SPE 98763

Hydrocarbon Gas Storage Tank Blanketing for FPSOs To Eliminate VOC Emissions
M.S. Childs, Riskbytes Inc., and A.W. Sipkema, Shell Intl. E&P

Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE International Conference on Health,
Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production held in Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.,
24 April 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, Texas 75083-3836 U.S.A., fax +1.972.952.9435.

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.

During production of crude, this mixture is vented to the

atmosphere via carefully located deck vents. Instead of solely
emitting CO2 and N2, the FPSO is emitting significant
amounts of hydrocarbons to the atmosphere up to thousand of
tonnes per year.
When the crude is offloaded, the inert gas generator produces
the displaced volume to ensure proper blanketing.
Unfortunately the inert gas (with mixed hydrocarbons) cannot
be redirected into the process stream to prevent these
emissions. The oxygen and contaminants would result in
contamination and corrosion concerns in the process stream.
In 2003 the Shell Group updated its Minimum
Environmental Standards (MES), with a specific emphasis
on venting and flaring for production purposes. The MES
states:
New facilities shall not be designed to
continuouslyvent hydrocarbon gas for
disposal
This No Venting Minimum Environmental Standard is also
applicable to small local vents, such as tank vents on FPSOs.
As such new project FPSOs should investigate options to
reduce or mitigate the HC emissions from the FPSO. The
project team should demonstrate a design/performance level as
close as justifiable to the ultimate goal, from a technical,
operability and cost/benefit point of view (the ALARP
principle, As Low As Reasonably Practicable).
The early FPSOs were based on converted trading tankers and
many of the shipping rules and practices have been adopted in
the subsequent years. The produced HC gas on an FPSO offers
the opportunity to take these gases as blanketing medium, and
reduce the need for Inert Gas (IG) systems, while offering a
significant reduction in environmental emissions from the
FPSO.
Limitations of the use of this system are dictated by the
minimum HC gas requirements to re-fill the storage tanks
during offloading, about 8mmscf/day. If a reservoir does not
produce enough gas to cater for this, the use of HC blanketing
becomes more challenging.
The Shell Generic FPSO (GFPSO) team has investigated
options to reduce or mitigate these local vent emissions. This
paper describes the most promising system to reduce these
emissions, the Hydrocarbon (HC) gas blanketing system.

SPE 98763

This paper discusses:

History
Base System of Inert Gas
Base System of HC Blanketing
Environmental Benefits & Carbon Costing
Safety Issues
Operability Issues
CAPEX & OPEX
Design Requirements
Reputation Management
Conclusions
History
Hydrocarbon gas was (and still is) commonly found in the
atmosphere at the top of the cargo tanks of crude trading
tankers. Most crudes emit some HC gases, even after process
stabilization, and this would seek to fill the space above the
crude with a non-explosive blanket during transport.
Problems could and did occur when the crude was being
offloaded and the tank volumes were displaced with air. This
would result in a tank atmosphere inside the explosive range
of the mix of HC and Air. In itself this is not a problem if no
ignition source would be present. Figure 1 below gives the
representation of going through this explosive zone.
Figure 1 Inert Gas Blanketing Air Ingress Flammability Diagram

STARTING POINT:
100% Hydrocarbons

In the mid 70s oil trading Companies and the International

Maritime Organisation (IMO) investigated alternatives to
prevent these incidents, and the inert blanketing of crude
storage tanks was introduced at a larger scale for crude oil
carriers (through IMOs SOLAS) to prevent explosive
mixtures. In addition in 1981, IMO introduced the Resolution
A.473 (XII) Interim Regulations for Inert Gas Systems on
Chemical Tankers Carrying Petroleum Products [Ref 2].
Unfortunately to this day serious tank washing incidents still
occur with petroleum product carriers. A serious fire and
explosion occurred on board the Petrolab in July 1997 in
Canada, in which four people were killed and caused
significant fire damage. This incident was linked to wrong
working practices to gas free the storage tanks (the explosion
occurred due to an accumulation of gasoline vapor). [Ref 3]
The Institute of Petroleum has issued detailed guidelines on
how to prevent and work with Static Electricity. [Ref 4]
Inert Gas blanketing Base system description
Dedicated Inert gas generators (often two per FPSO) produce
inert gas by burning diesel or other fuels e.g. fuel gas, which
results in a mixture of mainly CO2 and N2.
The main demand on the inert gas generator during FPSO
operations occurs during the offloading of the crude to an
offtake tanker. The volume of displaced crude has to be
replaced with inert gas, while maintaining a slight
overpressure. The inert gas blanketing system is designed to
minimize potential for explosive mixtures by keeping the
oxygen content in the tanks below a maximum of 8% thus
keeping the tank mixture inert. (Figure 2).
Figure 2 Inert Gas Blanketing Representation
INERT GAS
&
VOC's
to ATMOSPHERE

