mechanical seal, similar to a wet seal as described in
Section 3.3.2 (centrifugal compressors).
An oil-free compressor will have four shaft seals per stage (two screws and four shaft
ends). These can be either wet seals or dry gas seals, again similar to those described in
Section 3.3.2.
23
US EPA (2006)
23
3.3.4 Other methane sources from compressors

Compressor operations may also contribute to methane emissions. In many offshore and
onshore installations, there will be multiple compressors installed to cover variations in
flowrates and/or offer improved availability.
The shutdown procedures for compressors may include depressurization of the offline
compressors and associated pipework if the design does not allow the compressor to be
held at the settle out pressure. Methane emissions will occur if there is no option to route
these gases to flare.
For some onshore sites where compressors are driven by dedicated internal combustion
engines, start-up is achieved using a gas-driven starter motor.
3.3.5 Reduction and elimination of compressor emissions

3.3.5.1 Dry gas seal emissions
Primary seal vent (and that from any other inner seals) gas will be composed primarily
of methane whilst the secondary seal vent will normally be nitrogen during normal
operation. The primary seal vent has typically been routed to flare but, although flows are
significantly lower than those from wet seal systems, operational requirements, driven in
turn by environmental guidance and legislation are encouraging the recovery of smaller gas
streams. The secondary seal vent is typically vented locally.
Challenges to be overcome in recovering and making use of the seal gas are the need
to ensure that the operating backpressures on the seals does not exceed the maximum
allowable backpressure by the vendor whilst the compressor is in operation. This includes
integrating the system with the compressor control system, accommodating pressure
fluctuations during start-up and shut-down and avoiding compressor trips should a
failure of the VRU (or FGRS if the system is routed to flare) impose a backpressure on the
compressor seals.
A number of routes exist for recovery of the gas. For a compressor operating with low
pressure suction direct return of the primary seal gas to the compressor suction may be
possible. For higher inlet pressures, some form of pressure boosting is needed. Various
arrangements are possible, these are discussed in detail by Conforti et al.24 and are shown
in Figure 9.
24
Conforti et al (2019)
24
Figure 9 – Primary seal gas recovery direct to compressor suction (adapted from Conforti et al, 2019)
The outer seal gas will consist almost entirely of inert gas and its recovery is unlikely to be
a priority vs recovering other hydrocarbon emissions however recent work has looked at
separation of hydrocarbons from this stream25.
3.3.5.2 Wet gas seals emissions

Directing the seal gas from flash vessels to a VRU is a common approach to reducing
wet gas seal emissions. This can be limited by the maximum allowable backpressure
requirements on the flash vessel to ensure adequate disengagement of gas from the seal
oil. In this case gas recovery can still be achieved by using an additional intermediate
pressure flash on the seal oil stream from which the majority of the absorbed gas can be
recovered at moderate pressure (see Figure 10).
25
Watanabe (2018)
25
Figure 10 - Two stage seal oil degassing system
If a compressor with wet gas seals is due to be replaced as part of the field development
or has come to the end of its working life, reduction of this stream may be possible by
replacement with a compressor with dry gas seals however the impact on utility streams
and auxiliary system requirements must be taken into account when assessing the
potential benefits of such a change. Seal gas emissions (for wet or dry systems) are
strongly dependent on the sealing pressure and recovery methods used. However, the
EPA26 note that, for a typical application, methane emissions from a dry seal system are
significantly less than those from a vented wet gas system.
Dry gas seals are routinely used at high pressures and high temperatures making them
suitable for most oil and gas field applications.
3.3.5.3 Other compressor emissions

Other contributions than the seal vent streams are the depressurization streams during
start-ups and shutdowns:
• Depressurization of compressors following a shutdown can be sequenced so
that gas available at high pressure can be routed to a flare system and the final
depressurization phase routed to vent.27
• Compressor trips and shutdowns should be minimized.
• Gas driven starter motors can be designed to allow discharge of the driver gas to a
VRU or can be replaced with electrical starters where possible.
26
27
More information on reducing emissions from avoiding compressor depressurization post shutdown can be found in IOGP Report 673 -
Guidelines for design and operations to minimize and avoiding flaring.
26
3.4 Fuel gas header supply upstream of fired equipment

A common process flow schematic for the fuel header leading to gas turbines and fired
heaters is shown in Figure 1128.
Figure 11 - Typical schematic for fuel gas header supply to fired equipment
API Recommended Practice 556 – Instrumentation, Control, and Protective Systems for
Gas Fired Heaters ( Second Edition, April 2011) and the U.S. National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) standards 8529, 8630, and 8731 often require a double block valve
arrangement in series to isolate fired equipment from fuel gas and often includes a vent
line tied in to the supply line between the Safety Shutoff Valves (SSVs) with a vent/isolation
valve to provide a way to purge the line up to the fired equipment and make it oxygen free.
The air gap between the fuel gas source and the fired equipment provided by the vent also
prevents the migration of fuel gas into the burner chamber when the equipment is not in
use, thus preventing an explosion if the item was not adequately purged prior to start up.
It is advised that the distance between SSV1 and SSV2 be as small as possible to minimize
the gas inventory between the two valves. Directing the flowrate to flare or a recovery
unit are possible options, but as this fuel system is usually a low-pressure system,
possible induced backpressure might not make this route feasible (depending on the fired
equipment operating pressure).
In the vent line scenario, periodic inspection of the valve and piping can sometimes be a
challenge. The venting in this set-up is typically intermittent (during start-up or furnace
valve tightness testing) however some operators have stated that due to vent valve
malfunctions (e.g., lost tightness or coiling/wiring failures) this source can result in a
continuous emission to atmosphere of hydrocarbon gas. One common solution to combat
these malfunctions is the installation of a monitored vent valve that only opens SSV2 after
the vent valve is proven to be closed since SSV1 is open during the purging process. This
is typically accomplished with a proof-of-closure position switch that only closes after the
vent valve is fully closed.
28
Equipment Isolation Valves (for maintenance), Control Valves and Instrumentation not shown
29
NFPA 85 - Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazard Code 2019 edition
30
NFPA 86 - Standards for Ovens and Furnaces 2019 edition
31
NFPA 87 - Recommended Practice for Fluid Heaters 2021 edition
27
To avoid release of fuel gas to the atmosphere many fired heater systems are now no
longer installing a vent/bleed valve between automated block valves. Technical alternatives
that can be explored by the designer are provided in relevant guidance and standards such
as API RP 556 and NFPA standards 85, 86 and 87.
Removal of the vent line (and subsequent source) is thus possible; however a consideration
of any possible safety implications must be made (or formally assessed) to do so.
For gas turbines (GTs) it is important to note that the vent system serves two purposes.
First, it ensures oxygen-free fuel gas is provided to the GT. Second, and this tends to
extend the length of time for purging to vent, it ensures the fuel gas achieves the level of
superheat required at the inlet to the GT skid so that liquid drop-out does not occur before
fuel gas enters the combustor. Liquid in the fuel will damage the combustion system
and high-pressure turbine components which will reduce the time between overhauls.
The destination of the vent line is driven by the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM).
Some OEMs will accept the destination leading to flare systems (more likely in the case of
a gas turbine operating at higher pressure), which may require additional valve tightness
maintenance related activities. However, others will not, due to the backpressure issue.
Moreover, OEMs sometimes express safety concerns with fuel gas entering offline turbines
as the reason for keeping the air gap between the fuel source and the turbine.
3.5 Sampling systems

The most widely used technique for continuous gas sampling measurements is gas
chromatography32 however the system and device used often depends on the medium in
question (e.g., liquid vs gas and high or low temperatures). For gas chromatography, a low
flowrate of hydrocarbon gas is observed which is combined with a carrier gas. Most gas
chromatographs typically require the sample to be controlled at a pressure between 15
to 30 psig (100 to 200 kPag) and use a sample flowrate of 30-50 cc/min (0.03-0.05 L/min)
though up to 500 cm3/min (0.5 L/min) may be slipstreamed from the process to ensure a
rapid response time.
Common industry practise is to vent or flare the sample streams where possible (with a
preference on tying into a flare header). This is the result of difficulties routing to a VRU or
FGRS which may impose backpressure issues on the chromatograph and impact sampling
representativity as well as producing difficulties overcoming the low pressures used in the
sampling systems (low pressure point between the system tie-in and discharge) in order to
pipe back to the process (and thus recover).
New build operations may consider reducing the sampling requirements where possible
or use of alternative technologies to eliminate the need to vent sampling gas. If recovery
routes are sought, then careful integration with sufficient hazardous risk assessments for
the control systems must be performed.
32
Emerson Rosemount (2019)
28
3.6 Produced water treatment and closed drains
3.6.1 Produced water

