UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering

Paper review of Predictive Model for Pollutant Dispersion from Gas Flaring: A Case Study of Oil Producing Area of Nigeria by A. S. Abdulkareem, J. O. Odigure and S. Abenege in Energy Sources (2009).

Submitted by: Sean Dawson 10043508

Due: December 8th, 2009

Table of Contents

Nomenclature.... 1. Introduction 2. Problem Description.................... ....................... 3. Novelty/Significance Claimed by the Authors..... 4. Modeling............................................................. 5. Conclusions....... 6. Critical Remarks.... References.. Appendix ....

ii 1 2 2 3 7 11 13 14

Nomenclature
C concentration of emission, g/m3 Cp specific heat, J/(kg*K) F Briggs buoyancy flux parameter, m4/s3 h height, m h plume rise, m I,J,K McMullan constants, unit less Q source emission rate, g/s Qc stack gas sensible heat emission, J/s T temperature, K u wind speed, m/s V volumetric flow, m3/s x distance downwind, x direction, m y horizontal distance, perpendicular to wind direction, y direction, m z vertical distance, z direction, m

Greek Letters
flare efficiency, unit less density, kg/m3 dispersion coefficient, m

Subscripts
a air CO2 carbon dioxide
ii

f flare mix mixing layer s stack y y direction z z direction 2 flash gas, refers to sensible heat after radiation heat loss

iii

iv

1. Introduction
The process of gas flaring is widely used throughout the world. Its based on the theory that many industrial waste gases can be combusted before being released into the atmosphere. The waste gases are expelled through a stack and exposed to a pilot flame at the top. The waste gases then ignite, reacting with the oxygen in the surrounding air, and are oxidized. This is beneficial because the waste gases themselves are usually much more harmful to people and the environment than the gases resulting from the combustion process. For example, it is widely accepted that methane (CH4) is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than its combustion product, carbon dioxide (CO2). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lists methane, the main constituent of natural gas, as approximately 62 times as effective as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (IPCC, 2001). Flaring also prevents combustible gases from accumulating to the point where there is an explosion hazard, or a threat to human health through asphyxiation or other illnesses, downwind from the stack (Blasing and Hand, 2007). One of the most commonly flared gases is natural gas. Previously, natural gas was considered a waste product when developing oil. Now it is realized that this gas has fuel benefits that we in Alberta utilize to heat our water and homes. In Nigeria, however, about 86% of her natural gas production is flared (Oguejiofor, 2006). Despite future plans to utilize the natural gas by converting it to liquid hydrocarbon fuels via the Fischer-Tropsch process, natural gas flaring is currently a substantial polluter. In 1996, Nigeria flared a total of 2 billion standard cubic feet per day. This is estimated as one quarter of the gas the world flares and vents (Oguejiofor, 2006). Nigeria has about 202 years of proven natural gas resources versus only 30 years of proven oil resources (Oguejiofor, 2006). With such massive natural gas reserves, it is very important to be aware of, and track, the pollution caused by flaring.

2. Problem Description
After waste gases are flared, it is important to keep track of the contaminant transport phenomena. Like all pollutants, airborne contaminants are harmful to people and the environment at varying concentrations. It is very important to be able to predict the type and concentration of pollutants, especially at ground level where most people live. This information can then be compared to the concentrations known to be harmful from atmospheric databases. If pollutant concentrations exceed hazardous levels then quick accommodations must be made. One way to determine pollutant concentrations is to measure them at a specific location. The disadvantage of this approach is that you only have information about that one specific spot. It would be very difficult and expensive to measure multiple pollutant concentrations in many locations, elevations and times. An alternative to this is developing a predictive computer model to accurately map pollutant dispersion. These models can give continuous pollutant concentration readings and be compared to monitoring data to gauge model performance (Touma et al., 2006). Of the two main types of models, source-based dispersion models and grid-based chemical transport models, source-based models are appropriate for flares. This is because the flares are point sources and it can be assumed that no chemical change occurs in the pollutants after combustion takes place. Specifically, the Gaussian dispersion model is used in the study under review. This model is considered fairly accurate up to 10km from the source, assuming constant wind speed and direction (Beychok, 2005).

