Hydrocarbon Gas Storage Tank Blanketing for FPSOs To Eliminate VOC Emissions
M.S. Childs, Riskbytes Inc., and A.W. Sipkema, Shell Intl. E&P
Abstract
Inert Gas blanketing as used by FPSOs for crude storage tanks
results in significant VOC emissions to the atmosphere.
The HC blanketing system shows significant reduction in
emissions compared to the Inert Blanketing system. The
Carbon Costing methodology and the CAPEX estimates show
the comparable savings vs. investments, excluding the
potential positive effects on reputation management.
The HC blanketing option therefore presents a serious
environmental emissions reduction opportunity, that warrants
a dedicated effort to make it work on future FPSOs.
Introduction
Crude storage tanks as used in a Floating Production Storage
Offloading (FPSO) unit require blanketing medium on top of
the stored crude oil to replace the tank atmosphere and prevent
air being drawn in and potentially forming explosive mixtures
with the hydrocarbon (HC) gas in the tanks on top of the
crude.
Trading tankers transporting crude traditionally make this
blanket by burning fuel oil or diesel in boilers or inert gas
generators, and from the exhaust produce so-called inert gas.
Most FPSOs have adopted this solution from the trading
tanker industry. Boilers or Inert Gas Generators are straight
forward in use, and have become the standard for blanketing
on trading tankers.
In the storage tanks, the inert gas will mix with HC gases
(Volatile Organic Compounds) emitted from the crude due to
movement and physical properties of the different gases. This
can result in a gas mixture of 50 to 70% HC gas by volume.
SPE 98763
STARTING POINT:
100% Hydrocarbons
INERT GAS
POINT OF DANGER:
17% HC, 17% O2, 66% IG
[83% Air]
VOC's
CRUDE TO
SHUTTLE
TANKER
CRUDE FROM
TOPSIDES
CRUDE OIL
Field tests on the Shell FPSO Anasuria have shown that the
HC vapor concentration in the storage tanks can rise to levels
as high as 30% to 70% VOC [Ref. 5] as the tanks are loaded
with crude. The amount of formed VOC gas is dependent
upon a number of factors, including vapor pressure of the
crude oil and the motion of the FPSO.
During oil production on an FPSO, filling the crude oil tanks,
the inert gas blanket is gradually pressurized then vented
through a dedicated venting system to a safe location, usually
up the forward mast vent away from the accommodation. Not
only Inert gas is emitted but also a high concentration of the
formed VOCs.
SPE 98763
Minimum level
of inert gas - 85%
HC GAS
to PROCESS
STREAM
HC GAS
HC
CRUDE TO
SHUTTLE
TANKER
CRUDE FROM
TOPSIDES
Air line
CRUDE OIL
SPE 98763
from 30% to 70% VOC [Ref. 5] as the tanks are loaded with
crude.
Figure 5 shows based on this information the estimated yearly
VOC emissions.
30000
25000
High estimate
15000
10000
Medium estimate
5000
Low estimate
0
0
50
100
20000
150
200
VOC
Emissions
(tonnes/year)
Methane
Equivalent
Emissions
125,000
7,000
1,000
200,000
10,000
1,600
For a 15 years field life the total Carbon Cost would be in the
range of a few million dollars, potentially enough to justify a
small capital investment.
Initiatives from countries around the North Sea and for
example New Zealand [Ref 11] that provide incentives for
operators to reduce CO2 and HC emissions could play a larger
reputation role in making the final decision.
Safety Issues
To ensure that the HC system does not introduce higher safety
risks compared to the existing inert gas system, the following
safety scenarios were considered:
Release of hydrocarbon gas from the tank resulting in
a fire
Air ingress into a cargo tank resulting in an explosion
Over pressure causing burst of crude oil tank
Other operational hazards
SPE 98763
Figure 8 Jet Fire of 3 inch Release from Crude Oil Tank (HC
Blanket Option)
STARTING POINT:
50% HC, 50% IG
The jet flames for the hydrocarbon gas blanket and inert gas
blanket options for a 3-inch hole from the crude oil tanks are 9
meters and 8 meters in length, respectively.
POINT OF DANGER:
14% HC, 14% O2, 72% IG
Both the inert system and the HC system have similar safety
risks from tank releases, but the HC gas blanketing system
will add some process equipment with gas of pressures
between 2-5 bar, in which a release could result in a small jet
fire. These potential fires will be mitigated with the same
mitigation strategy as other process systems.
Air Ingress (Low Pressure) in Tanks
Air ingress into the cargo tanks could occur during a lowpressure situation, for example if the blanketing system would
not be able to fill the tank volume at the required rates during
crude offloading, the PV valves would open to allow air into
the cargo tanks to avoid cargo tank under-pressure and
potential collapse.