There are several potential sources of hydrocarbon venting from a Produced Water
Treatment System (PWTS). A typical offshore configuration of PWTS is shown in Figure 12
with three potential venting sources. Other sources can include gun barrel and bed filters
(such as nutshell filter) vents.
Produced water from

upstream separation units Flash gas / blanket gas
Flash vessel
Separated oil
Hydro-
cyclones Flotation gas to vent
Skimmed oil
Flotation
unit Vent gas
Water to disposal
Flotation gas caisson or storage
Figure 12 – Typical schematic of produced water treatment
Strategies to minimize venting from the produced water treatment train will include:
• Directing the flash gas, flotation gas and vent gas to a VRU (collected with a surge
vessel). This will depend on use of fuel gas for flotation and the absence of oxygen in
the water storage system.
• Use of nitrogen in the collection vessel upstream of the PWTS (pre-hydro cyclone), in
the flotation unit and for the blanketing of the water disposal/storage system. In some
cases, the attachment efficiency of nitrogen can be higher in the flotation unit process
(enhancing the attachment of oil)33. Use of nitrogen blanketing may not avoid the need
to recover this vent stream due to traces of hydrocarbons, and implications for the
vent recovery system should be considered.
The higher the pressure in the flotation unit, the higher the quantity of flash gas from the
caisson (offshore)/storage (onshore). Note that the vent stream from a discharge caisson
may be contaminated with oxygen and contains a low amount of hydrocarbon vapours
making its recovery problematic and of low value.
33
Piccioli (2020)
29
For FPSOs, produced water can also go to the cargo tanks when off spec. Typically, FPSOs
will have dedicated tanks that can be used for produced water and produced oil as needed.
3.6.2 Closed drains

The closed drains and sump systems on a facility may not require blanketing due to the
presence of hydrocarbon vapours already in the system or they may be blanketed with fuel
gas. Irrespective of blanketing, the closed drain system presents a hydrocarbon venting
source in relation to the vaporisation of hydrocarbons to the top of the vessel as a result of
volume or pressure changes (directly related to Vapour Liquid Equilibrium (VLE)).
Use of a VRU or FGRS could be possible for recovery of the hydrocarbons (if verified by
assessment) however blanketing with nitrogen or inert gas is also possible as one operator
reported this was standard procedure for all their new installations.
A case study from the same operator reported that replacing hydrocarbon purge gas of a
reclaimed oil sump on an older platform with nitrogen led to 535 tonnes CH4/year and 520
tonnes nmVOC/year of emissions abatement (on top of economic profit owing to the value
of the gas recovered and the tax savings given the operating regime which taxes vent gas
higher than flared gas).
3.7 Blanketing of expansion vessels and tanks

Heating and cooling medium vessels need blanketing as the vessels cannot have any
contact with O2 or the atmospheric conditions. Blanketing of the vessels is often done with
hydrocarbon gas from the fuel gas network which is then subsequently vented or flared.
The control philosophy is generally linked to the pressure within the vessel in which a
pressure independent control valve or Pressure Regulator at predefined pressure set
points will initiate the flow of blanket gas from the blanketing network upon a pressure
drop and open the vessel to vent or flare (ceasing flow of the blanket gas) in the event of a
pressure rise.
As a means for minimizing emissions at source, for installations where hydrocarbons have
been selected as a blanketing medium, the recovery options will be to a VRU, to the fuel
gas system or to a suitable location in the process train dependent on composition and
pressure. For further information, consult IOGP Reports 647 and 673.34,35
The use of nitrogen is also possible (with hydrocarbon gas from a fuel gas system
sometimes as a back-up) for the expansion vessel blanketing. Typically, nitrogen for purging
and blanketing is generated from air using nitrogen generation packages comprised of
either membrane or Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) technology. Nitrogen generated
using PSA will typically be over 99.9% N2 with less than 0,1% O2 remaining from the air.
Nitrogen produced from a simple single stage membrane unit however can contain up to
5% O2.
34
IOGP Report 647 – Guidelines for the design and operation of flare gas recovery systems
35
IOGP Report 673 – Guidelines for design and operations to minimize and avoid flaring
30
Use of nitrogen for blanketing in expansion tanks eliminates any venting of hydrocarbons
from a blanket gas source perspective, however there is always a risk that for processes
using hydrocarbons (i.e., in systems cooling or heating high pressure process gas) there
could be flammable gas ingress in event of a tube failure or rupture. For this reason,
maintaining oxygen concentration less than 50% of the minimum oxygen concentration
(MOC) or lower oxygen content (LOC) to prevent a flammable atmosphere is needed.
For most hydrocarbons, 8.5% or higher MOC/LOC is required for combustion, so limiting
oxygen content to 5% or less (approximately less than 50% of MOC or LOC) is recommended
from a process safety standpoint. Up to 5% O2 is acceptable from a process safety
standpoint for a nitrogen blanket gas, although not desirable due to oxidation/corrosion
product formation. A concern related to O2 presence in some heating and cooling medium
systems is the risk of corrosion (leading to a pressurized release or loss of containment)
however this risk can be addressed through means such as material selection and
adequate preventative maintenance. High purity nitrogen (greater than 99 % N2) should be
considered where corrosion or oxidation risks are high.
When evaluating routing the nitrogen blanket stream to a vent, the discharge location
should account for the potential for gas ingress to the system via a heat exchanger tube
leak or rupture. Flaring of nitrogen blanket gas via LP flare (mixed with hydrocarbons in
the flare header) is common practice on assets to mitigate the risk of hydrocarbons being
present. This method can introduce complications around incomplete combustion and
extinguishment at the flare stack (leading to hydrocarbon slip). It should be noted that
the energy to generate nitrogen blanketing gas will likely have a smaller carbon footprint
than that of a continuous hydrocarbon flare option. However, for larger blanketing systems
demanding more compression, considering a total emissions impact around the trade-offs
of installing and operating the nitrogen generation unit could be beneficial.
3.8 Pipelines (flexible risers)

The annulus of a flexible riser is vented to prevent the build-up of gases that have diffused
into it through the inner layers. These systems are at very low pressure (at most 2-3 barg).
Outer sheath bursts have been seen from pressure build ups of 5-10 bar in the annulus,
and up to 20 bar for cross-sections with double outer sheaths. Most flexible pipe systems
have either a Pressure Relief Valve (PRV) that opens at set differential pressure (commonly
to local vent), or a gas vent system on the topside (generally comprised of a set of three
vent ports which either route the annulus gas to a vent system or are also locally vented),
neither of which should be blocked. Flowlines and subsea jumpers are usually equipped
with PRVs at both end fittings, while risers should have a topside gas ventilation system.
Given the small relative flowrate or intermittent nature, this source of methane is
challenging to recover.
31
3.9 Storage tanks
3.9.1 Hydrocarbon products

3.9.1.1 Elimination of venting
Venting emissions from storage facility tanks can be eliminated by, where possible,
removing LP storage of liquids on the site, use of floating roof tanks to accommodate
gases, or by linking together of tanks.
The latter option is possible for tanks which have a relatively wide operating pressure
range36. The headspace across a number of tanks may be sufficient to prevent the need
for appreciable venting. Dynamic simulations can be used to assess likely pressure
variations for typical liquid loading and unloading patterns. One operator has reported
that linking three tanks together at an export facility, each having around 20% head space
during normal operation, was sufficient to eliminate venting during the majority of import
and export operations. Allowing the headspace to communicate also reduces the venting
requirements when executing tank-to-tank transfers.
3.9.1.2 Reduction of venting emissions

Reducing venting emissions from storage facilities can be achieved through maximizing
upstream crude or liquids stabilization and temperature minimization of liquids prior to
storage (e.g. use of vapor recovery tower, stabiliser column, and/or flash drum with VRU
use) to remove dissolved gases or higher vapor pressure components. Heating of liquids in
storage tanks (e.g., wash or separation tanks) will generate vapours that require recovery
and increase emissions of methane, so upstream stabilisation or processing can reduce
the flash vapor generation as pressure is let-down from the pipe/upstream process to the
low or atmospheric tank.
Improving plant operations to reduce off-spec product storage volume can also reduce
venting emissions at storage facilities, as can changing the blanketing arrangements. Use
of N2 (or CO2) in cases where venting will occur rather than fuel gas. However, it should be
noted that the use of fuel gas for blanketing may simplify recovery of vented gases to other
systems or for export.
3.9.1.3 Recovery of venting emisions

Installation of a vapour recovery units and/or connection to existing vapour recovery
facilities may also be possible for storage facilities however this will be dependent on the
design capacities of the VRU and compatibility of the vented gases.
Use of pressurized separation systems and or multiphase pumps at satellite production

facilities can allow export of pressurised or multiphase mixtures which will allow recovery
and processing of associated gases at larger central sites where a VRU is available. This
option however must be evaluated to take into account the potential difficulties in operating
multiphase lines and the higher cost and energy demands of multiphase pumps and
metering systems.
36
Such as those included in API Standard 620 – Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-Pressure Storage Tanks. Twelfth Edition,
2013.
32
3.9.2 Chemical storage tanks

Production chemicals are widely used offshore and onshore. Where blanketing is
necessary, nitrogen should be used unless specified otherwise by the chemical supplier.
3.10 Other process and control sources

