See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266137592

Flare Gas Recovery using Ejector- A Review

Conference Paper · December 2012

CITATIONS READS
3 3,379

2 authors:

Arihant Sonawat Abdus Samad

Korea Institute of Industrial Technology Indian Institute of Technology Madras
14 PUBLICATIONS   27 CITATIONS    192 PUBLICATIONS   1,411 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developement of Low GWP Refrigerant 500RT class high efficiency turbo chiller View project

Design and Testing of an Impulse Turbine for Wave Energy Conversion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arihant Sonawat on 07 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Thirty Ninth National Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power
December 13-15, 2012, SVNIT Surat, Gujarat, India

FMFP201282

FLARE GAS RECOVERY USING EJECTOR- A REVIEW

Arihant Sonawat Abdus Samad*

Dept. of Ocean Engineering Dept. of Ocean Engineering
IIT Madras, Tamil Nadu, India IIT Madras, Tamil Nadu, India
sonawatarihant@gmail.com samad@iitm.ac.in

*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT processing of the oil is done in various stages

Flaring means combustion of by-product gases resulting in the liberation of gases at each stage.
separated from oil during production. Several These gases are of different pressures ranging from
techniques such as gas to liquid technology, high pressure (HP) gases which get separated during
compression and injection into pipeline, electricity the extraction of crude oil and are known as
generation and utilization as fuel gas have been associated gases and low pressure (LP) gases
developed. Flare gas recovery using ejector has released during the processing operations are known
attained prominence in recent years because of its as residual gases (Hill and Moore, 1985). A common
simplicity and cost effectiveness. The ejectors are practice followed by almost all oil producing
used to boost the pressure of flare gases by high companies, both offshore and onshore, to get rid of
pressure motive fluids and then injecting them into these unwanted gases is flaring. Flaring these gases
the pipelines. This paper describes the above to the atmosphere ensures the safety of the oil or gas
techniques to recover these gases and highlights the rigs by reducing the system pressure, but causes
recovery using ejector and other related aspects. emission of green house gases into the atmosphere.
These gases are responsible for climatic changes,
KEYWORDS: Flaring, global warming, ejector, global warming and acid rain (Rahimpour et al.,
flare gas compression, flare gas recovery. 2012). Also flaring causes loss of precious and
inflammable natural gases, which can be recovered
INTRODUCTION and utilized (Tolulope, 2004, Brzustowski, 1976).
An increase in population and improved living Flaring has harmful effects on human health and
standards has led to an increase in demands for oil ecosystem near the flaring sites, as it releases many
and gas forcing the oil producing companies to toxic compounds like CO2, CO, nitrogen dioxides,
explore new oil and gas reserves, thereby meeting sulphur dioxide, benzene, hydrogen sulfide etc.
the global demands (Rahimpour and Alizadehhesari, (Fisher and Brennan, 2002). Approximately 400
2009). In the oil producing units, the production and million tons of CO2 is emitted annually by flaring

1
which is equivalent to more than half the annual
Flare Gas Recovery
Certified Emission Reductions issued by the projects
currently registered under the Kyoto’s clean
development mechanisms (World Bank Group, GTL Compression Power generation Fuel gas
2012). Although these gases are recognized as Mobil
potentially significant source of energy and revenue Gas turbine
FT
but factors such as low pressure, marginal rates, Compressor Ejector
remote production locations, very high field
development cost and severe space limitations (for Gas Liquid
offshore facilities) have made these gases to be
Positive Negative
considered as economically impossible to utilize Displacement Displacement
(Hill and Moore, 1985). Figure 1, shows the extent
of gas flaring globally in comparison to oil the
Continuous Discontinuous Continuous
production and it can be seen that the gas flaring is Flow Flow Flow
declining even though the oil production is rising. Axial Type
Screw
There are many ways to minimize flaring and Reciprocating Turbine Type
Cam
recover these gases such as gas-to-liquid technology Shock Type
Rotary
(GTL), power generation, compression and injection Centrifugal
Piston Gear Diaphragm Type
into pipelines and use as a fuel gas. This can be Type Type Type
summarized as shown in Fig. 2. In order to find the
best suitable flare gas recovery system, adequate Fig .2 Various ways of FG recovery
process evaluation of the units producing these
gases, comprehensive monitoring of the flow and
composition of these gases, investigation of the Gas-to-liquid technology
existing flaring system and finding the alternate GTL technology converts flare gas (FG) into
choices for reusing these recovered gases must be longer-chain hydrocarbons such as gasoline or diesel
done. fuel. These gases are converted into liquid either
directly or by synthetic gas as an intermediate step
by using Fischer Tropsch (FT) process or Mobil
200
85000 process. Using GTL processes, refineries convert
their gaseous waste products (FG) into valuable fuel
175
oils, which can be sold directly or blended with
Oil production
Gas Flaring