INERT GAS
POINT OF DANGER:
17% HC, 17% O2, 66% IG
[83% Air]

VOC's
CRUDE TO
SHUTTLE
TANKER

CRUDE FROM
TOPSIDES

CRUDE OIL

With the increase in size of trading tankers to VLCC size and

tank sizes getting larger (over 8000m3), the potential to ignite
these mixtures became larger.
An ignition source can be created through the use of highpressure water tank washing machines. The impact of highpressure water on a metal surface can create significant
electrostatic charges. These energies can be high enough to
cause a thunder cloud like atmosphere in a large tank
resulting in lightning as the cloud discharges its charge to
earth (i.e. the surrounding steel hull). In various VLCC
trading tanker incidents in the late 60s and early 70s, people
have been killed and injured resulting from such explosions.
The explosions are often strong enough to rip open the
complete tank [Ref 1].

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

The composition of emitted VOCs will vary dependent upon

the reservoir characteristics and topsides configurations, but
will likely be composed predominately of C5-C7, as the
lighter ends have been separated by the topsides process.

Figure 4 Flammability Diagram Hydrocarbon to Air Atmosphere

Tank 100% Hydrocarbons

HC Gas blanketing Base system description

The HC gas blanketing system obtains its gas from the process
stream after oil and gas separation has taken place. The
options for the specific offtake sources within the topsides
stream are discussed in more detail further on. Process control
valves are designed to allow the system to breathe and
maintain a desired tank pressure, and to prevent tank over
pressurization.
The fundamental difference between the inert gas blanketing
system and the hydrocarbon blanketing system is that all the
blanket gas used for the hydrocarbon system is maintained
with the process stream envelope; there are no emissions
under normal circumstances (Figure 3).

Minimum level
of inert gas - 85%

Environmental Benefits & Carbon Costing

VOCs in the atmosphere react with nitrogen oxides (NOx) to
create low-level ozone, and contribute to the Greenhouse gas
emissions.

Figure 3 Hydrocarbon Blanketing Representation

TOPSIDES COMPRESSION SYSTEM

The burden to the environment of these pollutants is difficult

and at times controversial to quantify in dollars, as the impacts
are indirect and spread out over time and distance. The impact
of the pollution is not directly visible.

HC GAS
to PROCESS
STREAM
HC GAS

HC
CRUDE TO
SHUTTLE
TANKER

CRUDE FROM
TOPSIDES

Air line

CRUDE OIL

During crude oil offloading from the tanks to the offtake

tankers, hydrocarbon blanket gas is directed from the process
stream to the tanks to maintain the desired pressure and
blanket gas composition.
During production, when the crude flows into the tanks from
the topsides production, the hydrocarbon gas is routed back to
the process stream. The options for the recovery system may
require additional compressor capacity to boost the blanket
gas pressure to that of the process stream.
Tank Cleaning for Inspection
Preparing the storage tanks for their mandated inspections will
require this HC blanket to be purged. The transfer of the tank
atmosphere between air and hydrocarbons and vice versa will
require an (smaller) inert gas system to be used as an
intermediary system. This is to avoid having an explosive
mixture of hydrocarbons and oxygen within the tanks.
Figure 4 shows the flammability triangle for HC, oxygen, and
inert gas. To ensure that the tank atmosphere does not reach
the flammability envelope, inert gas will be required to replace
the hydrocarbon gas until the atmosphere is at least 85% inert
gas.

The Shell Minimum Environmental Standards require the

eliminations of these emissions, and Shells Guidance on
Carbon Costing [Ref 7] states that carbon costs must be
included in base economics. The Kyoto Treaty has attempted
to quantify the environmental burden by setting cost per tonne
penalties for emissions. The costs for CO2 and CH4 are
distributed based on country classification [Ref 8], [Ref 9]
displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 Kyoto Treaty for Carbon Costing
COST PER
COST PER
COUNTRY
TONNE CO2
TONNE CH4
EU countries*
$15
$315
Annex I countries
$5.50
$115
Non-Annex I
$4
$84
countries
* Bloomberg (Sep 2005) sets cost CO2 at $35 per tonne [16]

The amount of VOC released from an FPSO using the inert

gas blanketing system is dependent upon a number of
variables, such as vapor pressure of the crude, shape of the
vessel, temperature of the crude, wave action, etc. UKOOA
estimates that 1 kg of VOC is generated for every tonne of
crude oil loaded into FPSO storage tanks. UKOOA indicates
that this relationship can vary from 0.3 to 2.8 depending upon
the specific conditions [Ref 10].
The composition of emitted VOCs will vary dependent upon
the reservoir characteristics and topsides configurations, but
will likely be composed predominately of C5-C7, as the
lighter ends have been separated by the topsides process. Field
tests on the Shell Anasuria FPSO suggests that the HC vapor
concentration in the tank blanketed with Inert gas can rise

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.