As discussed in Section 2.2.1, gas driven pneumatic systems (typically gas driven glycol
pumps and gas driven controllers) are widely used on many remote onshore or offshore
assets. Although individually small, millions of pneumatic controllers are used in the oil
and gas industry worldwide meaning that they can collectively comprise a major source
of methane emissions37. In addition to these emissions there are also many locally vented
relief and instrument systems, gas driven blow cases and thief hatches on tanks.
Provision of a VRU at the small sites where these systems are typically located would be
impractical. Some means of reducing emissions for this variety of sources include:
• Replacement of gas-driven pumps and compressors with electrically driven units
• Retrofitting gas driven pneumatic device outlets to route into the process (eliminating
venting to atmosphere)
• Optimization of glycol circulation rates to minimize pump driven gas usage (and
subsequently flash gas emissions, see Section 3.1.2)
• Replacement of glycol systems at small sites with desiccant units
• Replacement of gas driven controllers with electrical or (if an instrument air driven
system is available or can be installed) compressed air driven systems
• Replacement of high bleed gas actuated controllers (which continuously bleed
process gas to vent) with intermittent bleed or low bleed devices
• Implementation of Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) or Directed Inspection and
Maintenance (DI&M) programs to identify and repair leaks from natural gas actuated
controllers and confirm that they are operating per design to prevent excessive use of
driver gas by malfunctioning, leaking or incorrectly adjusted units
• Design of PSVs to avoid the possibility of simmering; a significant amount of venting
(up to 20%) has been observed on some sites due to simmering
• Use of hydraulic systems in place of pneumatics ones (where appropriate)
3.11 Pipeline operations
3.11.1 Pigging
On most systems, pigging is used only intermittently for inspection or cleaning purposes.
In these situations, the pig launcher and receiver will need to be vented to load and recover
the scraper/inspection pigging train.
37
CCAC O&G Methane Partnership (2017a)
33
On such systems, venting can be minimized by routing the first stages of depressurization
to lower pressure process systems. Depending on the facility this might include an
alternative gas export system, a low pressure system (with gas recovery) or a fuel gas
system. The final stage depressurization, down to atmospheric pressure, should be routed
to a common vent (or flare), which may have a FGRS installed to recover the collected vent/
flare gas at the vent/flare header.
3.11.2 Depressurization for intervention

Depressurization of large sections of pipeline for inspection, maintenance, or the
installation of new tie-ins will be an intermittent activity. However, the volumes being vented
are potentially large. To minimize venting, the following measures can be considered:
• Depressurization to local low-pressure users, a fuel gas system, or to a flare; where
there is a choice of facilities from which to depressurise the pipeline, use the one
which has the best facilities for capturing and utilizing low pressure gas
• Removal of the residual gas using existing compressors, ejectors or a mobile plant
• Consider technologies which do not require depressurization – e.g., use of hot tapping
to install new tie-ins into live pipelines
• Use of mobile facilities to recover gas from the system.
3.11.3 Other reduction measures for gas transmission operations

More detail and guidance on reduction of methane emissions from transmission, storage,
LNG terminals and gas distribution systems can be found in the Methane Guiding
Principles Best Practice Guide38.
3.12 FPSOs
Methane emissions from cargo tanks on FPSOs have had limited coverage in existing oil
and gas industry guides on methane venting reduction. Venting and purging of cargo tanks
using inert gas is generally covered by existing guidance, but many recent systems are now
using hydrocarbon gas blanketing which is covered in detail in the following section.
3.12.1 Venting systems on FPSOs

FPSO and FSU installations generally follow the rules of the classification societies (such
as the American Bureau of Shipping, Bureau Veritas, DNV, or Lloyd’s Register), which
in turn tended to follow SOLAS II-2/B/Reg 4.5 and SOLAS II-2/C/Reg 11.639 for guidance
regarding the arrangements for the venting, purging, gas-freeing, and ventilation of cargo
oil tanks. These rules are covered in detail in various publications40.
38
Methane Guiding Principles (2020)
39
IMO(1974)
40
IMO (2009)
34
Most FPSOs have an integrated blanketing and venting system based on an evolution of that
used on traditional tankers. A few more recent FPSOs have integrated the use of HC gas
(fuel gas) as the primary means to blanket the cargo tanks whilst retaining the means to
inert, purge, gas free and vent cargo tanks per more traditional designs. Key components of
the FPSO inert gas system and venting system are detailed below:
• Most FPSOs have vent and blanket (inert or HC) gas headers common to all cargo tanks
• Venting from this line is via a riser of specified height with flame arrestor
Cargo tanks will require additional overpressure/vacuum protection. This may be provided
via P/V breakers, Pressure Vacuum Safety Valves (PVSVs), vent valves, and other devices
and means (such as SIL rated high pressure trip protection that stops all sources supplying
the tanks). The design of these will cover all overpressure/vacuum scenarios, including
potential for vaporization of volatile components in the gas space. The regulatory regime(s)
where the FPSO will be located will also drive the standards to be used for the basis of
design and operating procedures, as well as the flag administration, where applicable. This
may include compliance with various requirements in the industry standards, including
those published by the IMO and classification societies.
3.12.2 Use of inert gas blanketing and implications for venting

Flue gas is used as an inert gas for blanketing in tankers and is used on many FPSOs. This
gas, from dedicated inert gas generators or a fire heated steam boiler, will typically have a
composition of 80% nitrogen, more than 15% carbon dioxide, and up to 5% oxygen.
Flue/combustion gas is convenient to use as inert gas because of its availability from
the FPSO (or tanker) power plants and because the typical loading rates required are
high (oil offloading rates are typically 6,000-8,000m3/hr (0.038 – 0.050MMbbls/hr). Use
of a membrane unit to produce sufficient N2 for blanketing could potentially reduce
emissions (assuming that the energy demand does not exceed that required to generate
CO2 in a combustor) but will add to capital and operating expenditure ($/kWh operation,
maintenance requirements, and replacement membranes) and occupy more deck space.
When an empty FPSO tank blanketed with inert gas is loaded with oil from the process
system, the initially displaced gas will have a composition very close to that of the inert
gas. As oil is added to the tank hydrocarbons will vaporize into the gas phase. For a well
stabilised crude, these will be heavier hydrocarbons and, having a high density, they will
accumulate in a layer immediately above the surface of the oil. This means that the vented
gas will be mostly nitrogen and carbon dioxide until the final stages of filling when the
accumulated hydrocarbons are displaced. This effect is shown in Figure 13, based on one
in the IMO guide on venting systems41 where the percentage of VOCs in the displaced gas is
seen to steadily rise during filling:
41
IMO (2009)
35
Figure 13 - Change in displaced gas composition during filling of an inert blanketed FPSO tank
For the purposes of greenhouse gas emissions reduction, the global warming potentials
of higher hydrocarbons are relatively low42 compared to methane. The main greenhouse
gas effect from this venting is likely to be that of CO2 which forms less than 20% of the
gas stream. This reduces the benefit of recovering the vent gas from a carbon reduction
perspective. In addition, the recovered vent gas contains oxygen which can lead to
contamination of the FPSO processing facilities, acceleration of corrosion problems and
issues in the subsea system/reservoir and therefore the facilities design shall consider
it when evaluating its recovery. However, it can be justifiable if the cost of emissions is
quantified. One cost basis would be the carbon costing from the Kyoto Protocol, based on
country classification (EU countries, Annex I countries, and Non-Annex I countries)43.
On some FPSOs, the minimization of hydrocarbon emissions (not only the GHG) is expected
to either recover value or to meet hydrocarbon emissions requirements. In this case, a
vapour recovery unit (VRU) will be installed. In Figure 14 and the following text describe the
recovery of cargo tank vent streams with an inert gas system on an FPSO.
42
IPCC (2021) reports 20yr GWP for C3H8 and C4H10 of 0.02 and 0.006 respectively
43
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2018)
36
Figure 14 - Schematic for one operator’s inert gas blanketed FPSO with VRU
1) The FPSO is equipped with two VRUs. One of these is normally dedicated to vent
recovery from the process and one used for recovery from the cargo tanks; however,
both can be lined up to process or the cargo tanks and they are interchangeable. Both
VRUs are equipped with a suction pressure control to prevent vacuum conditions in
the cargo tanks.
2) During normal operation, the process gas is recovered from the dehydration system
and flotation cells via one VRU (VRU-01). The gas from cargo tank vents is recovered
through the second VRU (VRU-02) which operates in parallel with VRU-01. The gas
from both VRUs is sent to the overhead compressor, then LP compressor and finally
fed to the gas injection compressor system.
3) Before offloading, the header is purged with inert gas which consists of nitrogen and
CO2 to remove potential H2S vapor in the gas phase caused by bacteria development
in the water inside the tanks. Several hours before offloading starts, the inert gas
generator is started and routed to the inert gas header to purge the header directly
to the atmosphere. During this time, the VRU-02 runs on full recycle mode or is shut
down for preventative maintenance, preventing inert gas being sent directly to the
process. The inert gas does not mix with hydrocarbon gas during crude oil export
from the cargo tanks.
4) During offloading, the VRU-02 compressor is isolated from the cargo tank header
and inert gas, containing approximately 3-5% oxygen, is used for blanketing and
maintaining positive pressure in the cargo tank throughout export. The inert gas does
not go the atmosphere during offloading. Before offloading is completed, the inert gas
generator is shut down.
37
5) Once cargo oil offloading to shuttle tanker is completed, VRU-02 is lined up to cargo
tank header for vapor recovery. Initially, a mix of inert gas and process gas will be
going to the VRU, but the inert gas content will decrease as the inert gas generators
are shut down.
6) The system will now continue in normal operation with hydrocarbon displaced
through cargo tank vents being recovered by VRU-02.
7) Tanks that need cleaning are first emptied and are isolated from the inert gas
distribution header. These tanks are then lined up to the inert gas/fresh air purge
header in which the inert gas is used to purge the tanks until the oxygen level in the
tanks reaches 5% to perform the washing. After washing, if tank entry is required, the
level of HC in the tank atmosphere is checked and, if safe, fresh air is introduced via
the same inert gas/fresh purge air header to ensure there’s sufficient oxygen in the
tanks for entry.
As described above, use of inert gas results in a variable composition vent stream during
FPSO tank filling. In calm weather conditions, venting of the final, high hydrocarbon
content gas can lead to accumulation of flammable gas around the FPSO44. This is both
inconvenient and dangerousas triggering the gas detection systems will shut-down the
FPSO process systems and poses a hazard. A UK HSE Safety Bulletin45 reports one such
event leading to a fire.
3.12.3 Use of hydrocarbon gas for blanketing

