UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines

(Mass Basis)

15th August 2002

Issue 1
 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................2
1.1 How to Use These Guidelines........................................................................2
2.0 Required Accuracy of Flare Reporting...............................................................4
2.1 Flare categories..............................................................................................4
2.2 Assessment of Flare Category.......................................................................4
2.3 Methods for Achieving Required Accuracy.....................................................5
3.0 Flare Mass by Difference (Material Balance).....................................................6
3.1 Flow measurement of fuel gas streams, oil and gas export...........................6
3.2 Well testing frequency and standard..............................................................6
3.3 MW scenarios to be considered.....................................................................7
3.4 Sampling strategies........................................................................................7
3.5 Validated Process Model................................................................................7
3.6 DTI Position....................................................................................................7
4.0 Flare Mass from Volume Flow Measurement and Density................................8
4.1 Accuracy of Metering Instrumentation............................................................8
4.2 Event logging..................................................................................................8
4.3 MW scenarios to be considered.....................................................................8
4.4 Sampling strategies........................................................................................9
4.5 Validated Process Model................................................................................9
4.6 Validation.........................................................................................................9
5.0 Flare Mass from Mass Flow Measurement......................................................10
5.1 Accuracy of Metering Instrumentation..........................................................10
5.2 Event logging................................................................................................10
5.3 Validation......................................................................................................10

Issue 1 1 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

1.0 Introduction
In 2001 the DTI intimated that they wanted flare reporting in mass rather than volume
units. Expressing flaring on a mass basis gives a more consistent measure of
calorific value, and hence energy loss. In addition mass reporting is typically a better
fit with atmospheric emissions reporting e.g. the EEMS database and the IPPC
regime. A UKOOA workgroup was set up to bring some consistency within the
industry given the move to mass reporting. This set of guidelines has been
developed by the UKOOA workgroup in consultation with DTI and endeavours to
provide:
· A structured approach to flare quantification;
· Improved consistency of reporting across the industry;
· Emphasis on greater accuracy in reporting the flares of greater magnitude.
The guidelines consist of an approach for determining the appropriate method for
quantification of flaring. Then for each of these methods guidelines are presented on
the minimum standards for flare calculation. Although these guidelines do not
specifically deal with venting, the same principles can be applied to venting
quantification.

1.1 How to Use These Guidelines

The Guidelines should be used to ensure that the approach taken in flare
quantification meets certain minimum criteria dependant on the magnitude of the
flare.
Where total flare emissions fall below an annualised average of 40 tonnes/day the
DTI Guidance Notes for Completion of Year 2003 Flare & Vent Applications state that
it not necessary for an operator to report flaring broken down by category (see
Section 2.1). Consistent with this, these Guidelines should be used for the reporting
of flares in excess of 40 tonnes/day annualised average.
The flowchart in Figure 1 explains how these Guidelines should be employed. An
illustrative example is provided in Appendix 4.

Issue 1 2 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Figure 1 How to Use the Guidelines

Quantify the flare source for a single category (1,2 or 3)

Determine which level of accuracy is appropriate for a

source of that magnitude (H/M/L) from Figure 2.

Assess the current method used to quantify the flare in that category
– does this result in a H, M or L level of accuracy as defined by Figure
3

Does the accuracy achieved by the current method match

Yes or exceed the required accuracy? No

End Use Figure 3 to assess how the desired

level of accuracy can be achieved or
prepare justification.

End

Issue 1 3 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

2.0 Required Accuracy of Flare Reporting

2.1 Flare categories
DTI requires that flare reporting is categorised and the agreed detailed description of
each category is provided in Appendix 2.
Category 1: Base Load Flare; Purge, Pilots & Process
Category 2: Operational / Mode Changes
Category 3: Emergency Shutdown / Process Trips
In addition unignited venting also needs to be reported
Category 4: Unignited venting
Where total flare emissions fall below an annualised average of 40 tonnes/day the
DTI Guidance Notes for Completion of Year 2003 Flare & Vent Applications state that
it not necessary for an operator to report flaring broken down by category. Consistent
with this, these Guidelines should be used for the reporting of flares in excess of 40
tonnes/day annualised average.

