Lessons Learned NaturalGas EPA POLLUTION PREVENTER SBl N \ CD From Natural Gas STAR Partners CONVERT GAS PNEUMATIC CONTROLS TO INSTRUMENT AIR Executive Summary Pneumatic instrument systems powered by high-pressure natural gas are often used across the natural gas and petroleum industries for process control. Typical process control applications include pressure, temperature, liquid level, and flow rate regulation. The constant bleed of natural gas from these controllers is collectively one of the largest sources of methane emissions in the natural gas industry, estimated at approximately 24 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year in the production sector, 1Q Bcf from processing and 14 Bcf per year in the transmission sector. Companies can achieve significant cost savings and methane emission reductions by converting natural gas- powered pneumatic control systems to compressed instrument air systems. Instrument air systems substitute compressed air for the pressurized natural gas, eliminating methane emissions and providing additional safety benefits. Cost effective applications, however, are limited to those field sites with available electrical power, either from a utility or self-generated. Natural Gas STAR partners have reported savings of up to 70,000 thousand cubic feet (Mcf) per year per facility by replacing natural gas-powered pneumatic systems with instrument air systems, representing annual savings of up to $210,000 per facility. Partners have found that most investments to convert pneumatic systems pay for themselves in just over one year. Individual savings will vary depending on the design, condition and specific operating conditions of the controllers. Method for Reducing Gas Loss1 Replace Gas with Air in Pneumatic Systems (per facility) Average Volume of Gas Saved (Mcf/Year) 20,000 Average Value of Gas Saved ($/Year)1 60,000 Average Cost of Implementation ($/Year)2 50,000 Average Payback (years) <1 'Assumed value of gas is $3.00/Mcf. 2Cost of installing compressor, dryer and other accessories, and annual electricity requirements. This is one of a series of Lessons Learned Summaries developed by EPA in cooperation with the natural gas industry on superior applications of Natural Gas STAR Program Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Partner Reported Opportunities (PROs). ------- Technology Background The natural gas industry uses a variety of process control devices to operate valves that regulate pressure, flow, temperature, and liquid levels. Most instrumentation and control equipment falls into one of three categories: (1) pneumatic; (2) electrical; or (3) mechanical. In the vast majority of applica- tions, the natural gas industry uses pneumatic devices, which make use of readily available high-pressure natural gas to provide the required energy and control signals. Pneumatic instrument systems powered by high-pressure natural gas are used throughout the natural gas industry. In the production sector, an estimated 250,000 pneumatic devices control and monitor gas and liquid flows and levels in dehydrators and separators, temperature in dehydrator regenerators, and pressure in flash tanks. Most processing plants already use instrument air, but some use gas pneumatics, and includ- ing the gathering/booster stations that feed these processing plants, there are about 13,000 gas pneumatic devices in this sector. In the transmission sector, an estimated 90,000 to 130,000 pneumatic devices actuate isolation valves and regulate gas flow and pressure at compressor stations, pipelines, and storage facilities. Pneumatic devices also are found on meter runs at distribution company gate stations and distribution grids where they regulate flow and pressure. Exhibit 1 depicts a pneumatic control system powered by natural gas. The pneumatic control system consists of the process control instruments and valves that are operated by natural gas regulated at approximately 20-30 pounds per square inch (psi), and a network of distribution tubing to supply all of the control instruments. Natural gas is also used for a few "utility servic- es," such as small pneumatic pumps, compressor motor starters, and isola- tion shutoff valves. Exhibit 2 shows a simplified diagram of a pneumatic con- trol loop. A process condition, such as liquid level in a separator vessel, is monitored by a float that is mechanically linked to the liquid level controller Exhibit 1: Natural Gas Pneumatic Control System Legend: PC - Pressure Controller LLC - Liquid Level Controller Instrumentation and Control Systems Piping Network Natural Gas From Plant Source: ICF Consulting Pressure Regulator Utility Services ------- outside the vessel. A rise or fall in liquid level moves the float upward or downward, which is translated to small needle