To avoid the issue of variable compositions in the vent stream, most newbuild FPSOs and
some existing units now operate closed loop system (example schematic in Figure 15)
where gas taken from a suitable point at process plant is used for blanketing the tanks
during normal operations. The FPSO can also be fitted with two vent mast risers (port and
starboard) to allow the operator to select the best side (leeward) to avoid HC gases on the
FPSO. HC blanketing is particularly beneficial for FPSOs handling volatile crudes where
greater levels of HCs can be lost to inert blanketing gas.
44
Some FPSOs have alternative venting locations and utilize those downwind of the main equipment modules to better disperse HC gas
away from the FPSO, but this will not work in still conditions.
45
United Kingdom Health and Safety Executive (2010)
38
Figure 15 - Closed loop hydrocarbon blanketing schematic
Advantages of HC blanketing:
• Under normal operating conditions, flammable gas hazard is eliminated as the
primary route is recovery of blanketing gas via VRU to the process.
• Avoidance of trips linked to flammable gas accumulation thanks to venting suppression.
• Venting of hydrocarbons is eliminated during normal tank filling operations.
• No requirement to routinely capture and compress flue gas or generate additional
inert gas.
• Hydrocarbon gas is less corrosive than flue gas which can impact the structural hull
design (thinner steel, less coatings) to meet strength and fatigue criteria over the life
of the FPSO. This is factor for FPSO conversions where the designer tries to maximise
the existing value in the candidate tanker and avoid need to crop and replace steel.
An ABS guide46 and BV rule47 to HC blanketing systems exists but at present there is limited
guidance on their design and operation. Design, operation, and issues that should be
addressed when using HC for blanketing are discussed in the following sections.
46
American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Hydrocarbon Blanket Gas System. (2014)
47
Bureau Veritas. NR445 Rules for the Classification of Offshore Units BV (2024)
39
3.12.3.1 Source and provision of sufficient blanketing gas

Offloading rates are typically up to 6,000-8,000m3/hr (0.038 – 0.050MMbbls/day) of oil.
Ideally the source of the gas chosen to supply the blanketing system should be similar to
that in equilibrium with the stabilised crude to reduce vaporisation of liquids from the tank.
The gas source should also be from the lowest pressure supply possible to minimize overall
energy use.
An inert gas system should be installed as a back-up if the HC blanketing gas source fails
or is insufficient to meet blanketing requirements. The inert gas system is also used for
purging and neutralizing the blanketed tanks before and after the tank inspection. The final
function of the inert gas system is to purge adjacent compartments of blanketed tanks (e.g.,
ballast tanks) in the event of a crack in a bulkhead.
This system should be isolated from the HC blanketing systems by interlocks. Pressure
alarms on the blanketing gas headers should warn of the need for blanket gas and a low-
pressure trip should shut down the unloading system and prevent air ingress through the
vacuum safety devices such as vacuum valves including PVSVs and P/V Breakers.
Introduction of air into the tank during the process is a final step to avoid the risk of
tank collapse but renders the atmosphere in the tank unsuitable for recycling to the
process system. If air ingress occurs the tank must be isolated from the others and gas
subsequently displaced from it must be vented.
3.12.3.2 Compressor/ejector choice for recovery of HC blanketing gas

Recommendations for compressor selection for HC blanket gas recovery are given in
Section 4.1.1.
3.12.3.3 Presence of sulphur

The presence of H2S and other sulphur compounds in the crude, fuel gas, and from the slop
and other structural tanks dedicated to the process plant, which may also be connected to
the blanketing system, should be monitored and controlled as there is a potential risk of
sulphur deposition in the headers due to reaction with low levels of oxygen present in the
blanket gas (following maintenance activities, flue gas or nitrogen blanketing).
3.12.3.4 Safeguarding against cargo tank overpressure

Conventional sizing of cargo tank venting systems on FPSOs has typically been based
on a cargo pump capacity that is much higher than the liquid production rate, plus any
VOC generation. A minimum of 125% of maximum loading rates is specified in the rules
of several classification societies and the system needs to accommodate tank to tank
transfers (loading rate)48.
48
The designer can show that this high capacity scenario is not possible (or interlocked) and if this is the case, it would be an exception to
rule/norm.
40
The Hazardous Identification Study (HAZID) of HC blanketed systems have identified the
possibility of a failure in the production system, leading to full bore flow of HC gas (gas
blow-by) from the source of HC (such as a LP separator) to the cargo tanks. This might
occur when the blanketing gas supply control valve fails open or when level control is lost
in the upstream equipment feeding directly to the cargo tanks. Measures to protect against
these scenarios include a fast-closing SDV linked to the high-pressure trip on the HC
header, restriction orifices on the HC blanket supply, and appropriate sizing of venting and
relief systems.
3.12.3.5 Inspection and maintenance

To enable inspection and maintenance activities (i.e., tank purging using IG and tank gas
freeing using fresh air of one or more tanks whilst still producing and loading crude to the
storage tank(s)) three main header systems are installed:
• An inert gas/fresh air supply header system
• A HC gas header (supply and return) system
• A purge/vent header system
Provision of an additional header for the PVSV valves on each tank may also be needed. If
individual PVSVs per tank are used, a fourth header is likely needed. This decision may be
driven by requirements such as a regulatory body wanting the PV valves tested every six
months. This could even lead to having two 100% or two 50% PV valves, with or without
isolation valves. A schematic for such an arrangement is shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16 - Typical four header arrangement for HC blanketed FPSO
41
There will be a routine requirement to prepare the FPSO tanks for entry to allow inspection
and other interventions. To minimize the amount of hydrocarbons vented into the
atmosphere, the last offloading of a cargo tank before it is stopped for inspection should
be done with inert gas, as this way the inert gas occupies the vapor space as the tank is
unloaded. Once the tank has been completely drained, the amount of hydrocarbons inside
will be minimal and purging activity will be reduced, which will reduce the amount of
hydrocarbon vented.
For tanks that need cleaning, after draining they need to be isolated from the inert gas
distribution header. These tanks can then be switched to the inert gas/fresh air purge
header in which the inert gas is used to purge the tanks until the oxygen level in the tanks
reaches 5% to perform the washing. After washing, if tank entry is required, the level of
HC in the tank atmosphere is checked and, if safe, fresh air is introduced via the same
inert gas/fresh purge air header to ensure there’s sufficient oxygen in the tanks for entry.
Individual tanks should be prepared for purging by operation for several loading and
unloading cycles using inert gas blanketing and venting. The number of cycles can be
optimized in order to minimize the volume of inert gas blanketing required.
Tanks will then be purged thorough with inert gas, this process concluding with operation
of the inert gas system in ‘air’ mode (i.e., gas-freeing the tanks with air) to ready them for
opening and entry. Entry will be subject to continued atmospheric testing and the use of
portable ventilation systems to ensure a breathable atmosphere is maintained.
Recommissioning of the gas free tank will commence with purging the air from the tank
using inert gas where the air/inert gas is vented via vent header to atmosphere (e.g., via a
vent mast riser). The optimum process for returning an individual cargo tank to HC blanket
is customized to the O2 limitations of each individual FPSO49. This may entail displacing the
IG or multiple offloads with HC blanketing before initiating blanket gas recovery. Once the
tank is under the hydrocarbon gas blanket, the return line to topside gas system can be
opened to reinstate the hydrocarbon gas blanketing system as operational.
3.12.3.6 Isolation of tanks and header crossovers

During inspections, for flexibility of operation and redundancy/sparing optimization, there
will be a need to isolate individual tanks from headers. A further requirement is the potential
need to link between the headers via crossover lines during other FPSO operations.
Tanks isolation for entry and header crossovers require positive isolations per company
requirements. Spectacle blind systems have been used for this on some FPSOs.
49
The O2 levels may be as high as 8% per IMO rules. Lower values may be specified as per company procedures and risk assessments.
42
3.12.3.7 Conversion of existing systems to HC blanketing

Conversion of existing inert gas blanketing FPSOs to HC is considered challenging by most
operators because of the need to route new vent headers across a potentially crowded
deck areas and because of the need to integrate the new blanketing and VRU with existing
process and flare systems.
One vessel was converted from an FSO to an FPSO. The conversion included a switch from
inert gas to HC blanketing, reducing corrosion in the cargo tanks and the opportunity was
also taken to eliminate routine flaring from the vessel.
A second case of conversion used the arrangement shown in Figure 17.