VOC Emissions (tonnes/yr)

30000
25000
High estimate

15000
10000

Medium estimate

5000

Low estimate

0
0

50

100

A hole in a crude storage tank or in another part of the

blanketing system process stream will result in a release of gas
and possible fire.
The hydrocarbon gas blanketing system will result in a gas
release of 100% hydrocarbons, while the inert gas blanketing
system will result in a gas release of between 20% and 80%
hydrocarbons (inert gas constituting the remainder). A release
in the process stream downstream of the pressure control valve
and upstream of the gas exhaust valve (or compressor), will
result in a gas release of a maximum 100mbar.

Figure 5 Inert Gas Blanketing VOC Emissions

20000

Hydrocarbon Release and Fire

150

200

The flammable zone dispersion analysis results in the

following two graphs for the hydrocarbon gas (Figure 6) and
inert gas (Figure 7) blanketing leaks (3 inch hole):

Oil Throughput (10^3 bopd)

The Carbon Costing addresses methane and carbon dioxide.

Heavier VOCs have less impact and can be converted to
equivalent CH4 emissions, or assumed flared and converted to
CO2. For example 1000 kg C5H12 would burn to produce
about 3000 kg CO2, or can be converted to 150 kg CH4.

Figure 6 - Dispersion of 3 inch Release from Crude Oil Tank (HC

Blanket Option)

Table 2 presents the annual environmental costing for

different countries and oil throughputs that would apply to the
inert gas blanketing system.
Table 2 VOC emissions Environmental Costing
Oil
Production
(bbls/day)

VOC
Emissions
(tonnes/year)

Methane
Equivalent
Emissions

125,000

7,000

1,000

200,000

10,000

1,600

Annual Carbon Cost

$300,000 EU
$100,000 Annex I
$75,000 Non-annex I
$450,000 EU
$150,000 Annex I
$110,000 Non-annex I

Figure 7 - Dispersion of 3 inch Release from Crude Oil Tank (Inert

Gas Blanket Option 50% VOC)

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

It is likely that this low-pressure release will quickly disperse,

making an ignited release unlikely, although local vent fires
have been reported in combination with hot work in the same
area. The jet fire profile of the gas in case of a leak in the HC
system process stream is modeled in Figure 8.

SPE 98763

Figure 8 Jet Fire of 3 inch Release from Crude Oil Tank (HC
Blanket Option)

Likewise, Figure 10 presents the flammability diagram for a

mixture that is 50% hydrocarbons and 50% inert gas, a typical
composition in the tanks during loading with the inert gas
system. This shows that more air is required to enter the
system for the hydrocarbon gas blanketing system than for the
inert gas blanketing system.
Figure 10 Inert Gas Blanketing Air Ingress Flammability Diagram

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]

The probability of the series of events occurring in which

enough air is entered into the cargo tanks that results in an
explosive atmosphere is considered extremely low due to the
number of independent failures that must occur.
High Pressure in Tanks
The crude oil tanks are designed to have blanket gas with
slight overpressure with a normal operating pressure approx.
800-900 mmWG.
One possible failure mechanisms that could initiate an
overpressure event in the crude oil tanks is if the hydrocarbon
inlet pressure control valve fails open (it should be noted that
traditional inert gas pressure is governed by fan pressure
which does not have the same potential).
In this scenario, the pressure in the crude oil tanks will start to
rise. The barriers to prevent overpressurization and rupture of
the tanks with typical set points are the following:
First stage blow off valve opens at 1000mmWG (630
mbar)
Closing of ESV and XV (if necessary) at 1200mWG (760
mbar)
Second stage blow off valve opens at 1400mmWG (885
mbar)
P/V breaker opens at 1800mmWG (1140 mbar)
These independent barriers will be present for both the inert
gas and blanket gas cases. So failure of a crude oil tank due to
overpressurization is low for both cases.
Operability Issues
The utilization of hydrocarbon as a gas-blanketing source is a
step change from common operational practice for FPSOs.
The system will utilize two sources of gas (hydrocarbons and