valves inside the controller. Pneumatic supply gas is either directed to the valve actuator by the needle valve pinching off an orifice, or gas pressure is bled off the valve actuator. Increasing gas pressure on the valve actuator pushes down a diaphragm connected by a rod to the valve plug, causing the plug to open and increasing the flow of liquid draining out of the separator vessel. Gas pressure relieved from the valve actuator allows a spring to push the valve plug closed. Exhibit 2: Signal and Actuation Schematics Upward Movement Level 1 r Downward Movement Separator Vessel Wall Source: ICF Consulting Fulcr X' Instru Pneun Suppl] Liquid Level um Control Instrument 4n Tl DownjET" " M3____; ment ^ latic Gas f ' ^** Valve Actuator .. Liquid Flow 11^ from Separator~| f r * Bleed t To/from Valve ^Actuator r*-^ Diaphragm : | ; *Closei| at Open Valve As part of normal operation, natural gas powered pneumatic devices release or bleed gas to the atmosphere and, consequently, are a major source of methane emissions from the natural gas industry. Pneumatic control systems emit methane from tube joints, controls, and any number of points within the distribution tubing network. The actual bleed rate or emissions level largely depends on the design of the device. In general, controllers of similar design have similar steady-state bleed rates regard- less of brand name. The methane emission rate will also vary with the pneumatic gas supply pressure, actuation frequency, and age or condi- tion of the equipment. Many partners have found that it is economic to substitute compressed air for natural gas in pneumatic systems. The use of instrument air elimi- nates methane emissions and leads to increased gas sales. In addition, by eliminating the use of a flammable substance, operational safety is sig- nificantly increased. The primary costs associated with conversion to instrument air systems are initial capital expenditures for installing com- pressors and related equipment and operating costs for electrical energy to power the compressor motor. Existing pneumatic gas supply piping, ------- control instruments, and valve actuators of the gas pneumatic system can be reused in an instrument air system. A compressed instrument air system is shown in Exhibit 3. In these sys- tems, atmospheric air is compressed, stored in a volume tank, filtered and dried for instrument use. Air used for utility services (e.g. small pneu- matic pumps, gas compressor motor starters, pneumatic tools, sand blasting) does not need to be dried. All other parts of a gas pneumatic system will work the same way with air as they do with gas. Exhibit 3: Compressed Instrument Air System pcr f TLlfc-frGas I Out •••IjElfe Liquid t i Out > Separator f 20-30 PSI Vessel J. Hetwork t Air J Dryer Air from Atmosphere /!*» ^ ~rHJ J Compressor Volume Tank Source: ICF Consulting Legend: PC - Pressure Controller LLC - Liquid Level Controller •\ + J ~\ ^ Instrumentation •' and Control Systems Piping Network Utility Air Services The major components of an instrument air conversion project include the compressor, power source, dehydrator, and volume tank. The following are descriptions of each of these components along with important installation considerations. * Compressor. Compressors used for instrument air delivery are avail- able in various types and sizes, from rotary screw (centrifugal) com- pressors to positive displacement (reciprocating piston) types. The size of the compressor depends on the size of the facility, the number of control devices operated by the system, and the typical bleed rates of these devices. The compressor is usually driven by an electric motor that turns on and off, depending on the pressure in the volume tank. For reliability, a full spare compressor is normally installed. * Power Source. A critical component of the instrument air control sys- tem is the power source required to operate the compressor. Because high-pressure natural gas is abundant and readily available, gas pneu- matic systems can run uninterrupted on a 24-hour, 7-day per week schedule. The reliability of an instrument air system, however, depends ------- Economic and Environmental Benefits on the reliability of the compressor and electric power supply. Most large natural gas plants have either an existing electric power supply or have their own power generation system. For smaller facilities and remote locations, however, a reliable source of electric power can be difficult to assure. In some instances, solar-powered battery-operated air compressors can be cost effective for remote locations, which reduces both methane emissions and energy consumption. Small nat- ural gas powered fuel cells are also being developed. * Dehydrators. Dehydrators, or air dryers, are an integral part of the instrument