Safe location
Safe location
Inert gas header

Inert gas supply
PIC
Vapour Safe location
HC gas blanketing header
To process recovery
unit
Tank venting header
From process
FPSO storage tanks
Flame arrestor High velocity vent valves and vaccum valve with end line free vent cover
PV breaker Pressure vacuum relief valve per tank
Figure 17 – Example arrangement of FPSO converted from inert gas to hydrocarbon blanketing.
The system operation is as follows:

1) During off-loading, the pressure in the blanketing gas header is maintained with gas
from process and the VRU is stopped.
2) During tank loading, the valve from process is closed and path is open to VRU.
3) In the event of a release within the process (without a full shutdown), the VRU can
continue running to send gas to the process, which will subsequently be routed to
the flare.
4) In the event of a release within the process (with a full shutdown), the VRU will stop
and isolated. The standing losses from the cargo tanks will be vented via the high
velocity vent valves of the hydrocarbon header.
43
4. Vapour recovery units

Vapor recovery units (VRU) are used to prevent emissions by capturing the streams and
re-routing them either back to the process or for use as fuel. More details on the
components, installation, and operation of VRU are captured in the following sections.
4.1 VRU components

Since vent systems usually operate at lower pressures than the associated process
equipment, the first component of a VRU is likely to be a mechanism for compressing the
vented gas. However, when sufficient pressure is available in the vented system, gas can be
recovered through a valve into a suitable location in the VRU.
Mechanisms for gas compression are typically either:

• A mechanical compressor
• An ejector or eductor using a motive fluid and a nozzle to entrain and pressurize the
vent gas stream
After compression a combination of cooling, separation of liquids and, for systems

comprising mostly inert gases, extraction of the hydrocarbons using a liquid absorbent
or solid adsorbents will be required. The exact choice of these units will depend on the
composition of the vent stream being recovered.
4.1.1 Compressors
There are four main types of compressors used in VRUs, namely:
• Liquid ring compressors
• Screw compressors
• Reciprocating compressors
• Rotary vane compressors
A detailed discussion of compressor selection and the first three of these compressor types is
made in IOGP Report 64750. Since most of the requirements for a VRU compressor are similar
to those for a FGRS, IOGP Report 647 should be consulted for further information. A short
discussion of rotary vane designs has been included here to supplement this information.
Other compressor designs may also be suitable for use in VRU systems. For example, the
VRU on one of the operators FPSO uses a roots type blower51.
50
IOGP Report 647 – Guidelines for the design and operation of flare gas recovery systems.
51
Akesson et al (2013)
44
Rotary vane compressors
Rotary (or sliding) vane compressors have also been proposed for VRUs52. A rotary vane
compressor is shown in Figure 18 and comprises a rotor, eccentrically mounted in a casing
(stator). The rotor has slots accommodating a number of sliding vanes. When operating the
vanes extend out of the slots to contact the outer edge of the casing forming a number of
compartments which transport to the casing outlet. Oil is injected to lubricate the casing
and vanes and assists in sealing between the vanes and casing. Recovery of this oil will be
required in a separator and coalescer downstream of the compressor.
Rotary vane compressors are small and relatively efficient, but have turndown limitations
(at low speed there is less force out to contact the casing). Capacity is controlled by using
inlet throttling or recycle (which increases energy consumption). They are relatively
unaffected by inlet pressure and temperatures.
Figure 18 - Rotary vane compressor
4.1.2 Ejectors and eductors

Ejectors (shown in Figure 19) are pressure boosting devices that can be used as an
alternative to compressors They are also known as eductors, jet compressors, or surface
jet pumps. The term ejector is typically used to refer to systems where a gas is used as the
motive fluids whilst eductor is usually used when a liquid is the driving fluid.
Generally, gas ejectors require motive fluid flowrates in the range of 2 to 8 kg for every kg
of vent gas recovered. Whereas liquid ejectors typically require around 0.03 to 0.10 m3 of
motive fluid for every cubic metre of vent gas recovered.
52
CCAC O&G (2017)
45
Figure 19 - Main components of an ejector53 (Image © Society of Petroleum Engineers)
A detailed discussion of ejectors and their operation is available in the IOGP Report 64754.
This includes discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of gas and liquid
driven systems and the process arrangements and safeguarding required to ensure a
vacuum cannot be created on the suction side of the ejector. A control valve is normally
required on the recycle gas flow from the discharge of the ejector to the ‘suction’ (LP)
side to maintain a minimum pressure at the suction side, taking account of the pressure
drop/distance to the tank. The quantity of ejectors to be installed and in operation shall
be selected to cover all the vent gas expected flowrate range of operation. A spare ejector
installation should be assessed.
Since most of the requirements for a VRU ejector are similar to those for a FGRS, that
document should be consulted for further information.
4.1.3 VRU separation technologies

Recovered vent gas will be being directed to one of three destinations:
• The product or sales gas, upstream of export compression facilities
• The facility fuel gas system
• The facility flare system (when there is no gas handling facilities)
The choice of destination will depend on whether the facility has a gas export route, whether
additional fuel gas is required and whether a flare system exists at the site. It will also depend
on the range of compositions of the recovered gases and the contaminants present.
If the vent gas can be conveniently compressed and returned to a suitable stage of the main
process stream this will be the preferred option.
53
Ainge P, 2019
54
46
If fuel gas is required on the site (or the site is currently utilizing sales gas as fuel), then
a less energy intensive option may be routing of the vent gas to the fuel gas system which
will be at a lower pressure than the main process units. The fuel gas system requires
gas to be of a suitable calorific value and to meet hydrocarbon and water dewpoints
to avoid accumulation of these liquids in the fuel gas system. Since the gas will not be
passing through the process train it may need cooling and liquids separation to meet
these dewpoints. A further requirement of the fuel gas system may also be the absence of
sulphur compounds.
As a final alternative, the gas may have to be routed to the flare system. In this case, basic
cooling and bulk liquids removal are the only process operations that will be needed.
A schematic of a basic VRU showing key components is shown in Figure 20.
Liquids KO
Compressor
PSVS
Blanketing system
To process/
fuel gas/ flare
Sealing liquid recovery
(if neccessary)
Storage tank
PCV
Figure 20 – Basic schematic showing VRU for a storage tank
4.1.3.1 Cooling and Liquids Separation

Cooling and liquids separation of the gas entering the VRU or leaving the VRU compressor
will be needed in a number of situations:
• Vent streams recovered from a glycol or amine regeneration system will be saturated
with water and will need cooling and separation to prevent this entering the VRU
compressor or ejector.
• A basic liquid knock-out unit on the inlet of the VRU is recommended to protect most
types of compressors.
• The gas leaving the compressor may require separation to recover the liquid phase
(depending on compressor type and duty).
• Multiphase streams leaving a liquid eductor will need separation to recover the
driver liquid.
• Streams may require heating before entering a gas driven ejector to prevent low
temperatures (due to Joule-Thomson cooling effects) which can cause problems such
as ice formation.
• Adsorption beds and membrane systems are generally intolerant of liquids.
• Streams sent to a cryogenic system to recover hydrocarbons will need to be dew
pointed to avoid ice (and possibly hydrate) formation - this is more likely to be
accomplished by returning the stream to the process inlet.
47
These devices will be sized using conventional process engineering methodologies but can
take account of:
• The potential for variable flow rates and composition
• Potential for blockage or high backpressures which could lead to process trips
• Utility usage – e.g., for brownfield installations, the VRU may require additional utility
systems be included to support air coolers or other necessary equipment in the
absence of a cooling system
4.1.3.2 Refrigeration
Refrigeration systems will generally have a high capital and operating expenditure and are
usually only used for separation purposes when a high value product is being recovered or
at a large scale when high levels of integration and energy recovery can be implemented.
Refrigeration is commonly used in gas processing plants to remove heavy hydrocarbons
and VOCs form a lighter gas phase.
In a VRU, it would be applied to treat VOC laden gas (hydrocarbon or inert gas) recovered
from tank vents. Refrigeration is in use on a number of shuttle tankers carrying highly
volatile crude oil in the Norwegian North Sea55 and for recovering boil off on LNG vessels,
but none of the operating companies consulted for this Report reported widespread use in
oil and gas production facilities.
4.1.3.3 Other separation technologies