3. Novelty/Significance Claimed by the Authors

In this study, a Gaussian dispersion model was developed to predict the spread of CO2, THC (total hydrocarbons), NO2 (nitrous oxide) and SO2 (sulphur dioxide) from flaring stacks. Although the base model used is well established, it had never been applied in Nigeria for flaring stacks. Also, experimental monitoring of air pollution concentrations
2

downwind of the stacks hadnt been conducted, either. Being a developing country, Nigeria depends on industry to fund such studies (Abdulkareem et al., 2009). With the recent push for utilization of Nigerias natural gas resources, interest in flaring pollutants and volumes has increased. As a result, the funding for such studies and modeling has been made available. As well, the flaring temperature, which greatly influences stack gas plume rise and the resultant modeling calculations, varies depending on the composition of the flared gas (Beychok, 2005). This study is unique since the composition of natural gas in Nigeria is different from elsewhere. Also, it is admirable that a study with any environmental implications can take place in this relatively poor country. Nigerias environmental policies and air quality monitoring are likely a low priority for the government.

4. Modeling
The basic Gaussian dispersion equation is listed below (Beychok, 2005):

(eqn 1) Including reflection from the ground (Beychok, 2005):

(eqn 2) The conservative assumption made by the authors is that the pollutants are not deposited onto the ground. I agree. Including reflection from an inversion layer (Beychok, 2005):

(eqn 3)

where

The authors assume that there is an unstable mixing layer. Since Nigeria is near the equator and the readings were likely taken during the daytime, I agree. Note that equation 3 is the same as equation 4 from the reviewed paper. The dispersion coefficients, y and z, are calculated using Turners rural Pasquill dispersion coefficient equation (Beychok, 2005): (eqn 4) This equation is based on stability classes. Unfortunately the authors do not provide any indication of which classes were observed. In fact, the authors dont provide any of the meteorological data that they used in their model calculations. Next the effective stack height is calculated (Beychok, 2005): (eqn 5) (eqn 6) (eqn 7)

{assuming idea gas behavior, I agree} Substituting equations 7 and 8 into equation 6 gives:

(eqn 8)

(eqn 9) Note that equation 9 is the same as equation 10 from the reviewed paper. Next the plume rise is calculated (Beychok, 2005): (eqn 10)
4

(eqn 11) (eqn 12) {applicable for equation 10 only} (eqn 13)

The simplification of equation 12 is applicable if the atmosphere is neutral or unstable, the stack sensible heat emission is 20MW or more and if the distance from the stack, x, is greater than 10hs. A flaring stack should have sensible heat emissions greater than 20MW. As well, since the experimental readings take place beyond 500m, the stacks must be less than 50m tall. Since there is reference to scorched ground and vegetation near the stacks (Abdulkareem et al., 2009), I agree that these assumptions are applicable. Substituting equations 11, 12 and 13 into equation 10 gives: (eqn 14) Note that the coefficient in equation 14 is higher than equation 13 from the reviewed paper by over a factor of two. This is because the constant in equation 11 is more than a factor of 10 higher than that of equation 12 in the reviewed paper. It is unclear where the authors got their equation 12 from but there is no evidence of it in Beychoks work, which is referenced for this section. I do not agree with their equation for calculating the Briggs buoyancy flux parameter. Next the reaction stoichiometric equations were listed for incomplete combustion: (eqn 15) (eqn 16) (eqn 17) (eqn 18)

(eqn 19) (eqn 20) (eqn 21) Note that equations 17 and 18 are different from those in the reviewed paper. This is because the equations in the reviewed paper were not stoichiometrically balanced. This is a blatant error and the accuracy of these chemical equations is suspect. The reviewed paper references the incorrect equations to a previous paper written by the same authors. I dont think these equations are accurate, even when balanced, but I will use them for my mass balance anyways. The following chart shows the components of the flared gas (Abdulkareem et al., 2009): Component gas flared and their percentage composition Component of gas flared CH4 C2H6 C3H8 C4H10 C5H12 H2S NO2 Others Table 1 (Adapted from Abdulkareem et al., 2009) It is not indicated in the reviewed paper so Ill assume these are weight percentages. I will perform a mass balance, using stoichiometric ratios, to compare to the authors result for CO2 production: Percentage Composition 47 18 20 5 9 0.03 0.022 0.678

(eqn 22)
6

(taking into account the stack efficiency) Substituting equation 23 into equation 3:

(eqn 23)

(eqn 24) Note that this equation for CCO2 will yield about 50% higher results that equation 22 in the reviewed paper. There is no indication of how they arrived at equations 22 through 26. There is also no indication whether they used the incorrect stoichiometric ratios in equations 17 and 18. I disagree with the modeling equations derived by Abdulkareem, Odigure and Abenenge based on the differences I have outlined.