2.2 Assessment of Flare Category

For a given flare, the magnitude of each flaring category should be assessed to
determine the level of accuracy considered appropriate for flare quantification.
Categories are assessed individually as for example, a flare meter may be installed
which provides accurate readings at low flowrates whilst at high flowrates
experienced during blowdown situations, the meter will be operating outside of its
range and cannot be considered to be reliable. In this particular case an additional
quantification methodology needs to be established to cover the blowdown events.
This assessment is based on the quantity of gas flared (f m) in tonnes per day
averaged out to an annualised daily average. The required accuracy of quantification
method dependent on magnitude of flaring is defined in Figure 2.
Figure 2 Required Accuracy Level for Flare Quantification

Flaring, fm tonnes/day 1 < 15 15 < fm < 40 >40

(annualised average)

Required level of accuracy L M H

High Accuracy Required H

Medium Accuracy Required M
Low Accuracy Required L

1
As a first pass, in the absence of more specific data, a molecular weight of 21kg/kmol may be
assumed for the flare gas i.e. a gas density of 0.9kg/Sm 3.

Issue 1 4 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

2.3 Methods for Achieving Required Accuracy

There are a number of methods to quantify gas volume flared and likewise a number
of methods to convert this to a mass basis. The areas of uncertainty in each
approach are discussed in the Flare Mass Reporting Workgroup “Position Paper and
Discussion of Areas to be addressed in the Move to Mass Reporting” (See Appendix
1). Based on the uncertainties outlined in the position paper, the accuracy of each
combination of volume/mass methodology has been classified as high, medium or
low as shown in Figure 3. An asset should ensure that the methodology they have in
place meets or exceeds the level of accuracy defined in Figure 2. Further details on
each of the methods are given in Sections 3, 4 and 5.
Figure 3 Accuracy Level of Methodology for Flare Quantification

Volume By difference By difference Volume flow Validated Ultrasonic

Quantification Flare < 20% gas Flare > 20% gas measurement* Process Flow
Mass production production See Section 4 Model Measurement
Conversion See Section 3 See Section 3
See Section 3 See Section 5
2
Single MW L L L M M
Various MW
L M M H H
Scenarios
Online MW / Density
H
Measurement
* e.g. orifice plate or thermal insertion meter
High Accuracy Methodology H
Medium Accuracy Methodology M
Low Accuracy Methodology L

In some circumstances it may not be considered appropriate or feasible to require a

facility to achieve a level of accuracy defined by Figure 2. For example, the
anticipated life of field should be taken into account in combination with the total flare
volume. In any such circumstance a facility would be required to present the case to
justify reporting to a lower level of accuracy than specified.

2
Where the molecular weight does not vary by more than 10% for different scenarios a single
molecular weight can be considered to achieve the same level of accuracy as the Various Molecular
Weights method.

Issue 1 5 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

3.0 Flare Mass by Difference (Material Balance)

The volume of gas to flare may be calculated by completing a material balance
across the installation. This is impacted by accuracy of both the metering of any gas
streams and the Gas Oil Ratio (GOR) data.3
Even though the fiscal metering of gas export stream will have a relatively high
accuracy, should this stream be of large magnitude compared to the flare stream, the
“by difference” method will give a poor estimate of the flare stream.
The conversion to mass may then use either a single molecular weight (MW) or MWs
determined for various scenarios. The MW(s) may be determined either by gas
sampling or from a validated process model.

3.1 Flow measurement of fuel gas streams, oil and gas export
The accuracy of the flare determination by conducting a material balance will critically
depend on the flow measurement of the other streams. The metering should be
regularly validated and maintained. The fiscal measurement of the export streams
will be validated in accordance with agreed procedures. The fuel gas stream
measurement should be validated on at least an annual basis.

3.2 Well testing frequency and standard

The GOR of the individual wells that make up the input to the facility is determined
using well tests. These GORs are then used to determine total gas production from
which the measured gas usage and export is subtracted to give the flare gas
quantities. Any changes to the GOR will have an impact on the calculation. Thus the
well test measurements need to be conducted at a suitable frequency. Until a
sufficient database of well GOR is produced the frequency of well testing should be
monthly. The interval between successive re-verifications should be a function of the
stability of the GOR for each particular well.
To ensure the accuracy of well tests the metering should be validated and maintained
at an appropriate frequency. Where two phase well testing is used the water cut
needs to be determined. This can be achieved by direct continuous density
measurement or by sampling.
Well test GORs may not reflect the producing GORs when the well fluid is separated
in the normal topsides process rather than by single stage flash in the test separator.
GOR data at the producing temperatures and pressures should be used.

