Why Are My Well Sites Still Flaring?

In light of more stringent emissions rules and environmental performance mandates to achieve net-zero emissions and eliminate routine flaring, current production practices are being reexamined.

In our first blog post on the subject Zero Routine Flaring Targets Cannot Be Met Without Addressing Tank Battery Flaring and Venting, we evaluated EPA data demonstrating that tank batteries are one of the most significant sources of GHG and methane emissions at production facilities. Also, in a previous blog post How Oil & Gas Operators Can Meet Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 Initiatives, we reported on how the spotlight on well site emissions is quickly turning from flaring of associated gas to the tank flare. The Department of Energy reported that tank battery emissions, including venting and flaring, are the second largest source of emissions in the upstream sector, accounting for almost one quarter of total upstream emissions.

The implications are clear – oil and gas producers must consider tank batteries when developing emissions control plans, even at permitted sites connected to infrastructure.

In facility design and emissions control, however, the open question is – are we using the right data?

In this article, we cover at a high level the differences between the most commonly used estimates for facility design and actual data derived from field observation.

Misestimating Emissions

An accepted data source for completing and securing air permits for oil and gas development is the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates. These estimates are also used as the basis for developing well site and facility emissions control plans.

It is a common occurrence, however, that routine flaring of tank vapors continues even at permitted sites. Tank flaring generates GHG emissions and nitrates of oxide (NOx), which is a precursor to ozone pollution, just like flaring of associated gas at wells not yet connected to pipeline infrastructure.

Why?

EPA estimates are just that – best guesses of actual emissions. The EPA emission factors are based on a variety of sources including modeling, surveys, industry panel input, consulting studies, and technical reports.

Statistically, the EPA emissions factors data is useful to policy makers, but it is not specific enough for developing and emission control plan that will be effective in eliminating all routine flaring and venting at production sites.

Comparison of EPA Estimates and Field Level Observations

One upstream operator conducted a study to directly measure emissions at its production facilities to get an accurate, boots-on-the-ground, perspective of emissions. The company published its findings based on direct measurements of their locations in the Permian Basin. Methane detection commenced in late 2020 in West Texas.

The study found that “…component-level emission factors that are used for EPA reporting do a poor job approximating actual emissions.”

After several weeks, the results proved that tank batteries were the largest source of measured emissions at 68%, compared to 12% implied by EPA estimates. 

The implications for facility design and developing emissions control plans are clear:

• EPA emissions factor estimates are inadequate for addressing tank battery venting and flaring, which are significant sources of production facility emissions.
• Even at permitted facilities, tank flaring continues to be a routine practice.

With all this in mind and to gain a better understanding of how tank batteries play a large role in determining the success of any Zero Routine Flaring initiative, we encourage you to read our complete Case Study, Zero Routine Flaring Targets Cannot Be Met Without Addressing Tank Battery Flaring and Venting.

EcoVapor is committed to helping oil and gas operators take steps toward a zero emissions wellsite.  Our technology-based Pathways to Zero help Energy companies simultaneously achieve their environmental performance goals and increase profitability.