Use of other, more complex, separation technologies within a VRU will be either to
remove unwanted, non-combustible or contaminant gases from HC gases or to remove
VOCs from a largely inert gas stream. The latter case is applicable to VRUs on inert gas
blanketed FPSOs, tankers and onshore storage depots where the primary aim is to recover
hydrocarbons rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They will only be discussed
briefly in this guideline.
4.1.3.3.1 Adsorption systems

A typical Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) system consists of a number of adsorber vessels
filled with adsorption material such as activated carbon, active coal, silica gel, alumina or
zeolite. Choice of material will depend on the separation required. Active carbon is well
suited to VOC removal. During normal operation, each adsorber operates in an alternating
cycle of adsorption, regeneration and pressure build-up. Contaminants are adsorbed on
the adsorbent material surface with the cleaned gas leaving the top of the adsorber vessel.
Many adsorption materials strongly adsorb H2S irreversibly and are thus poisoned. An H2S
adsorber bed (such as activated carbon which can be readily replaced) should be placed
before some PSA processes.
Regeneration of the saturated adsorbent material is achieved by a stepwise

depressurization of an offline adsorber vessel to atmospheric pressure. Active coal and
active carbon units have been used on floating storage and offloading units (FSOs), where
these systems are used to separate nmVOCs from inert gas56. The adsorbed hydrocarbons
are recycled back to the oil resulting in a 90% reduction in nmVOC emissions. The beds are
reported to have a service life of six to seven years.
55
Ipieca (2013)
56
Ipieca (2013)
48
4.1.3.3.2 Membranes
Membrane units can also be used to selectively remove VOCs from inert gas streams.
They are employed mainly on volatiles recovery systems in storage site and chemical plant
applications57 and do not appear to have been employed in oil and gas facilities for methane
recovery. Membrane systems require a pressure driving force and are best suited when
the retentate (stream which does not pass through the membrane) is required at high
pressure. Membranes generally have rigorous upstream separation requirements as they
are intolerant of solid and liquids.
4.1.4 Avoidance of oxygen intake to vent and VRU systems

Vent systems will operate at very low positive pressures. If operation of the VRU or another
process upset causes a vacuum to be pulled in the system, it is possible for oxygen to
enter. This could be through air ingress via a vacuum safety devices, such as vacuum valves
including PVSVs and P/V breakers or leakage. Oxygen could also enter the system when the
upstream processes or systems can generate oxygen, which then enters the vented gases.
In the case of an HC blanket FPSO there is a potential risk of air and oxygen ingress to the
VRU when a cargo tank is returned to service after inspection.
Maintaining positive pressure throughout the process and VRU system is paramount in
preventing oxygen ingress. VRU compressor suction pressures should always be controlled
at or above 0 barg with interlocks to protect and prevent pressure in the VRU system and
compressor suction from falling below 0 barg.
Oxygen ingress into the VRU should also be avoided as the recovered gas may be returned
to the process or fuel gas system. Preventive measures can be provided to detect and/or
prevent air ingress. These may include a low-pressure safety interlock that will activate
prior to reaching a vacuum and oxygen analyzers, described below.
4.1.4.1 Oxygen analysers

Oxygen content of gas in the cargo tanks and VRU header should be monitored
continuously. The analyser should be linked to an alarm (usually set at 5% oxygen) and trip
(set at a higher level, the ABS guide58 suggests 8%) which will operate a fast-acting SDV
to isolate the VRU from the header and cargo tanks and direct the gases to vent or flare.
These set points are to primarily prevent explosive atmospheres however some systems
may require alarms to be set at much lower O2 levels if the topsides process systems or
products cannot tolerate the presence of O2.
For improved availability, the oxygen analyser could be spared or multiple units with a
voting system installed – the analyser can also be added as a Safety Critical Element under
the asset performance standards. Note that oxygen analysers may be slow to respond and
are more expensive to procure and maintain than pressure transmitters.
57
Borsig GmbH (2021)
58
ABS (2014)
49
5. Installation of vapour recovery units
5.1 Considerations for VRU installation
5.1.1 Environment
A major motivation for the installation of a VRU is the environmental benefits. The GHG
potential of methane is significantly higher than that of its combustion products, so the
recovery of vent streams has a significant impact per tonne of gas recovered. Even if the
recovered gas is surplus to export capacity and local fuel gas needs its recovery to a flare
system will still potentially reduce site GHG emissions.
5.1.2 Legislation
Although the World Bank’s Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 initiative, adopted by some
jurisdictions into law, commits endorsing organizations to not routinely flare gas in any new
oil field development and to end routine flaring at existing oil fields by 2030, it also states
that venting is not an acceptable alternative to flaring.
Legislation and subsequent regulations may affect the facility either directly or indirectly in
the form of:
• Permitting construction or continued operation
• Restrictions on the volume of gases that may be emitted to the atmosphere for a
reporting period
• Taxes on gas emissions, typically GHG based
• A carbon credit emission trading system
5.1.3 Business drivers

In the absence of government-imposed financial incentives or as required by environmental
permits, the addition of a vapour recovery unit to a facility may increase the capital and
operating expenditure costs. If the gas recovered at a facility is exported through existing
sales gas infrastructure, then additional revenue may offset some or all of these costs.
Elimination of venting and flaring may be necessary to permit the continued operation or
construction of the facility.
50
5.2 Potential impact of vapour recovery unit
5.2.1 Reduction in venting

Reduction in the amount of gas being vented (and thus the amount of greenhouse gases
released into the atmosphere) is achieved by capturing gas that would normally be vented
and compressing it to a pressure at which it can be useful (e.g., returned to the process,
used as fuel, etc.). The realised volume of vented gas reduction will be highly influenced by
the achieved availability of the VRU, which will differ between facility types and operators.
5.2.2 Increased equipment items

Additional equipment items and pipework required for a VRU will increase capital and
operating expenditure of a site, with an associated footprint. Brownfield design solutions
can be sought which make use of existing spare capacity in pumps and compressors to
complement the VRU. For greenfield design, the required equipment item might be sized or
utilized to provide the driving medium for an ejector. As an example, the (highly simplified)
schematic in Figure 22 uses the gas export compressor to drive an ejector recovering
vapours from a storage tank – avoiding installation of an additional pump or
VRU compressor.
Compressor
Gas
export
Ejector Separator
Wellhead fluids
Liquids tank
Figure 21 - Simple ejector driven VRU for wellhead facility
5.2.3 Increased energy usage

The environmental benefit of reducing or recovering hydrocarbon emissions can be
assessed relative to the increased energy consumption and net GHG impact of installing
and operating the VRU. An important feature here is whether the vent streams being
recovered are continuous. If not, the compression and recovery system may spend large
amounts of time operating in a ‘recycle’ or standby condition, consuming energy without
recovering gas.
51
An alternative to reducing GHG emissions is to design facilities in which continuous

streams are eliminated, recovered, and/or recycled at the source before being sent to the
flare system.
5.2.4 Fuel gas systems

Many FGRS and VRU systems are used to recover gas to the fuel gas system, but this
option is not necessarily an ideal long-term solution. In many jurisdictions, there will be
increasing costs for CO2 emissions from fired equipment and local power generation.
This may drive a move to increased energy efficiency and the electrification of oil and gas
facilities using, where available, local renewable power. This means that VRUs can only be
designed to recover gas to a fuel gas system if there is a clear ongoing need for (additional)
fuel at the site or if there is a future capability to route the gas to export.
5.2.5 Increased backpressure

Increasing backpressure on the process systems (e.g., TEG overhead, produced water
treating overhead etc. compressor seal systems) discharging into a VRU, the recovery
system may impact process operating conditions. Potential deviations from normal
operating conditions could increase the risk of process trips which in turn could result
in increased relief venting of plant systems. Venting of large volumes of hydrocarbon gas
from a compressor system or other large process items could outweigh many years of GHG
emissions avoided by connection of a minor vent stream to the VRU.
5.2.6 Negative pressure

The majority of systems connected to a VRU will be operating at close to atmospheric
pressure. These systems will have a low tolerance to negative pressures which could
result in collapse of vessels or unexpected process operations and flows (See Sections 3.7
and 4.1.4 for more details on oxygen ingress causes and consequences as well as MOC/
LOC levels). In the first instance, VRU compressor and ejector/eductor systems must be
designed with pressure alarms and trips linked to fast acting SDVs to prevent a vacuum
being drawn on the process being vented. In addition, the system being vented can be
provided with vacuum protection devices.
5.2.7 Restriction or blockage

There should be no risk of unintended restriction or blockage of the relief path by the
presence of the VRU. This may be achieved by continued maintenance of the existing vent
system (brownfield sites) or installation of a separate standalone vent and relief system
(greenfield sites). During upgrades or changes to the site operation, it must be ensured that
both the VRU and vent systems are sized appropriately for the new operating conditions.
5.2.8 Reliability and SIL requirements