3
Example: Produced gas = 460 tonnes/day  5% (437-483)
Export gas = 300 tonnes/day  1% (297-303)
Fuel gas = 100 tonnes/day  5% (95-105)

The range of values which could be obtained for flare gas given the inaccuracies of the various stream
quantifications: Flare gas = Produced gas – Export gas – Fuel Gas
from = 437 – 303 – 105 = 29 tonnes/day
to = 483 – 297 – 95 = 91 tonnes/day

Issue 1 6 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

3.3 Event logging

Any significant change in flaring should be recorded in an event log in order to
capture periods of different flowrates and potentially different MWs of the flare gas.
Examples would be tripping and subsequent flaring from a compressor stage,
platform blowdown or individual vessel blowdown. The log should state, as a
minimum, event type, start and finish time, planned or emergency, projected
composition and total flow (see Appendix 3 for an example of an event log).

3.4 MW scenarios to be considered

There are a number of flaring scenarios that can give rise to differing compositions of
the flare gas. Each platform will have different operating modes and this will give rise
to different scenarios. In some cases the molecular weight of the gas flared will not
alter significantly, by less than ± 10%, a single composition can be used in these
cases. Different flare gas compositions will be required where the flaring of gas due
to for instance a low pressure compressor outage results in a significant change in
the molecular weight. For instance, a platform with an LP, HP and export compressor
may have the following scenarios, normal operation, LP compressor outage, LP + HP
compressor outage, loss of export route/export compressor outage and blowdown.

3.5 Sampling strategies

The composition of the flare gas under the various scenarios, e.g. purge and pilot or
platform blowdown can either be determined using a validated process model or by
sampling. Sampling of the flare gas during a blowdown situation is likely to be
difficult and may not be representative, hence process simulation will normally be
required. Samples under normal operations should be taken on an annual basis or
on changes to operating conditions and/or field configuration. The aim should be to
determine the typical flare composition for each event scenario.

3.6 Validated Process Model

In determining gas volumes for the blowdown and operational upset scenarios
process models and calculations of inventory may be used. The simulation model
can be used to assess the flowrate from a particular item of process plant under the
relevant operating conditions.
A number of common flare scenarios may be identified for a process, each with a
different gas composition. Process models may be used to derive the composition of
the flare gas under each scenario.
The accuracy of the models and the frequency with which they are verified will
therefore impact accuracy of both volume and mass quantification.

3.7 DTI Position

DTI are known not to be in favour of “by difference” methods because of the potential
for inaccurate quantification of the flare stream due to the typically large magnitude of
the produced fluids and export streams.

Issue 1 7 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

4.0 Flare Mass from Volume Flow Measurement and Density

The volume of gas to flare may be quantified using a flowmeter. The operating range
of the flowmeter should be assessed to determine the flare scenarios for which meter
readings will be valid.
The conversion to mass may then use either a single molecular weight (MW) or MWs
determined for various scenarios. The MW(s) may be determined either by gas
sampling or from a validated process model.

4.1 Accuracy of Metering Instrumentation

Flow meters have inherent inaccuracies and a meter will not have the same degree
of accuracy across the whole range of measurement required. The flow range is very
wide in going from purge and pilots to full scale blowdown. In some cases the flow
may even be off the scale of the meter in which case a process simulation model
may be employed (see Section 3.6). It is also not unknown for a flow to register
when the facility is isolated.
Under severe blowdown conditions the flow might become two phase which further
reduces the accuracy. If there is no temperature and pressure compensation then
this will introduce further inaccuracies. Manufacturers quote an accuracy of 5% on
volume for the modern ultrasonic flare meters under ideal conditions in the laboratory.
In the field it is believed that the accuracy will be lower. Typically there is no means
of calibrating flare meters once installed and hence this will result in further
inaccuracies.

