This document describes a case study where a risk-based approach was used to determine the location of a flare stack for an offshore oil and gas facility. Conventional analysis found that meeting separation distances for toxic gas dispersion in a flameout scenario was infeasible. A fault tree analysis and CFD modeling were used to determine the low likelihood of a flameout event. This, along with the low consequence, resulted in the risk being determined as low according to the client's risk matrix. This allowed a feasible flare stack location to be identified using the risk-based approach.
4. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
4
Safe flare location is conventionally decided based on thermal
radiation and dispersion modelling of worst case flaring scenarios
consequence. However due to constraints in meeting large
separation distance/ stack height , risk based flare location study
was used to define safe location. This study was performed for an
offshore EPC Project.
Introduction
6. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
6
Separator/s
Well
Fluid
Flare KO
2X100%
VRU
2 X 100%
GDU
2X100%
GSU
1X100%
Pressure
Control
Valve
GLC –
1st &
2nd
Stage
GLC
3rd &
4th
stage
Sweet gas
to Fuel Gas
Conditioning
and then to
Consumers
Compressed
Gas to GLC
suction
Off-
Gas
GDU
Off-Gas
GSU/
Acid
Gas
To Gas Lift
Wells & Gas
Injection
Compressor
Vent/Flare Header
QOV
Assist Gas –
Normally
Fuel Gas
Other Vent
Streams, BDVs,
PSVs
Simplified Scheme – Flare/Vent Gas Recovery
Zero flaring concept
7. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
7
Flaring Scenarios - Assessed
Flaring Scenarios
Emergency Flaring – Limiting for Radiation – No dispersion concern
Start-up case – No radiation concern- No dispersion concern
Operating upset (Vapor Recovery Unit Failure Case) – less flow (1% of
emergency/design flow) and very high H2S content 29% - Limiting scenario
for flare location.
Flare design is a single tip (HP tip)
No normal flaring
Specific Case - Flare flameout toxic dispersion is limiting
case for flare location
8. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
8
The Concern…
Worst Case - Toxic Dispersion - PHAST
GTP RP SP UTP AP
CD
MD
WD
AWD
9. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
9
Possible Mitigations
Relocate the flare stack – 750m from nearest process platform –
Not feasible at EPC..!
Elevate the Flare to reduce impact on nearest platform
Stack is already 70m MSL
Further increase means
Cost & Schedule impact
Installation/ constructability issues
Maintenance/ Tip handling issues
Conventional approach resulted in infeasible solution for
flare location
10. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
10
The Solution..
It was decided to apply risk based approach to determine flare
location
Perform the flame-out dispersion using CFD for worst case
Perform FMEA Workshop & fault-tree analysis to arrive at
likelihood of event
Compare the risk using client risk matrix – using likelihood and
consequence
11. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
11
Fault Tree Inputs
Flare System Design
Redundant flares (duty & standby)
Redundant pilots (6 pilots per flare tip)
Continuously lit pilots (three)
Redundant ignition systems – High energy +
continuous sparking
Redundant pilot gas supplies
SIL 2 PLC for Flare Package
Redundant thermocouples per pilot (2+2 spares)
Redundant electrical power supply to ignition
systems
2 electrical feeders
EDG supply
Independent UPS supply to each feeder
13. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
13
CFD Dispersion Results
Results indicated H2S exposure to around 24-35 ppm at 2 m/s and <5 ppm at 5 m/s.
14. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
14
Conclusion
Overall likelihood of event 3.6x10-5 /yr
Low consequence of flameout event.
Based on clients risk matrix - low risk
15. 2015 HSED E-Seminar
15
Way Forward..
For facility handling sour gas i.e. high H2S content – potentially
large separation distance may be required to satisfy toxic
exposure criteria during flame-out conditions.
Use of risk based approach may be advisable to predict feasible
separation distances for flare.
For such system, in terms of design
Recommended to have redundancy in pilots and ignition
system
Reliable pilot gas system
Pilot gas back-up system.