air compressor system. Water vapor present in atmospher- ic air condenses when the air is pressurized and cooled, and can cause a number of problems to these systems, including corrosion of the instrument parts and blockage of instrument air piping and con- troller orifices. For smaller systems, membrane dryers have become economic. These are molecular filters that allow oxygen and nitrogen molecules to pass through the membrane, and hold back water mole- cules. They are very reliable, with no moving parts, and the filter ele- ment can be easily replaced. For larger applications, desiccant (alumi- na) dryers are more cost effective. * Volume Tank. The volume tank holds enough air to allow the pneu- matic control system to have an uninterrupted supply of high pressure air without having to run the air compressor continuously. The volume tank allows a large withdrawal of compressed air for a short time, such as for a motor starter, pneumatic pump, or pneumatic tools, without affecting the process control functions. Reducing methane emissions from pneumatic devices by converting to instrument air control and instrumentation systems can yield significant eco- nomic and environmental benefits for natural gas companies including: * Financial Return From Reducing Gas Emission Losses. Assuming a natural gas price of $3.00 per Mcf, savings from reduced emissions can be estimated at $360 per year per device or $210,000 or more per year per facility. In many cases, the cost of converting to instru- ment air can be recovered in less than a year. * Increased Life of Control Devices and Improved Operational Efficiency. Natural gas used in pneumatic control devices and instru- ments often contains corrosive gases (such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) that can reduce the effective operating life of these devices. In addition, natural gas often produces by-products of iron oxidation, which can plug small orifices in the equipment resulting in operational inefficiencies or hazards. When instrument air is used, and properly filtered and dried, system degradation is reduced and operat- ing life is extended. * Avoided Use Of Flammable Natural Gas. Using compressed air as an alternative to natural gas eliminates the use of a flammable sub- ------- Decision Process stance, significantly increasing the safety of natural gas processing plants and transmission and distribution systems. This can be particu- larly important at offshore installations, where risks associated with hazardous and flammable materials are greater. Lower Methane Emissions. Reductions in methane emissions have been reported as high as 70,000 Mcf per facility annually, depending on the device(s) and the type of control application. The conversion of natural gas cable to all natural gas facili- ties and plants. To deter- mine the most cost-effective applications, however, requires a technical and economic feasibility study. The six steps outlined below, and the practical example with cost tables, equations, and factors, can help companies to evaluate their opportunities. pneumatics to instrument air system is appli- Decision Process for Converting Gas Pneumatic Devices to Instrument Air: 1. Identify possible locations for system installations. 2. Determine optimal system capacity. 3. Estimate the project costs. 4. Estimate gas savings. 5. Evaluate the economics. 6. Develop an implementation plan. Step 1: Identify Possible Locations For Instrument Air System Installations. Most natural gas-operated pneumatic control systems can be replaced with instrument air. Instrument air systems will require new invest- ments for the compressor, dehydrator, and other related equipment, as well as a supply of electricity. As a result, a first step in a successful instrument air conversion project is screening existing facilities to identify locations that are most suitable for cost effective projects. In general, three main factors should be considered during this process. * Facility Layout. The layout of a natural gas facility can significantly affect equipment and installation costs for an instrument air system. For example, conversion to instrument air might not be cost effective at decentralized facilities where tank batteries are remote or widely scattered. Instrument air is most appropriate when used at offshore platforms and onshore facilities where pneumatics are consolidated within a relatively small area. * Number Of Pneumatics. The more pneumatic controllers converted to instrument air, the greater the potential for reduced emissions and increased company savings. Conversion to instrument air is most prof- itable when a company is planning a facility-wide change. * Available Power Supply. Since most instrument air systems rely on electric power for operating the compressor, a