4.2 Event logging

Any significant change in flaring should be recorded in an event log in order to
capture periods where flare rates may be outwith the range of the volume meter and
potentially where different MWs apply. Examples would be tripping and subsequent
flaring from a compressor stage, platform blowdown or individual vessel blowdown.
The log should state, as a minimum, event type, start and finish time, planned or
emergency, projected composition and total flow (see Appendix 3 for an example of
an event log).

4.3 MW scenarios to be considered

There are a number of flaring scenarios that can give rise to differing compositions of
the flare gas. Each platform will have different operating modes and this will give rise
to different scenarios. In some cases the molecular weight of the gas flared will not
alter significantly, by less than ± 10%, a single composition can be used in these
cases. Different flare gas compositions will be required where the flaring of gas due
to for instance a low pressure compressor outage results in a significant change in
the molecular weight. For instance, a platform with an LP, HP and export compressor
may have the following scenarios, normal operation, LP compressor outage, LP + HP
compressor outage, loss of export route/export compressor outage and blowdown.

Issue 1 8 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

4.4 Sampling strategies

The composition of the flare gas under the various scenarios, e.g. purge and pilot or
platform blowdown can either be determined using a validated process model or by
sampling. Sampling of the flare gas during a blowdown situation is likely to be
difficult and may not be representative hence process simulation will normally be
required.
Samples under normal operations should be taken on an annual basis or on changes
to operating conditions and/or field configuration. The aim should be to determine
the typical flare composition for each event scenario.

4.5 Validated Process Model

Under a flare scenario where flow rates are outwith the range of the flowmeter, a
validated process model may be used in determining gas volumes (see Section 3.6).
A number of common flare scenarios may be identified for a process, each with a
different gas composition. Process models may be used to derive the composition of
the flare gas under each scenario.
The accuracy of the models and the frequency with which they are verified will
therefore impact accuracy of both volume and mass quantification.

4.6 Validation
There are two aspects of validation that need to be considered, that is metering and
the process model. The metering should be maintained and validated on a regular
basis at least annually.
When a process model is used to obtain flare compositions it should be validated.
The validation should consist of checking the simulation with platform operating
conditions, temperature, pressure, flows, compressor power usage etc. A review of
the model should be conducted annually and changes in operating conditions should
be incorporated. Significant changes in the flare gas compositions, greater than ±
10% of the molecular weight, should result in updates.

Issue 1 9 15th August 2002

 UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

5.0 Flare Mass from Mass Flow Measurement

The quantity of mass to flare may be determined by a meter which determines both
the flowrate and gas density, thus providing a mass flowrate. The operating range of
the meter should be assessed to determine the flare scenarios for which meter
readings will be valid.

5.1 Accuracy of Metering Instrumentation

Some flare meters have the capacity to report directly in mass terms. The quoted
accuracy of the meters is 10% in laboratory conditions. Furthermore additional
inaccuracies in the density measurement are likely if the flow is two phase.
Reservations associated with volume measurement are also applicable. Flow meters
have inherent inaccuracies and a meter will not have the same degree of accuracy
across the whole range of measurement required. The flow range is very wide going
from purge and pilots to full scale blowdown. In some cases the flow may even be off
the scale of the meter in which case an alternative flare quantification method should
be sought (see Sections 3 and 4). It is also not unknown for a flow to register when
the facility is isolated.
Under severe blowdown conditions the flow might become two phase which further
reduces the accuracy. If there is no temperature and pressure compensation then
this will introduce further inaccuracies. Manufacturers quote an accuracy of 5% on
volume for the modern ultrasonic flare meters under ideal conditions in the laboratory.
In the field it is believed that the accuracy will be lower. Typically there is no means
of calibrating flare meters once installed and hence this will result in further
inaccuracies.

5.2 Event logging

Any significant change in flaring should be recorded in an event log in order to
capture periods where flare rates may be outwith the range of the meter. Examples
would be tripping and subsequent flaring from a compressor stage, platform
blowdown or individual vessel blowdown. The log should state, as a minimum, event
type, start and finish time, planned or emergency, projected composition and total
flow.

5.3 Validation
The metering should be maintained and validated on a regular basis at least
annually.
The density of the flare gas is determined by the meter. Validation of the density
measurement can either be performed using a validated process model or by
sampling.

