Oil Field Flares

A long with the oil there can be gases that come from the well. Some of them useful some of them deadly. In most cases there is not a volume to make collection profitable. They are then burn off so they don't ignite from the machinery or other sources of ignition and cause damage to the machinery and loss of production or loss of life.

Yes the dangerous gas I understand, but it still seems like something could be done with the enormous amounts of heat.

My guess is pretty simple - economics.

If it was profitable to do something, someone would have done it already.

I think it is very naive to think that "If it was profitable to do something, someone would have done it already." More likely, those involved were focused in quick profits from a specific market and didn't want extra hassle.

I have a friend who worked in the Oil Industry in West Virginia. He told ma about an oil well that was venting the natural Gas from a two inch diameter pipe at 160 psi. for YEARS. Even if his numbers are off a bit, this represents a huge waste of energy, and a lot of unnecessary pollution.

Many people are basically greedy and too narrowly focused to see profitability in a broader perspective. Just look at all the times when regulatory pressures pushed companies to clean up their process, then these companies found they could do the cleanup and even make more money due to efficiencies they did not find before, simply because they didn't look.

Ray8, I believe you hit the nail square on the head! I found it hard to believe some of the replies stating that it simply couldn't be done due to safety and or profitability.

More like due to lack of intrest...

This is exactly right.

I am happy now. GA. Ky.

Hi tim - It seems to be an enormous waste. I am however sure you are not the first or the last with this concern.

The cost of converting this wasted energy and distribute it to where it can be used will most probably exceed its economic value and it may be extremely unsafe for workers.

I was counting on that.

I recently passed our Sasol (coal to oil) plant and wondered why they don't use the (small) flare to recharge air hot air balloons. (One could then send people on a trip )

mayt2u

All it took was a change of heat.

I think you meant a change of heart which would make a bit more sense.

It was a pun

If it would have been a pan it could have worked . All the best Mate, Ky.

Hard to believe Ky I grew up in Anzac and I'm 180 degrees apart from you almost exactly, go figure. Cheers

This was a enviromental issue that the law was passed for. Not to reclaim the wasted energy. The govenment was willing to pay for it by the tax write offs.

Its good to know this is being done somewhere. In the world today people are scrambling to come up with new ways to produce energy, it makes sense to me that we would first find a way to harness what is being waisted.

To simply say it cant be done or its too dangerous just does not solve anything.

Thanks for the insight.

Tim in Mexico didn't read Ozzb's response very carefully.

The impetus was environmental, not energy saving. They are not the same thing.

Someone, or a governmental organization, decided that they were smarter than the whole of the worldwide oil industry, and that in their judgment, the cost of containing these gases, judged by the oil industry to be dangerous, was worth the cost and extra danger to contain.

Now note that the person or persons who made that decision were not affected by it. They don't work in the oil fields, and they aren't paying the cost.

They decided the extra hazard to the workers was justified, and they decided to saddle their entire country with the cost.

Tim in Mexico is apparently quite comfortable with the heavy hand of government replacing engineering decisions.

In this country, the USA, the heavy hand of government decided that mortgage loans to unqualified buyers were a good idea, and we are now living with the predictable consequence of that interference.

Some of us would like to muddle through on our own, without all that extra "help."

Well, you know what the old saying about opinions is.

It seems to me doing something (anything) other than the current situation would be a help to the environment.

I'm far from a tree hugger or anything like that, so lets not go there.

I'm going to try and find some information or footage related to the Cantrell Field here in Mexico. I guess its possible you can justify this, but I personally cant stomach it very well.

"Tim in Mexico is apparently quite comfortable with the heavy hand of government replacing engineering decisions" The answer to that is NO I am not. Nor am I qualified to say if doing something about the current situation is feasible, and I dare say you probably are not either.

Ok, enough said

True enough, I am not qualified to pronounce judgments on how the oil industry should run its business.