cost-effective, uninter- rupted electrical energy source is essential. While major facilities often ------- have an existing power supply or their own power generation system, many smaller and remote facilities do not. For these facilities, the cost of power generation generally makes the use of instrument air unprof- itable. In addition, facilities with dedicated generators need to assess whether the generators have enough available capacity to support an air compression system, as the cost of a generator upgrade can be prohibitive. Remote facilities should examine alternatives for power generation, which range from microturbines to solar power. Step 2: Determine Optimal System Capacity. Once project sites have been identified, it is important to determine the appropriate capacity of the new instrument air system. The capacity needed is a direct function of the amount of compressed air needed to both operate the pneumatic instru- mentation and meet any utility air requirements. * Instrument Air Requirements. The com- pressed air needs for the pneumatic sys- tern are equivalent to the volume of gas 1 rfm ajr/contro| |oop being used to run the existing instrumen- tation—adjusted for air losses during the drying process. The current volume of gas usage can be determined by a direct meter reading (if a meter has been installed). In non- metered systems, a conservative rule of thumb for sizing air systems is one cubic foot per minute (cfm) of instrument air for each control loop (consisting of a pneumatic controller and a control valve). The initial estimate of instrument air needs should then be adjusted to account for air loss- es during the drying process. Typically, the 17 percent of air input membrane filters in the air dryer consume is consumed by the about 17 percent of the air input. As a result, membrane dryer the estimated volume of instrument air usage is 83 percent of the total compressed air supply: i.e. divide estimated air usage by 83 percent. Desiccant dryers do not consume air and therefore require no adjustment. * Utility Air Requirements. It is common to use compressed air for utility purposes, such as engine starters, pneumatic driven pumps, pneumatic tools (e.g., impact wrenches), and sand blasting. Unlike instrument air, utility air does not have to be dried. The frequency and volumes of such utility air uses are Pneumatic air uses: 1/3 additive. Companies will need to evaluate for instrument air; 2/3 for utility air these other compressed air services on a site-specific basis, allowing for the possibili- ty of expansion at the site. A general rule of thumb is to assume that the maximum rate of compressed air needed periodically for utility purposes will be double the steady rate used for instrument air. ------- Exhibit 4 illustrates how the instrument air compressor size can be estimated. Using the rule of thumb of 1 cfm/control loop, the current gas usage would translate to approximately 35 cfm of dry instrument air. Adjusting for the dryer's air consumption (17 percent of air input), the total instrument air supply requirement will be 42 cfm. Factoring in utility air needs of about 70 cfm, the project would require a total of 112 cfm of compressed air. Exhibit 4: Calculate Compressor Size for Converting Gas Pneumatics to Instrument Air Given: A lAu lAs UAs L A lAu lAs UAs A For an average size production site with pneumatics, glycol dehydration, com- pression, 35 control loops, and an average of 10 cfm utility gas usage for pneu- matic pumps and compressor engine starting. = Total Compressed Air = Instrument air use = Instrument air supply = Utility air supply = Control Loops Rule-of-thumb: 1 cfm per control loop for estimating instrument air systems. Rule-of-thumb: 17% of air is bypassed in membrane dryers. Rule-of-thumb: 1/3 of total air used for instruments, 2/3 of total air used for utility services. Calculate: A = Air compressor capacity required. = lAs + UAs = L*(1 cfm/loop) = IAu/(100% -% air bypassed in dryer) = IAu*(fraction of utility air use) / (fraction of instrument air use) = (35*1) / (100%-17%) + (35*1) * (2/3) / (1/3) = 112 cfm Step 3: Estimate the Project Costs. The major costs associated with installing and operating an instrument air system are the installation costs for compressors, dryers, and volume tanks, and energy costs. The actual instal- lation costs will be a function of the size, location, and other location specific factors. A typical conversion of a natural gas pneumatic control system to compressed instrument air costs approximately $35,000 to $60,000. To estimate the cost for a given project, all expenses associated with the compressor, dryer, volume tank, and power supply must be calculated. Most vendors are willing to provide estimates of the equipment costs and installa- tion