Guidelines For Venting Optimization
Guidelines For Venting Optimization
Guidelines For Venting Optimization
675 2024
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.
Feedback
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
Revision history
Contents
Introduction 6
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
4
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Glossary 56
References 59
5
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
“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.
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
7
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
8
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Other/unsure
Well
Weather
Platform start up
Gas plant shut-in
Vapour recovery unit
Process equipment
Pipeline
Miscellaneous
Glycol unit
Flash gas compressor
Compressor
7
IMO (1974)
8
IMO (2009)
9
CCAC – O&G Methane Partnership (2017c)
11
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
• 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
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.
12
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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:
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
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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:
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,
15
US EPA (3 August 2023)
14
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
16
https://www.ccacoalition.org/content/oil-and-gas-methane-partnership-technical-guidance-documents
17
Methane Guiding Principles (2019)
15
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Vent gas
Reflux drum
Rich TEG
Flash gas
Reflux pump
Regenerator
Lean TEG cooler
Contractor
Flash gas
Stripping gas
Wet gas
Lean TEG
Heat exchanger
Rich TEG
Heat exchanger
Circulation pump
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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).
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
US EPA (2 August 2023)
17
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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).
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.
3.2.1 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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Condenser
Sweet gas Acid gas
Liquid
Rich amine
Flash drum
Lean amine
Pump
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.
20
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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.
21
US EPA (21 August 2023)
21
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
Seal housing
Seal oil inlet
Compressor side
“inboard”
“Outboard”
labyrinth
Spinning shaft
Seal oil Seal oil
(uncontaminated) (contaminated with gas)
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
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).
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
25
Watanabe (2018)
25
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
26
US EPA (3 August 2023)
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Flash vessel
Separated oil
Hydro-
cyclones Flotation gas to vent
Skimmed oil
Flotation
unit Vent gas
Water to disposal
Flotation gas caisson or storage
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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).
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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.
32
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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)
3.11.1 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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
3.12 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.
38
Methane Guiding Principles (2020)
39
IMO(1974)
40
IMO (2009)
34
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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.
41
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery 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.
Safe location
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.
43
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
IOGP Report 647 – Guidelines for the design and operation of flare gas recovery systems.
46
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
Liquids KO
Compressor
PSVS
Blanketing system
To process/
fuel gas/ flare
Sealing liquid recovery
(if neccessary)
Storage tank
PCV
47
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
48
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Elimination of venting and flaring may be necessary to permit the continued operation or
construction of the facility.
50
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
Compressor
Gas
export
Ejector Separator
Wellhead fluids
Liquids tank
51
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
52
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Figure 22 - Vapour vented from oil storage tanks by API gravity classification60 (EPA, 2006)
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
61
Baker-Hughes (2021)
55
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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.
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).
IOGP Report 647 – Guidelines for the design and operation of flare gas recovery systems.
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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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
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. Reciprocating Compressors. Web page dated 21 August 2023.
Reciprocating Compressors | US EPA. (Accessed 2 February 2024).
61
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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, 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
Guidelines for venting minimization and vent recovery systems
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 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]