But I'm not the one advocating that something, anything be done. I'm saying let those in the business run their business with a minimum of outside unqualified interference.

Well it took a long time, but I finally found some accurate pictures of the field here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9g7c_ydmXE

Very cool pix - awesome technology - thanks!

Also thanks for the link to the little film.

That was me last night, not sure why it came up as Guest???

Anyhow, those larger permanent flares that have been going for at lest the past ten years I've been here. They are what I was actualy refering to.

Dear Tim, I feel like we are sort of overlooking Mayt2u's contribution here. Maybe he's got some pictures or names of the processes used up his way that can be applied.

A footnote needs to be added to my original comment.

It wasn't the government that lead the way to a no flare attitude, it was the "OIL COMPANIES", themselves!! We live in a province that has oilfield/gas plants on nearly every section of land. (2 million square miles= 2 million square sections) The people living and working in this type of environment began to ask questions and pressure the law makers to help.

The oil companies worked with the government advisors and implemented a plan that would satisfy the environmental and bean-counter people. The oil companies put up the money for the R&D, installation and operation for each of their respected facility, in return, the Province allowed the one time tax break. No money was ever received from the public coffers in the way of loans or grants.

All new installations have to abide by the new regulations without the tax breaks.

"...The people living and working in this type of environment began to ask questions and pressure the law makers to help. The oil companies worked with the government advisors and implemented a plan that would satisfy the environmental and bean-counter people."

But in the very same post, mayt2u states the oil companies did this all on their own. Very well, then; I pay my taxes entirely voluntarily, because no representative of the government has personally threatened to send me to jail if I don't.

The motivation is no different if one attempts to avoid a potentially threatened action, vs. an actual threat.

In the same vein, "The oil companies put up the money for the R&D, installation and operation for each of their respected facility, in return, the Province allowed the one time tax break. No money was ever received from the public coffers in the way of loans or grants."

Maybe no money was ever received from the public coffers in the way of loans or grants. But a tax break is no different than forgiving a portion of a loan; it is money from the government (the people) to the oil companies every bit as much as a grant, and much more money than a loan, which must be repaid.

Bottom line: The entire country paid for the effort to clean up whatever it was that was bothering the locals living near the oil companies. And the oil companies were responding to pressure generated externally by the locals.

Did little research and found some different sites that dance around the whole issue of flare gas. The problem is that 10 different branches of the Prov/Fed Government have a hand in this burning of waste gas. They range from water use (?) to spoiling the picture for a photographer.

I found out that what I said in my little spiel was all correct, but some people just don't know how the tax/money system works. The question would be is ,"How can you tax money that wasn't there in the beginning?"

The World Bank is the big push to reduce Flaring around the world. I found a site for a forum that was held last year. They have a whack of speakers with their pdf files. Great presentations worth the down load and read. It should be noted that this was not done in Canada.

http://www.flaringreductionforum.org/agenda.html for you Tim (bad guy)

Cheers Robert

Well there you all have it... It can and is being done then, GOOD.

Thanks Robert!

In these instances of waste gas burn off, or simply in the case of landfill methane venting I have come to the conclusion that it is a similar case to vaccinations and one time drugs that are not as profitable as drugs that are needed everyday, so R&D is behind on these issues. In comparison to the numbers of IC engines made to run cars, the number of engines, motors or turbines made to interface and use the flare off gases has not been addressed to standardization of gensets more because there is less motive, than it is not possible.

Hi Tim,

Check out this link. Several companies are in this business.

http://www.johnzink.com/products/fgr/html/fgr_jz.htm

hi to all

flare gas can be use when we sweeting .

some burners or combustion champer is very sensible with changing the composition .

usully they use the CH4 or ethane.

you can use the big amount of flare gas when you design the gas flare recovery unit and send it to furnaces ,boilers ,power turbine or some times reinjecting to oil fields.

my thesis is Flare gas recovery unit design and study on flare-less start-up methods for an olefin plant.

i will so glad if i can direct you.