requirements (including compressor size, motor horsepower, electrical power requirements, and storage capacity). Alternatively, operators can use the following information on the major system components to estimate the total installed cost of the instrument air system. ------- * Compressor Costs. It is common to install two compressors at a facili- ty (one operating and one stand-by spare) to ensure reliability and allow for maintenance and overhauls without service interruptions. The capaci- ty for each of the compressors must be sufficient to handle the total expected compressed air volume for the project (i.e., both instrument and utility air). Exhibit 5 presents cost estimates for purchasing and serv- icing small, medium, and large compressors. For screw-type compres- sors, operators should expect to overhaul the unit every 5 to 6 years. This normally involves exchanging the compressor core for a rebuilt compressor at a cost of approximately $3,000, with an additional $500 in labor expense and a $500 core exchange credit. Exhibit ! Service Size Small Medium Large 5: Air Co Air Volume (cfm) 30 125 350 mpressor Costs Compressor Type Reciprocating Screw Screw Horsepower 10 30 75 Equipment Costs ($) 2,5001 12,500 22,000 Annual Service ($/yr) 300 600 600 Service Life (yrs) 1 5-62 5-62 1 Cost included package compressor with a volume tank. 2 Rebuilt compressor costs $3,000 plus $500 labor minus $500 core exchange credit. * Volume Tank. Compressed air supply systems include a volume tank, which maintains a steady pressure with the on-off operation of the air compressor. The rule-of-thumb in determining the size of the volume tank is 1 -gallon capacity for each cfm of compressed air. Exhibit 6 presents equip- ment costs for small, medium, and large volume tanks. Volume tanks have essential- 1 gallon tank capacity/1 cfm air ly no operating and maintenance costs. Rule-of-Thumb: Exhibit 6: Volume Tank Costs Service Size Small1 Medium Large Air Volume (gallons) 80 400 1,000 Equipment Cost ($) 500 1,500 3,000 1 Small reciprocating air compressors, 10 horsepower and less, are commonly supplied with a surge tank. * Air Dryer Costs. Because instrument air must be very dry to avoid plugging and corrosion, the compressed air is commonly put through a dryer. The most common dryer used in small to medium applications is ------- a permeable membrane dryer. Larger air systems can use multiple mem- brane dryers, or, more cost effectively, alumina bed desiccant dryers. Membrane dryers filter out oil mist and particulate solids and have no moving parts. As a result, annual operating costs are kept low. Exhibit 7 presents equipment and service cost data for different size dryers. The appropriate sized dryer would need to accommodate the expected vol- ume of gas needed for the instrument air system. Exhibit 7: Air Dryer Costs Service Size Small Medium Large Air Volume (cfm) 30 601 350 Dryer Type membrane membrane alumina Equipment Cost ($) 1,500 4,500 10,000 Annual Service ($/yr) 500 2,000 3,000 1 Largest membrane size; use multiple units larger volumes. Using the equipment information described above, the total installed cost for a project can be calculated. Exhibit 8 illustrates this using the earlier example of a medium-sized production facility with an instrument air requirement of 42 cfm and a maximum utility air requirement of 70 cfm (for a total of 112 cfm of compressed air). To estimate the installed cost of equipment, it is a common practice in industry to assume that installation labor is equivalent to equipment purchase cost (i.e. double equipment purchase cost to estimate the installed cost). This would be suitable for large, desiccant dried instru- ment air systems, but for small, skid-mounted instrument air systems a fac- tor of 1.5 is used to estimate the total installed cost (installation labor is half the cost of equipment). Exhibit 8: Calculate Total Installation Costs Given: Compressors (2) Volume Tanks (2-small) Membrane Dryer Installed Cost Factor = $25,000 (exhibit 5) = $1,000 (exhibit 6) = $4,500 (exhibit 7) = 1.5 Calculate Total Installed Cost: Equipment Cost Total Cost = Compressor Cost + Tank Cost = $25,000 + $1,000 + $4,500 = $30,500 = Equipment Cost * Installation = $30,500*1.5 = $45,750 + Dryer Cost Cost Factor 10 ------- In addition to the facility costs, it is also necessary to estimate the energy costs associated with operating the system. The most significant operating cost of an air compressor is electricity, unless the site has excess self-gener- ation capacity. To continue the example from above, assuming that electricity is purchased at 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and that one compressor is in standby while the other compressor runs at full capacity half the time (a 50 percent operating factor), the