5. Conclusions
The following conclusions were reached when analyzing the Results and Discussion portions of the reviewed paper: 5.1 After the model was developed by the authors, the results from it were compared to pollutant concentrations from samples gathered 0.5km, 1km and 5km downwind from the flaring stacks. Gaussian dispersion models are considered accurate up to 10km from the source (Beychok, 2005), so I agree with these intervals. More samples would have been preferable for more extensive comparisons but cost is always a consideration. 5.2 It is unclear whether samples were measured downwind from one or multiple flaring stacks. Although volumetric flaring rates are provided for two stacks there are measurements downwind for only one. If results were obtained for both stacks then the authors should have supplied experimental results for both to

support their model comparisons. Alternatively, if their measured results represent pollutant concentrations from both stacks then this is a misuse of the Gaussian dispersion model. This model is only meant for a single point source. Either way, I find the authors provided experimental results lacking. 5.3 The assumed efficiency for model calculations is not explained. Other papers report flaring efficiencies over 90% (Ali and Jassim, 2006) and yet efficiencies of 64% and 84% are assumed. I disagree with these values and the lack of explanation for their assumption. 5.4 The scales of the results graphs are not comparable. For example, the graphs showing the experimental concentrations of SO2 and NO2 go up to 45ug/L and 30ug/L, respectively (figures 2 and 4, shown below), but the graph showing the modeled concentrations only goes up to 2.5ug/L (Figure 7, shown below). At first glance these graphs look similar but in reality the model predicts concentrations more than 15 times lower than those that were measured. In order to readily compare the experimental results with the modeling results the graphs should have comparable scales.

(Adapted from Abdulkareem et al., 2009) (Adapted from Abdulkareem et al., 2009) (Adapted from Abdulkareem et al., 2009)

5.5

The authors dont describe any of the meteorological conditions under which the experimental or model results are compiled. Such conditions as sunlight intensity, wind speed, cloud cover or time of day could greatly affect the pollutant dispersion and therefore the concentrations. The authors also neglect to indicate if their measured concentrations are averages or if they simply took the results which best fit the model. Not even the developed model results are reproducible without meteorological information. This detracts from their credibility and I think

the experimental and modeling procedures are lacking. 5.6 The authors provide experimental readings for each month but only give two results for each pollutant from the model. In order to accurately compare their model to their experimental data there should be the exact same conditions for each at the same time. The meteorological inputs for the model could not have matched the conditions for each of the months. Therefore, at least some monthly experimental data cannot be justifiably compared to the model results. 5.7 The experimental results are also questionable. In each graph showing experimental results (Figure 1 4 from Abdulkareem et al., 2009) there are instances where pollutant concentrations go up between 0.5km and 5km from the flare. Based on air dispersion modeling, this is not possible. Between vertical and

horizontal dispersion and deposition of pollutants on the ground, the concentration of pollutants at a similar point in the plume should be decreasing with distance from the flare. The only explanations would be if the air sampling or analyzing process was flawed, if there were more pollutants being chemically created in the atmosphere or if there were other pollutant sources nearby. If the sampling or analyzing techniques are flawed then the experimental data is no longer comparable with the modeling data. Similarly, if there are chemical reactions taking place after the flare, then Gaussian modeling cannot be used to model this process. As well, if there were multiple pollutant sources contributing to the experimental concentrations then Gaussian modeling would be inappropriate for modeling this process. All of these possibilities indicate that the experimental procedure is flawed. 5.8 In the reviewed paper, there is very little discussion of the model results and how they compared to experimental results. They use uninformative comments like the computed volume of gas flared also affects the pollutants concentration at various distances. (Abdulkareem et al., 2009) or all of the five pollutants, i.e., CO2, CO, SO2, NO2, and THC vary with efficiency. (Abdulkareem et al., 2009). These comments are obvious and redundant. They are basically saying that changing the numbers in their model equations changes the results the model produces. This is not discussion material, it is stating the obvious. Another example is when the authors say this modified dispersion model for pollutant dispersionbetter conforms to dispersion pattern of theories. (Abdulkareem et al., 2009). To state that the theoretical model conforms to theories is redundant and uninformative. 5.9 Only the final paragraph of the Discussion of Results in the reviewed paper actually compares the model values with the experimental values. They dont compare any values specifically, but they supposedly calculate the standard deviation and the correlation coefficient between the two. There is no indication what values were compared, which pollutants were compared, or even what month the values were compared. Even if they used only the most favorable
10

values to compare I think the calculated correlation coefficient of 0.96 and standard deviation of 1.9% is unbelievable. I dont think this calculation was done correctly or realistically. Some of the graphical model values shown are more than an order of magnitude off of the experimental values. If all of the values were considered, the statistical correlation would not have been very close. The model does not do a good job of representing the experimental data. I strongly disagree with the authors conclusion that the model showed a remarkable agreement (Abdulkareem et al., 2009) with the experimental data.