As noted above, the consequence of a VRU failure or mal operation leading to negative
pressures, loss or relief route or air ingress could have severe consequences.
52
It is recommended that the risk reduction requirements for such situations should be
assessed using a Safety Integrity Level (SIL) analysis to define the required reliability of
relevant components, as per company requirements.
5.2.9 Utility requirements

A VRU requires more utilities than a vent system to operate. The reliability of the supply
of these utilities will determine the availability of the VRU. The utilities required will vary
based on the specific application and type of compressor selected. Typical utilities required
by VRUs will include:
• Process water and other fluids for sealing systems on compressors and pumps
• Cooling system capacity for recovered gas cooling or cooling associated with pumps
and compressors
• Electricity to drive compressors, pumps, etc.
• Inhibitor injection to prevent hydrate or ice formation in refrigerated systems
• Instrument air
5.3 Brownfield and greenfield VRU implementation
5.3.1 Concept select phase

The initial feasibility study generally includes the preparation of a design basis based on
measured or projected vent flow, vent gas composition, identification of the sources and
destination of gases, and conceptual VRU design business evaluation.
For brownfield projects, the measured vent flow should be evaluated over an extended
period of the facility operation to understand the variation over the entire operating cycle
and to identify seasonal variation in vented volumes. It is also important to consider the
accuracy of the flowmeter measuring the rates and the data acquisition rate. Using a daily
or hourly average flowrate may lead to different conclusions when compared to a shorter
interval period (e.g., minutes). For some vapour sources, process simulations can be used
to corroborate the measured routine vent rates. Process simulation software has modules
to calculate GHG emissions during the design phase and this approach can be extended to
online modelling (digital twin) to monitor and optimize operating conditions and utilities to
minimize GHG emissions.
For greenfield projects, the vent flowrate can be estimated using process simulations
based on forecasted production, but this should be compared with estimates based on
published figures and recommended design margins.
The EPA lessons learnt documents59 include emissions values for a range of equipment
types – an example for tank vapour emissions is shown in Figure 23. However, these are
average figures and, if used for sizing the VRU, it is suggested that a significant design
margin is applied to the calculated daily vapour rates. This demonstrates the importance
of designing VRUs to accommodate high turndowns using a combination of flexible
equipment, recycle facilities, or multiple streams.
59
US EPA (2006)
53
110
Vapour vented from tanks - SCF/BBL - GOR
100
90
80
r
d ove
70 an
A PI
60 40º 9º API
a nd 3
50 API
43
30º
40 I
3 0º AP
30 Under
20
10 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Pressure of vessel dumping to tank (Psig)
Figure 22 - Vapour vented from oil storage tanks by API gravity classification60 (EPA, 2006)
5.3.2 FEED phase

A site investigation is recommended during an early phase of the project to evaluate system
header layouts and select the location of the VRU. In addition, it is very important to assess
how systems will integrate with the existing plant for a brown field application. Existing
systems should be examined to ensure that changes due to a new configuration are
properly managed.
5.3.3 Detail engineering phase

The VRU manufacturer or design consultant conducts detailed engineering of all VRU
equipment and determines the physical and operational interfaces.
It is important that the system be designed holistically. Dynamic simulations can help
users assess the behaviour of the VRU system and its interface with other equipment. This
is especially important when the operating pressure of the VRU gas source is sensitive to
variation in back pressures (e.g., glycol regeneration, flotation units, atmospheric tanks).
Dynamic simulations will help confirm the requirements and optimal settings for the
pressure safety elements under various credible transient scenarios.
60
A measure of how heavy or light a petroleum liquid is compared to water.
54
For smaller applications, skid mounted units have been developed by equipment
suppliers61. This unit recovers seal gas during normal operation, injecting it back into the
suction header. The unit can also recover process gas from the compressors loops during
manual depressurization of the compressor.
5.3.4 VRU performance metrics

It will be important to determine the key performance indicators for the VRU to measure
and report the effectiveness of the emission reduction strategy. Examples of such key
performance indicators include:
• The amount of gas recovered
• The reduction in overall gas vented
• Utility and energy consumption
• VRU reliability, availability, and utilization
• The impact of the VRU on other process equipment
• Maintenance costs
61
Baker-Hughes (2021)
55
Glossary
API
American Petroleum Institute
US EPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
FEED
Front-end engineering design
FGRS
Flare gas recovery system(s)
FOV
Fast-opening valve
FPSO
Floating Production Storage and Offloading Vessel
GHG
Greenhouse gases
GOR
Gas-to-oil ratio
GWP
Global Warming Potential
HC
Hydrocarbons
HP
High pressure
56
H2S
Hydrogen sulphide
LOC
Lower Oxygen Content
LP
Low pressure
LLP
Low-low pressure
MEG
Monoethylene Glycol
MOC
Minimum Oxygen Concentration
VOC
Volatile Organic Compound. Defined under EPA 40 CFR Part 51.100(s) as any compound of carbon,
excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions
nmVOC
Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound
OEM
Original Equipment Manufacturer
PRV
Pressure Relief Valve
57
PSV
Pressure Safety valve
Purge gas
Gas flow used to sweep gas with an unwanted composition out of a process item, storage tank
or pipeline.
PVSV
Pressure Vacuum Safety Valves
PWTS
Produced Water Treatment System
SDV
Shutdown valve
SIL
Safety integrity level
SSV
Safety shutoff valve
TEG
Triethylene glycol
VOC
Volatile organic compound
VRU
Vapour Recovery Unit
58
References
American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for Hydrocarbon Blanket Gas System. ABS. Spring, Texas. July
2014. Guide for Hydrocarbon Blanket Gas System 2014 (eagle.org) (Accessed 25 January 2024).
American Bureau of Shipping. Rules for Building and Classing Offshore Installations ABS. Spring,
Texas. January 2024. Rules for Building and Classing Offshore Installations (eagle.org) (Accessed 25
January 2024).
Ainge P. “Ejector Technology for Flare Gas Recovery as an Alternative to Rotating Equipment”. SPE-
197909-MS. Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE. 11-14
November 2019.
Akesson M, Bigle N. and Gerritse, A. “Flare-less requirements drive innovation on the Okha FPSO”
Offshore. 1 May 2013. Flare-less requirements drive innovation on the Okha FPSO | Offshore
(offshore-mag.com). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
API Recommended Practice 556 - Instrumentation, Control, and Protective Systems for Gas Fired
Heaters, Second Edition, 2011.
API Standard 521 - Pressure Relieving and DE pressuring Systems, Seventh Edition, 2020.
API Standard 620 - Design and Construction of Large, Welded, Low-pressure Storage Tanks Twelfth
Edition, 2013.
Argonne National Laboratory. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Venting and Flaring
Research Study Report - Analysis of Potential Opportunities to Reduce Venting and Flaring on the
OCS, January 2017.
Baker Hughes. Simple, cost-effective process gas recovery. Case study available on the Baker Hughes
and Methane Guiding Principles web pages, 2021. Simple, cost-effective process gas recovery |
Baker Hughes. (Accessed 25 January 2024).
Borsig GmbH. Emission Control Units. Borsig Membrane Technology GmbH. 2023. BORSIG -
emission control units. (Accessed 25 January 2024).
Bureau Veritas. NR445 Rules for the Classification of Offshore Units: Part D – Service Notations BV,
Courbevoie, France. January 2024.
CCAC Oil and Gas Methane Partnership. Technical Guidance Documents. CCAC Secretariat, undated
web page. Oil and Gas Methane Partnership Technical Guidance Documents | Climate & Clean Air
Coalition (ccacoalition.org). (Accessed 8 February 2024).
CCAC Oil and Gas Methane Partnership. Technical Guidance Document Number 1: Natural Gas Driven
Pneumatic Controllers and Pumps. Modified: March 2017a. Technical Guidance Document Number 1:
Natural Gas-Driven Pneumatic Controllers and Pumps | Climate & Clean Air Coalition (ccacoalition.
org). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
CCAC Oil and Gas Methane Partnership. Technical Guidance Document Number 4: Reciprocating
Compressors. Modified: April 2017b 2017_OGMP-TGD4-Reciprocating-Compressors_CCAC.pdf
(ccacoalition.org). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
59
CCAC Oil and Gas Methane Partnership. Technical Guidance Document Number 6: Unstabilized
Hydrocarbon Liquid Storage Tanks. Modified: July 2017c. Technical Guidance Document Number 6:
Unstabilized Hydrocarbon Liquid Storage Tanks | Climate & Clean Air Coalition (ccacoalition.org).
(Accessed 25 January 2024).
Conforti F. et al..“Solutions for Seal Gas Leakages Recovery in Methane Compression: Integration
into Processing Lines or Gas Valorization Systems” SPE-195759-MS, SPE Offshore Europe
Conference and Exhibition. Aberdeen, UK. September 2019.
DNV. Rules for Classification: Floating production, storage and loading units. DNV-RU-OU-0102, DNV
AS. Norway. July 2023.
Emerson Rosemount. Application Note: Fundamentals of Gas Chromatography. Emerson Automation