electrical power cost amounts to $13,140 per year. This calculation is shown in Exhibit 9. Exhibit 9: Calculate Electricity Cost Given: Engine Power Operating Factor (OF) Electricity Cost = 30 HP = 50 percent = $0.075/kwh Calculate Required Power: Electrical Power = Engine Power * OF * Electricity Cost = [30 HP * 8,760hrs/yr * 0.5 * $0.075/kwh] 70.75 HP/kw = $13,140/yr Step 4: Estimate Gas Savings. To estimate the gas savings that result from the installation of an instrument air system, it is important to determine the normal bleed rates (continuous leak from piping networks, control devices, etc.), as well as the peak bleed rates (associated with movements in the control devices). One approach is to list all the control devices, assess their normal and peak bleed rates, frequency of actuation, and estimates of leak- age from the piping networks. Manufacturers of the control devices usually publish the emission rates for each type of device, and for each type of operation. Rates should be increased by 25 percent for devices that have been in service without overhaul for five to 10 years, and by about 50 per- cent for devices that have not been overhauled for more than 10 years to account for increased leakage associated with wear and tear. Alternatively, installing a meter can be more accurate, provided monitoring occurs over a long enough period of time to take account of all the utility uses of gas (i.e., pumps, motor starters, activation of isolation valves). EPA's Lessons Learned: Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry, provides brand name, model, and gas consumption information for a wide variety of currently used pneumatic devices. Manufacturer information and actual field measurement data, wherever available, are provided as well (see Appendix of that report). To simplify the calculation of gas savings for the purpose of this lesson learned analysis, we can use the earlier rules-of-thumb to estimate the gas savings. The gas savings for the medium-sized production facility example in Exhibit 4 include the conservatively estimated 35 cfm used in the 35 gas 11 ------- pneumatic controllers plus the gas used occasionally for compressor motor starters and small pneumatic chemical and transfer pumps. (Note that replacing these gas usages will result in direct savings of gas emissions.) Natural gas is not used for pneumatic tools or sand blasting, so additional compressed air provided for these services does not reduce methane emis- sions. Assuming an annual average of 10 cfm gas use for natural gas pow- ered non-instrument services, the gas savings would be 45 cfm. As shown in Exhibit 10, this is equivalent to 23,652 Mcf per year and annual savings of $71,000. Exhibit 10: Calculate Gas Savings Given: Pneumatic instrument gas usage Other non-instrument gas usage = 35 cfm = 10 cfm Calculate Value of Gas Saved: Volume of Natural Gas Saved Annual Volume of Gas Saved Annual Value of Gas Saved = Instrument Usage + Other Usage = 35 cfm + 10 cfm = 45 cfm = 45 cfm * 525,600 min/yr/ 1000 = 23,652 Mcf/yr = volume * $3.00/Mcf = 23,652 Mcf/yr * $3.00/Mcf = $71 ,000/year Step 5: Evaluate the Economics. The cost effectiveness of replacing the natural gas pneumatic control systems with instrument air systems can be evaluated using straightforward cost-benefit economic analyses. Exhibit 11 illustrates a cost-benefit analysis for the medium-sized production facility example. The cash flow over a five-year period is analyzed by show- ing the magnitude and timing of costs from Exhibits 8 and 9 (shown in parentheses) and benefits from Exhibit 10. The annual maintenance costs associated with the compressors and air dryer, from Exhibits 5 and 7, are accounted for, as well as a five-year major overhaul of a compressor per Exhibit 5. The net present value (NPV) is equal to the benefits minus the costs accrued over five years and discounted by 10 percent each year. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) reflects the discount rate at which the NPV gen- erated by the investment equals zero. 12 ------- Exhibit 11: Economic Analysis of Instrument Air System Conversion Installation Cost ($) O&M Cost ($) Overhaul Cost ($) Total Cost ($) Gas Savings ($) Annual Cash Flow ($) Cumulative Cash Flow($) YearO (45,750) 0 0 (45,750) 0 (45,750) (45,750) Yearl (13,140)1 (3,200)2 0 (16,340) 71,0004 54,660 8,910 Year 2 (13,140) (3,200) 0 (16,340) 71,000 54,660 63,570 Years (13,140) (3,200) 0 (16,340) 71,000 54,660 118,230 Year 4 (13,140) (3,200) 0 (16,340) 71,000 54,660 172,890 Payback Period (months) IRR NPV5 Years (13,140) (3,200) (4,800)3 (21,140) 71,000 49,860 222,750 10 177% $158,454 1 Electrical power at 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour 2 Maintenance costs include $1 ,200 compressor service and $2,000 air dryer