6. Critical Remarks
In this report, a Gaussian model was developed for flare stack airborne pollutant prediction. The model output was then compared to experimental data. Although the authors claimed that the model was successful, I disagree. They should consider the following points: 6.1 6.2 The model equation for Briggs buoyancy flux parameter was incorrect. The chemical equations representing the incomplete combustion of both propane and butane were not balanced and therefore not correct. 6.3 As a result of points 6.1 and 6.2, the equations used to calculate the output of the model - the pollutant concentrations - were incorrect. 6.4 More experimental air pollution concentration samples would have allowed for a more thorough comparison to the model. 6.5 A more thorough explanation of the experimental sampling methods and conditions is needed. 6.6 The assumed efficiencies for the flares are questionable. An explanation or defense for this assumption is needed.

11

6.7

When comparing graphs from the model with graphs from the experimental data the scales should be the same.

6.8

Information regarding the meteorological conditions during sampling and modeling calculations is needed. Without this information the process used is not reproducible and lacks credibility. Also, the authors should indicate if their sampling values represent averages or not.

6.9

The model output should exactly match the conditions for the experimental outputs. If the experimental samples were taken once a month under those meteorological conditions then the model outputs should use the same conditions and also be monthly.

6.10

An explanation is needed for the increases of pollutant concentrations with increased distance from the stack. This result is illogical and lowers credibility for the experimental procedure.

6.11

More detailed comparisons are needed between the developed model and the experimental results. The existing discussion of results in the reviewed paper is mostly redundant and insufficient.

6.12

The statistical analysis comparing the experimental and modeled results is suspect. There is no indication that as strong a correlation coefficient as 0.96 or as small a standard deviation as 1.9% would result from this comparison. The calculations used to arrive at these values should be shown and explained.

In general, this is a poorly conducted study. It appears that the authors knew this, since they included very little information regarding the origin of their results. This makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly what was done wrong, but it also makes it obvious that mistakes were made. The authors would have done a greater service to their country and its environment had they admitted their model was unsuccessful so that others wouldnt make the same mistakes. If nothing else, the authors have succeeded in attracting more attention to the wealth of natural gas in Nigeria. After all, flare gas recovery reduces noise and thermal radiation, operating and maintenance costs, air
12

pollution and emission, and fuel gas and steam consumption (Zadakbar et al., 2008). Hopefully this abundant resource will be utilized in the near future instead of continuing to be squandered in flaring stacks.

13

References
Abdulkareem,A.S.,Odigure,J.O.andS.Abenege,PredictiveModelforPollutantDispersionfromGas Flaring:ACaseStudyofOilProducingAreaofNigeria,EnergySourcesPartA31,10041015(2009). Ali,A.A.K.M.andR.K.Jassim,Usingswirlflowtoimproveefficiencyofflares,Proc.Inst.Mech.Eng. PartAJ.PowerEnergy220,731736(2006). Beychok,M.R.,FundamentalsofStackGasDispersion,MiltonR.BeychokEd.,NewportBeach,CA (2005),pp.1982and167178. Blasing,T.J.andK.Hand,Monthlycarbonemissionsfromnaturalgasflaringandcementmanufacture intheUnitedStates,TellusSer.B59,1521(2007). IPCC(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange),ClimateChange2001:TheScientificBasis,Table 6.7(2001). Oguejiofor,G.C.,GasFlaringinNigeria:SomeAspectsforAcceleratedDevelopmentofSasolChevron GTLPlantatEscravos,EnergySourcesPartA28,13651376(2006). Touma,J.S.,Isakov,V.andJ.Ching,AirQualityModelingofHazardousPollutants:CurrentStatusand FutureDirections,J.Air&WasteManage.Assoc.56,547558(2006). Zadakbar,O.,Vatani,A.andK.Karimpour,FlareGasRecoveryinOilandGasRefineries,OilGasSci. Tech.63,705711(2008).

14

Appendix

1.

Copy of reviewed paper

15