Solutions, Houston, Texas. 2019. Application Note: Fundamentals of Gas Chromatography (emerson.
com). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
Husdal G et al. “Cold venting and fugitive emissions from Norwegian offshore oil and gas activities”
Report M-515/2016 by Add Energy for the Norwegian Environment Agency. April, 2016. Rapport
(environmentagency.no). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
International Maritime Organization. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)
and its amendments (Adopted 1st November 1974).
International Maritime Organization. Technical Information on Systems and Operation to Assist

Development of VOC Management. MEPC.1/Circ.680. IMO, London. 27 July 2009. Microsoft Word - 680
(imo.org). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
IOGP Report 661 – Recommended practices for methane emissions detection and quantification –
upstream.
IOGP Report 673 - Guidelines for design and operations to minimize and avoiding flaring.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. IPCC.
Geneva. March 2023.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
IPCC. Geneva. August 2021.
Ipieca. VOC Recovery Systems (2013). Ipieca, London. April 2013. VOC recovery Systems (2013) |
Ipieca. (Accessed 25 January 2024).
Kamel M and Al Shehhi K. “VOC Recovery System for Crude Oil Tanker Loading”. SPE-210906-MS.
Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. Abu Dhabi, UAE. October 2022.
Knutsen Offshore AS. VOC Technology (KVOC). Knutsen Group web page dated 2022. VOC Technology
(KVOC) - Knutsen Group (knutsenoas.com). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
Marintek. VOC Emissions from Cargo Tanks. Norwegian Marine Technology Research Institute Review
Trondheim, Norway. May 2005. Review2_2005_B.indd (sintef.no) (Accessed 25 January 2024).
60
Methane Guiding Principles. Reducing Methane emissions: Best Practice Guide Venting. Methane
Guiding Principles partnership. November 2019. Reducing Methane Emissions: Best Practice Guide
- Venting - November 2019 (methaneguidingprinciples.org). (Accessed 25 January 2024).
Methane Guiding Principles. Reducing Methane emissions: Best Practice Guide Transmission. Storage,
LNG Terminal and Distribution. Methane Guiding Principles partnership. September 2020. Reducing
Methane Emissions: Best Practice Guide - Transmission, Storage, LNG Terminals and Distribution
(methaneguidingprinciples.org) (Accessed 25 January 2024).
National Fire Protection Association Standard 85 ‐ Boiler and Combustion Systems Hazard Code
2019 edition
National Fire Protection Association Standard 86 ‐ Standards for Ovens and Furnaces 2019 edition
National Fire Protection Association Standard 87 ‐ Recommended Practice for Fluid Heaters 2021
edition
Norsok. Environmental Care. Norsok Standard, NORSOK S-003 Edition 4, 2017.
Norwegian Oil and Gas Association. Handbook – Process Safety for HC leak Prevention. Norwegian
Oil and Gas Association, Stavanger. Revision 2. December 2021
OCIMF. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Cargo Systems on Oil Tankers. Oil Companies
International Marine Forum Information Paper. First Edition. 17 January 2019. Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Cargo Systems on Oil Tankers (ocimf.org). (Accessed 8 February 2024)
Piccoli M, et al. “Gas Flotation of Petroleum Produced Water: A Review on Status, Fundamental
Aspects, and Perspectives” Energy & Fuels,12, 34, pp15579-15592, 2020.
The Environmental Partnership. Annual Report, 2022 – Reducing Methane Emissions from Oil and
Natural Gas Operations. The Environmental Partnership, 2022. API-TEP-Annual-Report-2022.pdf
(theenvironmentalpartnership.org). (Accessed 8 February 2024)
UK Health and Safety Executive. Assessment of the adequacy of venting arrangements for cargo oil tanks
on FPSO and FSU installations. Safety alert, Offshore Division Bulletin No: OSD 5-2010, 19 May 2010.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on
Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount. UNFCCC, 31 January 2018. Kyoto Protocol Reference
Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts | UNFCCC. (Accessed 8 February 2024)
US Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-
2020. EPA 430-R-22-003, 2022. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2020
– Main Text (epa.gov) (Accessed 25 January 2024).
US Environmental Protection Agency. Methane Mitigation Technologies Platform. Web page dated 3
August 2023. Methane Mitigation Technologies Platform | US EPA. (Accessed 7 February 2024).
US Environmental Protection Agency. Optimize Glycol Circulation. Optimize Glycol Circulation | US

EPA. Web page dated 2 August 2023. (Accessed 7 February 2024).
US Environmental Protection Agency. Reciprocating Compressors. Web page dated 21 August 2023.
Reciprocating Compressors | US EPA. (Accessed 2 February 2024).
61
US Environmental Protection Agency. Vapour Recovery Units. Web page dated 3 August 2023. Vapor
Recovery Units | US EPA . (Accessed 2 February 2024).
US Environmental Protection Agency. Installing Vapour Recovery Units on Storage Tanks.

Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners document dated October 2006.
https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/ll_final_vap.pdf.
(Accessed 8 February 2024)
US Environmental Protection Agency, Replacing Wet Seals With Dry Seals in Centrifugal Compressors,
Lessons Learned from Natural Gas Star Partners document dated October 2006 | US EPA (Accessed
29 February 2024).
Wärtsilä. Wärtsilä VOC Recovery. Wärtsilä web page dated 2024. VOC recovery system (wartsila.com).
(Accessed 8 February 2024)
Watanabe, T. “Case Study – Zero Leakage Compressor Seals” Asia Turbomachinery and Pump
Symposium, Singapore, 2018.
62
This page is intentionally blank
63
This guideline identifies venting
sources and discusses the design
and operation of vent systems and
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
recovery systems, as well as the
situations in which these systems can
be employed to minimize venting.
This guidance has been developed
to assist engineering and operations
staff at upstream production
facilities and may be useful to
midstream and downstream
owners and operators, engineering
staff at design consultancies, and
engineering, procurement, and
construction contractors.
IOGP Headquarters www.iogp.org

City Tower, 40 Basinghall Street, London EC2V 5DE, United Kingdom
T: +44 (0)20 3763 9700
E: [email protected]
IOGP Americas IOGP Asia Pacific IOGP Europe IOGP Middle East & Africa
T: +1 713 261 0411 T: +60 3-3099 2286 T: +32 (0)2 790 7762 T: +20 120 882 7784
E: [email protected] E: [email protected] E. [email protected] E: [email protected]

Guidelines For Venting Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines For Venting Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines For Venting Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT MARCH

Guidelines for venting minimization

Front cover photography used with permission courtesy of

This guidance has been developed to assist engineering and operations

IOGP welcomes feedback on our reports: [email protected]

Guidelines for venting minimization

VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS

1.0 March 2024 First release

1. General description of venting 7

3. Vent sources and their recovery or elimination 16

3.10 Other process and control sources 33

4. Vapour recovery units 44

5. Installation of vapour recovery units 50

1. General description of venting

1.1 Definition of venting and outline of vent system

1.2 Venting versus flaring

However, considerable methane venting still occurs because:

• Connection to a flare or recovery system of many smaller or intermittent hydrocarbon

1.3 Venting arrangements

1.4 Motivations for venting

2.1 Offshore upstream

2.1.1 Emissions from platforms

Figure 1 - Sources of methane emissions for offshore upstream operations

Dry gas compressor seals

Vent header (measured values)

Produced water treatment system

HC purge and blanket gas

Flare gas not burnt

Compressor wet seals

Figure 3 - Authorized venting emissions in the US Gulf of Mexico

2.1.2 Emissions from FPSOs

2.1.2.1 Causes of venting from FPSOs

The following mechanisms for VOC generation were identified from:

2.1.2.2 Level of emissions

2.2 Onshore upstream

Onshore gas Onshore oil

2.2.2 Existing literature and guidelines on emissions avoidance and capture

Table 1 – EPA Star Partners technical notes on methane emissions reductions

Categories General approaches

Compressors/ Seal gas recovery, replace gas starters, reducing No. of

Dehydrators Recover vent gases, replace small glycol units at remote

Equipment leaks Maintenance and inspection changes

Pneumatics/controls Primarily concerned with replacing gas driven pumps

Tanks Eliminate unnecessary tanks, install VRUs, pressurised

Valves PSV testing, replace/service during other equipment

Wells PSV testing, recovery of casing gas, replace gas driven

Another recent guidance document is the Methane Guiding Principles on venting17.

3. Vent sources and their recovery or

3.1 Glycol dehydration systems

Flash drum Reboiler

TEG Glycol make-up

Figure 5 - Example glycol dehydration system

3.1.1 Sources of vent gas

3.1.2 Reduction and recovery of glycol dehydration flash gas

3.1.3 Regenerator vent gas

3.1.3.1 TEG Regeneration

3.1.3.2 MEG regeneration

3.2 Acid gas removal units

Lean amine Rich amine Reflux drum