Issue 1 10 15th August 2002

 Appendix 1
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Appendix 1
Position Paper and Discussion of Areas to be Addressed in the Move to
Mass Reporting
Volume Flow Quantification
Around 70% of the flares on offshore platforms have some form of flow metering
installed4. The remaining 30% calculate the flare volume. This is an approach where
fuel gas usage, gas export and gas re-injection is subtracted from the expected gas
production derived from well tests.
Installation of effective flare gas metering on the installations which currently use
calculation methods would cost approximately £100K for a single meter. Although it
may be possible to install on a live production system, this would not be the preferred
method. Flare meters installed on a live system have greater inaccuracies than
those installed during a shutdown5. In addition to the cost of the meters, it is almost
certain that a shutdown would be required with associated costs and deferred
production. This may be particularly onerous for installations with low production or
those coming to the end of field life.
The accuracy of quantification by difference will be affected by the frequency of well
testing. This not only varies from operator to operator but for the same operator from
field to field. How the other gas streams, such as fuel gas, are quantified and the
accuracy of their quantification is another factor to be considered. The percentage of
flare to overall gas production will impact accuracy, as the difference between two
similar large numbers to give a flare flow several orders of magnitude lower will not
be accurate. Purge and pilot flows are likely to be a very low proportion of the total
gas flow and thus absolute quantification will be difficult. Quantification of flows for
blowdown and under upset conditions are a greater percentage of the total and will
therefore show smaller errors. Process models and calculations of inventory may be
used to derive flowrates for the blowdown and operational upset scenarios. The
accuracy of the models and the frequency with which they are verified will therefore
impact accuracy of volumes reported.
The flow meters already installed also have inherent inaccuracies. The flow range is
very wide going from purge and pilots to full scale blowdown. A meter will not have
the same degree of accuracy across the whole range of measurement required. In
some cases the flow may even be off the scale of the meter. It is also not unknown
for a flow to register when the facility is isolated. Furthermore under severe
blowdown conditions the flow might become two phase which further reduces the
accuracy. If there is no temperature and pressure compensation then this will
introduce further inaccuracies. Manufacturers quote an accuracy of 5% on volume
for the modern ultrasonic flare meters under ideal conditions in the laboratory. In the
field it is believed that the accuracy will be lower. Typically there is no means of
calibrating flare meters once installed and hence this will result in further
inaccuracies.
Mass Quantification

4
According to responses received to UKOOA Flare Questionnaire January 2002.
5
Panametrics Model 7168 Specifications Section 1.4 System Performance gives an volumetric
accuracy of ±2% of for a spoolpiece installation and ±5% for a hot tap installation.

Issue 1 11 15th August 2002

 Appendix 1
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Converting the volume quantity to mass will depend on the molecular weight of the
gas being flared. Purge and pilot is likely to be fuel gas which will have a reasonably
constant molecular weight that is unlikely to change significantly for a given
installation. However on blowdown the composition of the gas will change and hence
will affect the molecular weight and the conversion of volume to mass. Furthermore
operational problems may result in compressor shutdowns and will impact the
molecular weight of the flare gas, if the low pressure compressor is shutdown then
the molecular weight of the flare gas may even double. The degree of molecular
weight fluctuations is very dependent on the process and reservoir characteristics.
Selecting a single molecular weight to use for conversion from flow to mass may
introduce large inaccuracies in the estimate. Depending on the complexity of the
process and possible flare scenarios, a number of representative gas compositions
may be required. In order to ensure that the process of reporting is not too onerous,
some simplification may be required. Process models may be used to derive the
composition of the flare gas under each scenario. The accuracy of the models and
the frequency with which they are verified will therefore impact accuracy of mass
reported.
Sampling of flare gas may be used to derive compositional information. Sample
points should be properly located to obtain a representative sample of the stream.
Often, instrument tappings are used instead and as they may not be ideally located,
will not always give representative samples. Sampling during blowdown conditions is
likely to be impractical and the composition will change as the blowdown progresses.
If the flow is two phase then the sample is unlikely to be representative. This may
occur under operational upset conditions. Samples taken offshore may have to be
sent to a laboratory onshore for analysis. Continuous analysis would be difficult to
implement.
Some of the existing flare meters have the capacity to report directly in mass terms.
Less than 10% of the flares on offshore platforms have mass meters installedError:
Reference source not found. The quoted accuracy of the meters is 10% in
laboratory conditions and all the reservations associated with volume measurement
are also applicable. Furthermore additional inaccuracies in the density measurement
are likely if the flow is two phase.
Differences between Onshore and Offshore Measurement
Onshore sites have been reporting on a mass basis for a number of years. Onshore
installations are likely to show a much higher accuracy in the determination of flare
volumes and densities for the following reasons:
· Uptime onshore >99% offshore <98%
· Fewer upsets, less disturbances, e.g. slugging
· More stable feedstock and process
· Better access and easier maintenance
· Specialist support is more readily available, e.g. laboratory facilities