70000
150 diesel fuel. It may also be used for the extraction of
gas deposits in locations where it is not economical
Gas Flaring 55000 to build a pipeline. In the FT method, partial
125
Oil production oxidation of FG is done leading to the formation of
100 40000 synthesis gas (syngas) which is chemically reacted
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011

over an iron or cobalt catalyst producing liquid

hydrocarbons and other by products (Rahimpour et
Year al, 2012). In the Mobil process the FG is converted
Fig. 1 Global gas flaring and oil production data to syngas, then to methanol and finally polymerized
(Source: World Bank Group, 2012). into alkanes over a zeolite catalyst (Wise and
Silvestri, 1976).

2
Power generation Rahimpour et al. (2012) concluded that the
Another important method to utilize these gases compression and injection into pipelines is a very
is for the generation of electricity by gas turbine effective and economical way of FG recovery as
power plant. The plant works on Brayton cycle (Fig. compared to others. The compression of these gases
3). It is a very efficient cycle for utilizing gaseous is done either by compressor or ejector. The use of
fuels for the generation of mechanical power or compressors is costlier than the ejector because of
electricity. It consists of compressor (C), combustion higher initial, operation and maintenance cost,
chamber (CC), gas turbine (T) and a generator (G) higher space and power consumption and a low rate
coupled to gas turbine to generate electricity. The of return with a payback period of few years
following reaction occurs in the combustion whereas the ejector is far simpler, reliable, cheaper
chamber (Rahimpour et al., 2012). and has high rate of return with a short payback
period ranging from few weeks to a few months.
CH4 + 2O2 ↔ CO2 + 2H2O ∆ = 800 kJ/mol. In the present article, the ejector used in the FG
recovery system has been described.
Fuel gas
In this method, the FG is fed as a fuel to the FLARE GAS RECOVERY USING EJECTOR
process heaters and steam generators for generating Ejector is also known as ‘jet pump’ or
high pressure and temperature steam. Thus saving ‘educator’. It is a very simple device and works on
on the amount of sweet gas required for operating Bernoulli’s principle which states that if no work is
these devices (Zadakbar et al., 2008). done on or by a flowing frictionless fluid, its total
energy which is the summation of potential, kinetic
Compression and injection into pipeline and pressure energy remains constant at all points
In this method, the pressure of these low along the streamline. Therefore an increase in
pressure (LP) gases is increased to a level required velocity (kinetic energy) results in a decrease in
for transportation through sales pipelines or the inlet pressure and vice versa. This principle is used for
of separator. The conventional method used for the the entrainment and compression of FG to an
compression (boosting pressure) of these FG is by intermediate pressure between LP and HP with the
using compressors. But there are many cases where help of HP motive fluid which may be either liquid
the compressors are completely or partly replaced (water or oil) or gas (Goodyear et al., 2003).
for recovery of these gases by the use of very In oil and gas industry the ejector is very cost
simpler and cost effective device known as the effective and used for boosting production from LP
ejector (Sarshar and Beg, 2006). wells, artificial lifting, flare gas recovery, de-
bottlenecking compressors, backpressure reduction
to increase production from wells, well revival,
1 clean-out and kick-off, removal of liquids built up in
2 FG 3
gas wells, etc (Sarshar, 2012).
Atm. air CC A single stage ejector in its simplest form
C T G consists of a driving nozzle, suction nozzle, mixing
CC chamber, throat and diffuser (Fig. 4). The primary
Exhaust gases
fluid (motive, power or driving fluid) from a HP
FG
4 source enters the nozzle where its kinetic energy is
increased at the expense of its pressure energy. This
Fig. 3 Brayton cycle causes a significant drop in pressure of the fluid and
generation of a low pressure region in front of the