membrane replacement 3 Compressor overhaul cost of $3,000, inflated at 10% per year. 4 Value of gas = $3.00/Mcf 5 Net Present Value (NPV) based on 10% discount rate for 5 years. Step 6: Develop an Implementation Plan. After determining the feasibility and economics of converting to an instrument air system, develop a system- atic plan for implementing the required changes. This can include installing a gas measuring meter in the gas supply line, making an estimate of the num- ber of control loops, ensuring an uninterrupted supply of electric energy for operating the compressors, and replacing old, obsolete and high-bleed con- trollers. It is recommended that all necessary changes be made at one time to minimize labor costs and disruption of operations. This might include a parallel strategy to install low-bleed devices in conjunction with the switch to instrument air systems. There are similar economic savings for conserving instrument air use as for conserving methane emissions with low bleed pneumatic devices. Whenever specific pneumatic devices are being replaced, such as in the case of alternative mechanical and/or electronic systems, the existing pneumatic devices should be replaced on a similar economic basis as discussed in the companion document Lessons Learned: Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry. 13 ------- Partner Experiences Several EPA Natural Gas Star partners have reported the conversion of natu- ral gas pneumatic control systems to compressed instrument air systems as the single most significant source of methane emission reduction and a source of substantial cost savings. Exhibit 12 below highlights the accom- plishments that several Natural Gas STAR partners have reported. Exhibit 12: Partner Reported Experience Gas STAR Description Project Annual Annual Payback Partner of Project Cost($) Emissions Savings (Months)2 Reductions ($/Year)1 (Met/Year) Unocal Texaco3 Chevron3 Exxon/ Mobil4 Shell Marathon Installed an air compression system in its Fresh Water Bayou facility in southern Vermillion Parish, Louisiana Installed compressed air system to drive pneumatic devices in 10 South Louisiana facilities Converted to pneu- matic controllers to compressed air, including new installations Installed instrument air systems at 3 pro- duction satellites and 1 central tank battery at Postle C02 unit Used instrument air operated devices on over 4,300 valves at off-shore platforms Installed 15 instru- ment air systems in New Mexico facilities 60,000 40,000 173,000 over 2 years 55,000 Not available Not available 69,350 23,000 31,700 19,163 532,800 120-38,000 per facility 208,050 69,000 95,100 57,489 1,598,400 360- 114,000 <4 7 11 12 Not available Not available 1 Value of gas = $3.00/Mcf. 2 Calculated based on partner-reported costs and gas savings. 3 Data for this report were collected prior to the Chevron-Texaco merger in 2001. 4 Data for this report were collected prior to the Exxon/Mobil merger in 1999. 14 ------- Other Technologies The majority of partners' experiences in substituting natural gas-powered pneumatic devices and control instrumentation with alternative controllers have involved the installation of compressed instrument air systems. Some additional alternatives to gas pneumatics implemented by partners are described below: * Liquid Nitrogen. In a system using liquid nitrogen, the volume tank, air compressor, and dryer are replaced with a cylinder containing cryo- genic liquid nitrogen. A pressure regulator allows expansion of the nitrogen gas into the instrument and control-piping network at the desired pressure. Liquid nitrogen bottles are replaced periodically. Liquid nitrogen-operated devices require handling of cryogenic liquids, which can be expensive as well as a potential safety hazard. Large volume demands on a liquid nitrogen system require a vaporizer. * Mechanical Controls and Instrumentation System. Mechanical instrument and control devices have a long history of use in the natu- ral gas and petroleum industry. They are usually distinguished by the absence of pneumatic and electric components, are simple in design, and require no power source. Such equipment operates using springs, levers, baffles, flow channels, and hand wheels. They have several disadvantages, such as limited application, the need for con- tinuous calibration, lack of sensitivity, inability to handle large varia- tions, and potential for sticking parts. * Electric and Electro-Pneumatic Devices. As a result of advanced technology and increasing sophistication, the use of electronic instru- ment and control devices is increasing. The advantage of these devices is that they require no compression devices to supply energy to operate the equipment; a simple 120-volt electric supply is used for power. Another advantage is that