Issue 1 12 15th August 2002

 Appendix 2
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Appendix 2
Definition of Flaring Categories
Category 1 – Base Load Flare
Category 1 includes all the gas used for safe 6 and efficient operation of the process
facility and flare system under normal operating conditions.
Category 1 also includes any gas that has to be discarded as part of the platform
process and is discharged to flare. Typical examples are the off-gas from the glycol
regeneration plants and acid gas discharged from MDEA and other acid gas removal
plants, where these are fed to the flare system for combustion. This category also
includes flaring from a platform with no gas export facilities.
As soon as the platform is in a safe condition following an emergency
shutdown/process trip (category 3) once all equipment is returned to normal
operation the flaring is considered category 1.
Category 2 – Operational/Mode Changes
Category 2 includes gas flaring resulting from the start up and planned shut down of
equipment during production, gas not meeting export specification, maintenance of
equipment and equipment outages. This category also includes flaring that is caused
by the temporary lack of access to a third party gas export pipeline or similar.
As soon as the platform is in a safe condition following an emergency
shutdown/process trip (category 3) but with additional flaring as a result of equipment
outages the flaring is considered category 2.
Category 3 – Emergency shutdown/Process Trips
Category 3 includes any gas flared during an emergency shutdown/process trip of
equipment or the platform including shut-in of the wells. As soon as the platform is in
a safe condition, i.e. trip/shutdown complete, flaring becomes either category 1 or 2.
Category 4 – Un-ignited Vents
Inert gases, traces of hydrocarbons or gas resulting from regeneration etc may give
rise to a gas stream which is piped to an atmospheric vent.

The reporting of flare in the different categories is mutually exclusive i.e., category 2
or 3 flare quantity is the total flare for that period including any base load flare. For
example on a given day an installation was operating on a base load flare of
0.2tonne/hr until midday when the compressor tripped, and 2 tonnes of compression
system inventory flared as result of the trip and once the system had stabilised the
flaring was 20tonnes/hr for the rest of the day.
The flaring reported for that day would be:

6
Care should be taken not to cause “burn back” or other hazardous situations in the flare tip, riser or
other equipment. Where necessary, suitable hazard analysis should be conducted to evaluate any
proposed engineering design, operational or other changes to ensure that a minimum safe flare is
maintained.

Issue 1 13 15th August 2002

 Appendix 2
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Category 1 0.2 tonnes/hr x 12 hrs = 2.4 tonnes

Category 3 2 tonnes inventory = 2 tonnes
Category 2 20 tonnes/hr x 12 hrs = 240 tonnes
Total for day = 244.4 tonnes

Issue 1 14 15th August 2002

 Appendix 3
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Appendix 3
Example of an Event Log
The guidelines recommend that an event log is maintained so that the flare mass can be more readily calculated. The log should state, as a minimum, event
type, start and finish time, planned or emergency, average projected composition and total flow. The following is one example of a possible format for an
event log.

Flare gas Flow (tonnes)

Flare Planned/ Flare gas Total flow
Start time Finish time Event type Density
category Emergency MW (Sm3/d) Inerts Hydrocarbons
(kg/Sm3)
01/01/2003 00:00 04/01/2003 09:00 1 - - 24.8 1.05 14000 2.7 46.91
HP/LP compressor
04/01/2003 09:00 04/01/2003 09:15 3 Emergency 36.1 1.52 2500000 1.10 38.48
trip/blowdown
HP/LP compressor
04/01/2003 09:15 05/01/2003 12:00 2 Emergency 35.8 1.51 430000 21.78 701.92
shutdown
05/01/2003 12:00 10/01/2003 11:00 1 - - 24.8 1.05 14250 4.04 70.15