3
nozzle enabling the entrainment of the secondary
fluid (suction or LP fluid, here FG) into the ejector.
The primary and secondary fluid mix together HP fluid Gas to
in the mixing chamber thus transfer of momentum Source pipeline/
and energy takes place between the two fluids. Here Ejector separator
the primary fluid is decelerated and the secondary
LP fluid
(FG) To flare
LP Suction
fluid nozzle Throat Produced
fluid Fig. 5 FG recovery using ejector.
HP
fluid fluid is accelerated. In the throat, the pressure of the
LP mixture increases. Finally the mixture enters the
fluid Diffuser
Mixing diffuser where its kinetic energy decreases causing a
Driving
nozzle chamber further rise in the pressure. Thus the pressure of the
secondary fluid is increased to the exit pressure
which is at an intermediate level between the HP
Fig. 4 Typical geometry of ejector
and LP. Thus the secondary fluid is entrained and
compressed from suction pressure to exit pressure
Table 1 Advantages and disadvantages of ejector (Abdelli, 2010, Sarshar, 2012, Mallela and
used for FG recovery Chatterjee, 2011, Transvac Systems Ltd, 2012).
A FG recovery arrangement is shown in Fig. 5.
Advantages Disadvantages If the exit pressure of the mixture after recovery is
Simple device, easy to Low efficiency (26- less than that required for transportation pipe lines or
install, safe and reliable 33%) due to improper separator, and then multiple ejectors can be used in
as its operation can be mixing and frictional series as shown in Fig. 6. The discharge of the first
controlled using losses. ejector serves as secondary fluid for the next ejector
standard techniques. and the process is repeated until the desired pressure
Operation and High degree of rise is achieved (Sarshar et al, 2003). The use of
maintenance cost is low susceptibility to change liquid as a power fluid is only economical if the flow
as there are no moving in operating conditions. rate of LP gas is very small because a relatively high
parts. flow rate of HP liquid is needed for to entrain a
Reduces tax liability by Larger flow rate of small amount of LP gas (Sarshar, 2012).The source
eliminating emission of motive fluid is required of primary fluid can be from the nearby HP wells,
FG to atmosphere and to compress a small HP compressors, HP pipelines or HP fluid from first
is suitable for remote amount of secondary stage separator (Abdelli, 2010).The advantages and
locations both offshore fluid. disadvantages of using ejector for a flare gas
and onshore. recovery are shown in table 1.
Highly effective and Inaccurate and less
economical as the reliable designing Effect of parameters on the performance of
capital investment is methods. ejector
low, rate of return is The various parameters affecting the performance of
high with a short an ejector are geometric parameters, flow parameters
payback period. and fluid parameters.

4
 pressure of the secondary fluid (Plp). It depends on
HP fluid the ejector geometry and on the pressure ratio
Ejector 1
Source (HP/LP). (ii) Entrainment ratio (flow ratio or
discharge ratio), which is the ratio of the flow rate
To pipeline through suction nozzle to that of driving nozzle. In
Very low other words, it is defined as the amount of primary
Pressure Gas fluid required to compress a given amount of
from system Intermediate
Ejector 2
Pressure gas
secondary fluid (Abdelli, 2010).
The performance of an ejector is usually
Fig. 6 Two ejectors in series for boosting pressure evaluated by the level of pressure rise obtained for
of very low pressure gas (Sarshar et al., 2003). the LP secondary fluid i.e. Pout/Plp which is
dependent on the compression ratio and the flow
ratio, and the efficiency (η). Figure 6 shows a typical
Geometric parameters
range of performance curves for jet pump when the
The key geometric parameters affecting the
motive fluid is gas. From Fig. 7, it is clear that the
performance of an ejector are (i) area ratio (R),
higher is the compression ratio and the flow ratio,
which is the ratio of the area of the driving nozzle
the higher would be the achieved boost in the
(dn) to that of the mixing tube, (ii) mixing tube
pressure of the LP fluid (Sarshar, 2012, Sarshar et
diameter and length (Dm and Lm), (iii) set back
al., 2003). The compression ratio also plays an
distance (S), which is the distance between the
important role in the designing and sizing of the
driving nozzle exit to the mixing tube entrance.
ejector. In most cases it does not exceed 2-2.5, but if
The major losses in the ejector occur due to the
it does, then two ejectors may be used in series to
improper mixing of the primary and secondary
achieve this. A compression ratio of up to 4 can be
fluids and due to the formation of recirculation
achieved by a single ejector. Caltec has achieved a
region near the mixing tube entrance. Increasing the
compression ratio of up to 5.5 in a single stage
mixing tube length can facilitate proper mixing and
ejector which is a record in the oil and gas industry
hence reduce the losses. Reducing the set back
(Sarshar and Beg, 2006). Drozdov et al. (2011)
distance or increasing the area ratio reduces losses
concluded that increasing pressure of the motive
due to the formation of recirculation region (Mallela
fluid increases the efficiency and flow ratio only up
and Chatterjee, 2011). Samad et al. (2012)
to a certain level after which they start decreasing.
concluded that the introduction of swirl body at the
entry of the motive fluid improves the mixing of LP
Fluid parameters
and HP fluid and hence the suction rate and
The fluid parameters affecting the performance
efficiency. For a liquid-gas ejector, the ratio of
of ejector are LP and HP fluid molecular weights,
throat length to its diameter is in the range of 20-30
feed temperatures, ratio of specific heats, viscosities,
and can reach up to 40 for high-performance ejectors
motive fluid velocity, Reynolds number etc.
(Drozdov et al., 2011). Villa et al (1997) concluded
(DeFrate and Hoerl, 1959).
that greater is the ratio of dm/ dn, higher is the
The performance of the ejector is highly
recovery of flow rate and smaller is the boosting
affected by the viscosity difference between the
effect.
primary and secondary fluids and change in
operating conditions as shown in table 2. Increase in
Flow parameters
viscosity of the primary or secondary fluid may lead
The key flow parameters affecting the
to a decrease in efficiency of the ejector due to
performance of an ejector are (i) compression ratio,
increase in frictional and momentum losses
which is the ratio of outlet pressure (Pout) to the