inert gas) and provide additional interlocks and process

controls that are used differently depending on the operation.
The introduction of more complexity could result in more
process upsets and downtime.
FPSO operators should be required to participate in relevant
training courses and involvement in safety and operational
reviews so that they recognize process upsets and respond
accordingly, and are familiar with the various operational
modes of the blanketing system.
The Operational Safety Case will describe the safety critical
devices and procedures to operate the HC system safely and
efficiently.
Classification Societies and other Industry Regulators need to
be engaged to ensure full understanding of the benefits and
risks of the HC system, and to allow for industry rulebooks to
be amended to include this system at a larger scale.
CAPEX & OPEX
Potential Capex & OPEX savings
Inert gas blanketing systems typically utilize two inert gas
generators to produce the gas for blanketing (for Shell
FPSOs). Using hydrocarbon gas blanketing as the base case,
there would be a savings of one generator (the other generator
would still be needed as inert gas would be required for startup operations and times when human entry is required). A
typical generator typically costs around $400,000 [Ref 12].
If the base case inert gas system included diesel-powered
generators, there would be a savings for the use of diesel if the
hydrocarbon blanketing system were used. Typical inert gas
generators cost about $425,000 per year in fuel costs given
$350/tonne of diesel [Ref 12].
The use of dual fuel inert gas generators would negate some of
these savings, as the value of the burned gas will be lower. In
technical evaluation Shell uses $2 per million scf used, which
translate in a cost of fuel in the range of a few thousand dollars
per year.
Cargo tank deck-heads are typically painted to protect
against corrosion of the inert gas.
If non-corrosive
hydrocarbon gas is used, and inert gas blanketing is only used
on rare occasions, it might be possible to save the cost of
painting the deck-heads, which typically costs between $5
MM and $6 MM. Also considering that it is more difficult to
maintain coatings on an FPSO than a trading tanker entering
drydock on regular basis.
However, inert gas will still be used during tank entry.
Therefore, the decision to paint the deck-heads may be
justified. Inert gas generators fired on gas are less likely to
cause corrosion issues (no sulphur in fuel).
The use of hydrocarbon gas for the blanketing medium for the
crude oil tanks in FPSOs, as compared with the use of inert
gas, will generate more volume of crude oil transferred to the
offtake tanker. The VOC gas that would have been emitted to
the atmosphere will remain in solution, creating a slightly

SPE 98763

higher volume of crude (and slightly higher vapor pressure)

with the use of the hydrocarbon gas blanketing system as
compared with the inert gas blanketing system.
The CAPEX and OPEX of the two blanketing options are
summarized in Table 3.
Table 3 Blanketing Systems Cost Comparison

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

* Including structural steel, fire/gas detection, drainage, engineering

support

Potential Investment Cost

The extra equipment required for the hydrocarbon gas
blanketing system as compared to the inert gas blanketing
system is the following:
Compressor/blower/ejector (if necessary)
Structural steel
Piping
Valves
Instrumentation/controls
Additional fire/gas monitoring
Additional deluge systems
Additional drain lines
Design Requirements
Various topsides design solutions can be applied to achieve
the HC blanketing system, depending on:
Gas source
Recovery system
Type of compressor
The source of the gas for the blanketing system can be taken
from one of the following locations:
Fuel gas downstream of fuel gas scrubber
Gas upstream of the LP suction scrubber
Tie-ins from both locations
The advantage of utilizing fuel gas for blanketing is the noncorrosive aspect of the gas. The disadvantages of using fuel
gas for blanketing are unnecessary compression and increased
evaporation of gas from the crude oil.

SPE 98763

The unnecessary gas compression can be mitigated through

taking the source gas from the inlet of the LP suction scrubber.
The disadvantage of obtaining the blanket gas from the inlet of
the LP suction scrubber is that it is potentially more corrosive
that that of the fuel gas.
Another option is to have tie-ins from both identified sources.
If the gas from the LP suction scrubber is too corrosive, that
line can be isolated and gas could be taken from the fuel gas
source. The downside of this option is the additional capital
expenditure required.

Figure 12 HC Blanketing Option Inlet at LP Suction Scrubber,

Outlet at VRU Suction Scrubber

As blanket gas is displaced by produced crude from the crude

oil tanks, the gas is reentered into the gas compression process
stream.
First stage VRU compression with blower
LP suction scrubber with parallel compressor
An option to the gas exhaust valve is to insert a blower into
the process system to boost the pressure of the exhaust blanket
gas before entering into the 1st stage VRU process system
(Figure 11).