10/01/2003 11:00 10/01/2003 11:15 3 Platform ESD Emergency 31.8 1.34 4800000 2.69 64.31

10/01/2003 11:15 10/01/2003 13:00 - Platform shutdown Emergency - - 0 0 0

Export/HP/LP
10/01/2003 13:00 11/01/2003 16:00 2 Emergency 27.5 1.16 1200000 47.14 1518.86
compressor shutdown
HP/LP compressor
11/01/2003 16:00 12/01/2003 18:00 2 Emergency 35.8 1.51 430000 21.17 682.24
shutdown
12/01/2003 18:00 29/01/2003 16:00 1 - - 24.8 1.05 13750 13.31 230.92
HP/LP compressor
29/01/2003 16:00 31/01/2003 23:59 2 Planned 35.8 1.51 430000 45.59 1468.99
shutdown

Issue 1 15 15th August 2002

 Appendix 3
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

The flare gas molecular weights and densities are taken from the following table which gives the flare gas properties for the different flaring scenarios.

Standard Composition (mole %) Composition (wt %)

Molecular
Event type Density
Weight CO2 N2 Methane Ethane+ Inerts Hydrocarbons
(kg/Sm3)
Normal flaring 24.8 1.05 2.46 0.96 64.22 32.36 5.45 94.55

LP compressor trip 47.3 2.00 1.18 0.04 10.11 88.67 1.13 98.87
LP compressor
46.3 1.96 1.40 0.06 12.58 85.96 1.37 98.63
shutdown
HP/LP compressor trip 36.1 1.52 2.01 0.28 34.52 63.19 2.79 97.21
HP/LP compressor
35.8 1.51 2.25 0.32 36.77 60.66 3.01 96.99
shutdown
Platform ESD 31.8 1.34 2.30 0.60 49.54 47.56 4.01 95.99
Export/HP/LP
27.5 1.16 2.29 0.90 60.19 36.62 4.59 95.41
compressor shutdown

Issue 1 16 15th August 2002

 Appendix 4
UKOOA Flare Reporting Guidelines (Mass Basis)

Appendix 4
Example on Application of Guidelines
The HP flare on Platform A burns the following gas quantities:
Category 1 14 tonnes per day annualised average
Category 2 25 tonnes per day annualised average
Category 3 3 tonnes per day annualised average
TOTAL 42 tonnes per day i.e. the flare should be reported by category
as per DTI Guidelines.
The flare currently has installed an orifice plate to measure gas volume and a single
molecular weight is used to convert this to a mass. The molecular weight of the flare
gas is assumed to be equivalent to that of the export gas.
Category 1 Assessment: Figure 2 indicates that a low level of accuracy is required for
a flare of this magnitude. The orifice plate is considered to give a sufficiently
accurate volume measurement at this flowrate, hence in Figure 3 the accuracy
achieved by the current method (single MW) is defined as low.
Conclusion: when in a Category 1 flaring condition the current method provides an
adequate level of accuracy.
Category 2 Assessment: Figure 2 indicates that a medium level of accuracy is
required for a flare of this magnitude. The orifice plate is considered to give a
sufficiently accurate volume measurement at this flowrate, hence in Figure 3 the
accuracy achieved by the current method (single MW) is defined as low.
Conclusion: when in a Category 2 flaring condition the current method does not
provide an adequate level of accuracy as the molecular weight is assumed to be a
single composition. The molecular weight scenarios would have to be assessed to
determine whether or not this is a valid assumption (i.e. MW varies by less than 10%
for different scenarios) in which case the method would be deemed as medium
accuracy and be adequate. Alternatively definition of the various MW scenarios and
event logging would be required to achieve a method of medium accuracy.
Category 3 Assessment: Figure 2 indicates that a low level of accuracy is required for
a flare of this magnitude. The orifice plate is not considered to give a sufficiently
accurate volume measurement at the instantaneous flowrates experienced during
blowdown, hence in Figure 3 the accuracy achieved by the current method is defined
as low (volume by difference where flare <20% production rate and conversion to
mass by single MW).
Conclusion: when in a Category 3 flaring condition the current method provides an
adequate level of accuracy.

Issue 1 17 15th August 2002