5
 5 liquid (water or condensate) is more than 2% by
PR 1.5
PR 2 volume in gas (LP or HP). In such cases separation
PR 3 of phases must be done using separators in order to
Discharge To LP Pressure Ratio

PR 5
4 PR 7
maximize the performance and efficiency (Sarshar et
PR 10 al., 2003, Sarshar and Beg, 2006). An ejector should
PR 20 be operated at its designed conditions. If the motive
3 fluid pressure falls even a few hundred Pascals
below the designed value, it will lead to its abnormal
operation (Knight, 1959).
2
The various parameters which play a vital role
for the selection of ejector as a FG recovery device
are shown in Fig. 8.
1 CONCLUSION
0 1 2 3 4
LP To HP Mass Flow Ratio
In order to find a suitable flare gas recovery
technique, a study of available methods had been
Fig. 7 Ejector performance curves for a range of
done and the ejector performance analysis was
pressure ratios (PR) and flow ratios. (Sarshar, 2012)
presented. Among all the recovery methods, ejector
was the simplest and cheapest because of low initial
cost, adaptability to change in operating conditions,
Table 2 Effect of change in various operating
low operation and maintenance cost, high rate of
conditions on the performance of an ejector
return and short payback period.
(Abdelli, 2010)

Drive Outlet Suction suction Parameter

pressure pressure pressure capacity s
Decrease Constant Increase Decrease
rapidly rapidly Primary fluid Secondary fluid Plant facilities
Constant Increase Increase Decrease Parameters Parameters
rapidly rapidly
Constant Constant Increase Increase • Pressure • Pressure •Power
Constant Constant Decrease Decrease •Temperature • Temperature availability
Increase Constant Constant Decrease • Flow rate • Flow rate •Location
gradually • Viscosity • Viscosity •Compression
• Source • Water content ratio
Constant Decrease Constant Unchanged
• Tubing size • Gas to oil ratio •Storage
• Availability • Nature •Transportation
(Cunningham, 1959). If the viscosity of the fluid is (Sweet/sour)
high, then a longer throat is required for proper • Molecular
mixing (Hesham et al., 2006). Weight
Hatzlavramidis et al. (1989) reported several
methods for selecting the optimum sizes and flow
rates of an ejector. They concluded that the pressure
Fig. 8 Parameters considered for selection of
loss in the ejector is primarily due to the effect of
ejector
area ratio, viscosity and pressure. The performance
of an ejector is adversely affected if the amount of