the use of electronic instrument and control devices is far less dangerous than using combustible natural gas or cryogenic liquid nitrogen cylinders. The disadvantage of these devices is their reliance on an uninterrupted source of electric supply, and significantly higher costs. Although these options have advantages, systems using air instead of natu- ral gas are the most widely employed alternative in replacing natural gas- operated pneumatic control devices. It is important to note that maintaining a constant, reliable supply of dry, compressed air in a plant environment is a significant cost, albeit more economic than natural gas. Therefore, a parallel strategy to install low-bleed devices in conjunction with the switch to instru- ment air systems (refer to Lessons Learned: Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry), and to design a maintenance schedule to keep the instruments and control devices in tune, is often economic. Such actions can significantly reduce the con- sumption of instrument air in the overall system and, therefore, minimize both the size of the compression system and the electricity consumption over the life of the plant. 15 ------- Lessons Learned References The lessons learned from Natural Gas STAR partners are: * Installing instrument air systems has the potential to increase revenues and substantially reduce methane emissions. * Instrument air systems can extend the life cycle of system equipment, which can accumulate trace amounts of sulfur and various acid gases when controlled by natural gas, thus adding to the potential savings and increasing operational efficiencies. * Remote locations and facilities without a reliable source of electric supply often need to evaluate alternate power generation sources. When feasi- ble, solar-powered air compressors provide an economical and ecologi- cally beneficial alternative to expensive electricity in remote production areas. On site generation using microturbines running on natural gas is another alternative. * A parallel strategy of installing low-bleed devices in conjunction with the switch to instrument air systems is often economic. * Existing infrastructure can be used; therefore, no pipe replacement is needed. However, existing piping and tubing should be flushed clear of accumulated debris. * Rotary air compressors are normally lubricated with oil, which must be filtered to maintain the life and proper performance of membrane dryers. * Use of instrument air will eliminate safety hazards associated with flam- mable natural gas usage in pneumatic devices. * Nitrogen-drive systems may be an alternative to instrument air in special cases, but tends to be expensive and handling of cryogenic gas is a safety concern. * Report reductions in methane emissions from converting gas pneumatic controls to instrument air in your Natural Gas STAR Annual Report. Adams, Mark. Pneumatic Instrument Bleed Reduction Strategy and Practical Application, Fisher Controls International, Inc. 1995. Beitler, C.M., Reif, D.L., Reuter, C.O. and James M. Evans. Control Devices Monitoring for Glycol Dehydrator Condensers: Testing and Modeling Approaches, Radian International LLC, Gas Research Institute, SPE 37879, 1997. Cober, Bill. C&B Sales and Services, Inc. Personal contact. Fisher, Kevin S., Reuter, Curtis, Lyon, Mel and Jorge Gamez. Glycol Dehydrator Emission Control Improved, Radian Corp., Public Service Co. of Colorado Denver, Gas Research Institute. 16 ------- Frederick, James. Spirit Energy 76. Personal contact. Games, J.R, Reuter, C.O. and C.M. Beitler, Field Testing Results for the R-BTEX Process for Controlling Glycol Dehydrator Emissions, Gas Research Institute, Radian Corporation, SPE 29742, 1995. Gunning, Paul M. U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program. Personal contact. Gupta, Arun, Ansari, R. Rai and A.K. Sah. Reduction of Glycol Loss From Gas Dehydration Unit At Offshore Platform in Bombay Offshore—A Case Study, N.A.K.R. IOGPT, ONGC, India, SPPE 36225, 1996. Reid, Laurance, S. Predicting the Capabilities of Glycol Dehydrators, SPE-AIME, Laurance Reid Associates. Scalfana, David B., Case History Reducing Methane Emissions From High Bleed Pneumatic Controllers Offshore, Chevron U.S.A. Production Co. SPE 37927, 1997. Schievelbein, V.H., Hydrocarbon Recovery from Glycol Reboiler Vapor With Glycol-Cooled Condenser, Texaco, Inc. SPE 25949. 1993. Schievelbein, Vernon H. Reducing Methane Emissions from Glycol Dehydrators, Texaco EPTD, SPE 37929, 1997. Soules, J.R. and RV Tran. Solar-Powered Air Compressor: An Economical and Ecological Power Source for Remote Locations, Otis Engineering Corp. SPE 25550, 1993. 17 ------- &EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation (6202J) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 ------- |