The HC flammability diagram in Figure 9 suggests that a tank
composition of 17% hydrocarbons and 83% air will result in
an explosive atmosphere. The analysis concludes that for the
case of air ingress into the crude oil tanks, the limiting
component is oxygen, not hydrocarbons.
Figure 9 HC Blanketing Air Ingress Flammability Diagram
STARTING POINT:
100% Hydrocarbons
POINT OF DANGER:
17% HC, 17% O2, 66% IG
[83% Air]
SPE 98763
CAPEX
Inert gas
generator
Painting of
deck heads
Compressor/
driver,
piping,
additional
HC
CAPEX*
OPEX
Fuel for
generators
Maintenance
INERT GAS
BLANKETING
NOTE
COST
HC BLANKETING
NOTE
COST
2 rqrd @
$400k/ each
Usually
Required
Base case
relative cost
is $0
$800,000
1 rqrd @
$400k/ each
Could be
removed
Depends on
design
$400,000
Dual fuel
generator
will probably
be chosen
Base case
relative cost
is $0
Dual fuel
inert gas
generation
still required
More
required
equipment.
$5 MM $6 MM
$0
$0
$5 MM $6
MM or Zero
~$1-$7MM
~$80,000/yr
SPE 98763
APPLICATIONS
Blower
- Up to 2 bar diff.
pressure
- 2 barg max
discharge
pressure
- 100,000 m3/h
max inlet volume
Ejector
- Up to 4 bar diff.
pressure
- 5.0 barg max
discharge
pressure
- 6,000 m3/h max
inlet volume
- Up to 12.0 bar
differential
pressure
- 15 barg max
discharge
pressure
- 4,000 m3/h max
inlet volume
- Up to 11.0 bar
differential
pressure
- 20 barg max
discharge
pressure
- 10,000 m3/h max
inlet volume
Liquid ring
compressor
Oil-injected
screw
compressor
PROS
CONS
- Ability to handle
variations in
molecular weight
- Can handle
polluted gas
- Can handle large
suction volumes
- High efficiency
- Relative low cost
- High reliability
- Low maintenance
cost
- Limited
differential
pressure
- Ability to handle
liquid and
variations in
molecular weight
- Simple design
- Easy to maintain
- Low and controlled
discharge temp
- Ability to handle
variations in
pressure and
molecular weight
- Ability to handle
high pressure ratio
- Easy to maintain
- High efficiency
- Small equipment
- High power
consumption
- Need for
make up
water
- Relatively low
efficiency
- Requires HP
and high flow
- Risk of
contaminating
lube oil with
water and
condensate
SPE 98763
COMP.
SYSTEM
APPLICATIONS
Oil-free
screw
compressor
- Up to 4.0 bar
differential
pressure
- 70 barg max
discharge
pressure
- 80,000 m3/h max
inlet volume
PROS
CONS
- Ability to handle
variations in
pressure
- Ability to handle
dirty gases
- Ability to handle
variations in
molecular weight
- High reliability
- Limited
pressure ratio
- Large
- Expensive
(relative to
oil-injected
screw comp.)
- Sensitive to
impurities
HC Blanketing is
Economical Investment
150
More Research
Required
450
550
650
GOR
About 20 years ago the E&P industry had to find a solution for
the oil in produced water. For the EP producer there is no
direct economic benefit for removing this oil from the
produced water stream; the reduction from 80ppm to 40ppm
does not justify the equipment required (@ $50/bbl a annual
saving of $70,000 per 100,000 bbl water produced).
250
200
Reputation Management
750
850
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the following persons for their help
with preparing this paper, we would not have been able to do
this without their unwaivering enthausiasm.
SPE 98763
Roy Tubbs for initiating the concept and for keeping us honest
while preparing this paper;
Jillian DAuria for starting the technical feasibility work;
Gordon Price for his invaluable operational, real life
experience advice;
John Holmes for his quick and to the point peer reviews.
References
[1] J.N. Chubb Electrostatic Ignition Risks and Tank
Washing Operations Dec 2004.
http://www.jci.co.uk/Papers/TankWashingRisks.pdf
[2] OCIMF Inert Gas Systems Block and Bleed valve
arrangements for Chemical Tankers carrying chemicals and
petroleum products Dec 1999,
www.ocimf.com/view_document.cfm?id=346
[3] TSB # M13/99. Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Release of TSB Final report on the Explosion and Fire
aboard the Petroleum Tanker Petrolab at ST. Barbe,
NEWFOUNDLAND 19 JULY 1997, M97N0099,
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/media/communiques/marine/1999/co
mmm97n0099.asp
[4] Institute of Petroleum, Tank Cleaning Safety Code,
1996.
[5] Anasuria Cargo Tank Vent Sampling Programme.
Internal Document.
[6] Suhail, Khalid. New Generation FPSO Fuel Gas
Blanketing System for Cargo Tanks, EP Projects, 2003.
Internal Document.