6
 The ejector performance depends on fluid, Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, SPE 19713, pp.
geometric and flow parameters. The major losses 413-419.
associated with the ejectors are due to the improper Hill, R.S., Moore, J.A., Boone, D., 1985. Associated
mixing of primary and secondary fluids. Higher gas utilization with liquid recovery, 17th Annual
viscosity reduces the performance and efficiency. Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
OTC 5039, pp. 167-175.
REFERENCES http://www.naturalgas.org. Retrieved August 3,
Abdelli, H., 2010. The ejector technology in Oued 2012.
Zar plant, SPE Production and Operations
Knight, G.B., 1959. Five ways to automatically
Conference and Exhibition, Tunis, Tunisia, SPE
control pressure for ejector vaccum systems, Journal
134956, pp. 1-12.
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 66 (6).
Brzustowski, T.A., 1976. Flaring in energy industry,
Mallela, R., Chatterjee D., 2011. Numerical
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, vol. 2,
investigations of the effect of geometry on the
pp. 129-141.
performance of jet pump, Journal of Mechanical
Cunningham, R.G., 1957. Jet pump theory and Engineering Science, vol. 225, 1-12.
performance with fluids of high viscosity, Trans.
Rahimpour, M.R., Alizadehhesari, K., 2009.
ASME, vol. 79, pp. 1807-1820.
Enhancement of carbon dioxide removal in a
DeFrate, L.A., Hoerl, A.E., 1959. Optimum design hydrogen perm-selective methanol synthesis reactor.
of ejectors using digital computers, Chemical International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34, 1349-
Engineering Symposium Series 55, Vol. 21, pp. 43- 1362.
51.
Rahimpour, M.R., Jamshidnejad, Z., Jokar, S.M.,
Drozdov, A.N., Alekseev, Y.L., Shashel, O.V., Karimi, G., Ghorbani, A., Mohammadi. A.H., 2012.
2011. Stand research and analysis of liquid-gas jet- A Comparative study of three different methods for
pump’s operation characteristics for oil and gas flare gas recovery of Asalooye Gas Refinery,
production, SPE Annual Technical Conference and Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 4,
Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, SPE 146638, pp. 1-9. 17-28.
Fisher, P.W., Brennan, D., 2002. Minimize flaring Samad, A., Omar, R., Hewakandamby, B., Lowndes,
with flare gas recovery, Hydrocarbon Processing, I., Short, G., 2012. Swirl induced flow through a
pp. 83-85. venture-ejector, ASME 2012 Fluids Engineering
Goodyear, A., Graham, A.L., Stoner, J.B., Boyer, Division Summer Meeting, Puerto Rico, USA, pp.
B.E., Zeringue, L.P., 2003. Natural–gas vapor 1-6.
recovery using non mechanical technology, Sarshar, M.M., Beg, N.A., Andrews, I., 2003. The
SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production applications of jet pumps as a cost effective way to
Environmental Conference, San Antonio, Texas, enhance gas production and recovery, Proceedings
SPE 80599, pp. 1-5. of Indonesian Petroleum Association, IPA03-E-059,
Hesham, A.M.A., Mikhail, S., Mohsen, A., 2006. Jet Sarshar, S., Beg N., 2006. A novel application of jet
pump performance with secondary fluids differ in pump technology to boost production-Field
density and viscosity from primary fluid, experience and lessons learned, Offshore Gas
International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Processing Technical Conference, London, pp. 1-17.
Abu Dhabi, SPE 102549, pp. 1-14.
Sarshar, S., 2012. The recent application of jet pump
Hatziavramidis, D.T., 1991. Modeling and design of technology to enhance production from tight oil and
jet pumps, SPE Annual Technical Conference and gas fields, SPE Middle East Unconventional Gas

7
Conference and Exhibition, Abu Dhabi, SPE World Bank Group, http://worldbank.org. Retrieved
152007, pp. 1-19. August 8, 2012.
Tolulope, A.O., 2004. Oil exploration and Villa, M., Ghetto, G.D., Paone, F., 1997. Ejectors
environmental degradation: the Nigerian experience. for boosting low pressure oil wells: first field
Environmental Informatics Archives, Vol. 2, pp. application, Offshore Technology Conference,
387-393. Houston, Texas, OTC 8504, pp. 95-105.
Transvac Systems Ltd, http://www.transvac.co.uk. Zadakbar, O., Vatani, A., Karimpour, K., 2008.
Retrieved April 12, 2012. Flare gas recovery in oil and gas refineries, Oil &
Wise, J.J., Silvestri, A.J., 1976. Mobil process for Gas Science and Technology, vol. 63, pp. 705-711.
conversion of methanol to gasoline, Annual
International Conference on Coal Gasification and
Liquefaction, Pittsburgh, pp. 1-15.

View publication stats