Figure 11 HC Blanketing Option Inlet and Outlet at LP Suction

Scrubber

An internal Shell study provides the benefits and drawbacks of

five compressor options if the compressor system is chosen
[Ref 6]. These are displayed in Table 4.
Table 4 Compressor Types
COMP.
SYSTEM

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

A second option is to have one inlet/outlet connection to the

inlet of the LP suction scrubber (Figure 12). A hydrocarbon
blanketing system compression skid will be required to boost
the blanket exhaust gas parallel to the VRU compression
system.

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

The Juton FPSO [Ref 13, 14, 15] used a CAPEX of 50

MMNOK ($7.9MM) for the hydrocarbon gas blanketing
system which included an additional compressor. The Juton
FPSO used a value of $80,000/yr, which was attributed to
maintenance of equipment.
UKOAA suggests a CAPEX value of $5 -7 million pounds for
the system.
Indications from the GFPSO technical work show that the
experienced Conversion Contractors see those cost in the $1 to
$2 million ranges.
GOR ratio
One aspect that must be considered when choosing and
designing a hydrocarbon gas blanketing system is the amount
of blanket gas that is required. An analysis suggests that the
average FPSO requires about 8MMSCF per offload to satisfy
the gas blanketing requirements. Low GOR crude may not be
able to meet these demands after sales gas and fuel gas
demands are met. An option for consideration is gas buy-back
if there are low gas supply concerns.
An analysis was performed to relate the production rate of an
FPSO, the GOR of the crude oil, and the amount of gas that
would be available to satisfy hydrocarbon gas blanketing
demands.
Figure 13 presents the economic-based
recommendation of hydrocarbon gas blanketing as compared
with the inert gas blanketing option as a function of
production rate and GOR.
Figure 13 Minimum Required Production/GOR rates

Prod Rate (10^3 bopd)

HC Blanketing is
Economical Investment

150

More Research
Required

450

550

650
GOR

Nonetheless pressure from NGOs and adoption of these

requirements in country legislation ensured that these
measures where incorporated. The environmental benefit was
valued above the additional investments required. Today
removing oil from produced water is well-accepted practice.
A similar drive to reduce EP gaseous emissions started in the
early 90s with flare reduction measures, and has picked up
steam with new ideas around carbon trading (Montreal Nov
2005).
Among the EP production concepts used offshore, the FPSO is
the one concept that emits the largest amount of VOCs from
its storage tanks.
Although the Carbon Cost of 1 to 2 million dollars may just
break even with the actual CAPEX investment for this new
system, the impact on reputation for the EP operators adopting
this system could be significant.
Regulators could adopt a no/low-venting requirement for
FPSOs that would steer the industry towards an alternative
solution for the storage tank blanketing. The HC blanketing
option provides a simple and reliable manner to eliminate
these emissions.
Conclusions
At this moment only a few FPSOs make use of the HC
blanketing system, such as the North Sea Statoil Asgard A.
Shell has decided to explore the alternatives to reduce the
VOC emissions from storage tanks from FPSOs. The driver
behind this is the Shell Minimum Environmental Standards
and its aspirations for the future. None-the-less for each
environmental program a thorough demonstration, in line with
ALARP, has to be performed.

The HC blanketing option therefore presents a serious

environmental emissions reduction opportunity, that warrants
a dedicated effort to make it work on future FPSOs.

100 Explore Other

Blanketing Options
50
350

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).

The HC blanketing system show significant reduction in

emissions compared to the Inert Blanketing system. The
Carbon Costing methodology and the CAPEX estimates show
the same amount of savings vs. investment. This does not
include the potential positive effects on reputation
management.

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.

[7] Shell Group Climate Change Team. Applying Carbon

Costs: 2002/3 Group Guidance, June 2002.
[8] Kyoto Protocol, and United Nations Climate Change
Conference (Nov 2005), http://www.unfccc.int
[9] Applying Carbon Costs: 2004 Update to 2002/3 Shell
Group Guidance, March 2004.
[10] UKOOA. Report on Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOC) Mitigation and Abatement Costs, July 2001.
[11] New Zealand Climate Change Office Projects to reduce
Emissions, http://www.climatechange.govt.nz
[12] DAuria, Jillian. Hydrocarbon Gas Blanketing
Feasibility Study, Shell EP Projects Facilities Engineering,
October 2004. Internal Document.
[13] ABB Gas Technology AS. VOC Reduction for Jotun,
Document number 60210-P-R-016, May 2001.
[14] Esso Norge AS. Jotun Environmental Studies
1997/1998, June 1998.
[15] Standard Marine Services. Jotun Hydrocarbon Gas
Blanket Hazard Risk Assessment, February 1998.
[16] Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg News Feature Morgan
Stanley, Citadel Chase profit in Pollution Trading.
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nifea&&sid=acc6
gGKx_a5Y
www.bloomberg.com