Assessment of Gas Flaring Activity Effects on Its Local Environment

A Term Paper on Air Pollution; Oil and Gas Engineering

By:
Henry Olayemi Falokun
Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada 2012

Abstract
This term paper will assess empirically the adverse effect of gas flaring on the Nigerias Niger-Delta
environment and also the economic advantage of eliminating it. Globally, gas flares emit about 390
million tons of carbon dioxide every year in contribution to global emissions of CO2; flaring does not only
pose the serious problem of energy wastage, it plays a role in the increase of greenhouse gas emissions.
According to 2010 World Bank record, Nigeria flares the second largest volume of gas of any producer
accounting for 11.34% of the world's gas flaring, and this represents about one third of her total CO2
emissions. Archival series of data available from the World Bank records and Nigerian National
Petroleum Company (NNPC) will be and analyzed statistically and trend fitted. The result is expected to
show that the reduction of gas flaring in Nigeria will not only contribute to energy efficiency but
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emission and thus climate change mitigation.

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Case Study Description................................................................................................................................. 2
Why Gas Flaring Happens ............................................................................................................................ 3
Procedure and Tools for Air Pollution Due to Flaring ................................................................................. 4
Factors Affecting Dispersion ........................................................................................................................ 5
Wind Speed ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Ground Conditions/Local Terrain effects: ................................................................................................. 5
Atmospheric Stability: ............................................................................................................................... 6
Height of the Release above ground: ....................................................................................................... 7
Momentum of the released material (Plume rise from flares): ............................................................... 7
Pollution Dispersal Assessment Results ...................................................................................................... 8
Assumptions.............................................................................................................................................. 8
Pollutant Dispersion Result Class A Atmospheric Condition.................................................................. 9
Pollutant Dispersion Result Class B Atmospheric Condition................................................................ 11
Pollutant Dispersion Result Class C Atmospheric Condition ................................................................ 13
Pollutant Dispersion Result Class D Atmospheric Condition ............................................................... 15
Pollutant Dispersion Result Class E Atmospheric Condition ................................................................ 17
Pollutant Dispersion Result Class F Atmospheric Condition ................................................................ 19
Conclusions and Observations ................................................................................................................... 21
References .................................................................................................................................................. 22

ii

List of Figures
Figure 1 Gas flaring activities in close proximity to settlements. (Source: World Bank, 2011) .....................................3
Figure 2 Plume Dispersion from Stack Height ...............................................................................................................4
Figure 3 Effect of ground conditions on vertical wind gradient ....................................................................................6
Figure 4 Air temperatures as a function of altitude for Day and Night condition .........................................................6
Figure 5 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class A Scenario .................................................................................................9
Figure 6 Class A Scenario - 3D Surface Plot .................................................................................................................10
Figure 7 Effects on Close Proximity - Class A ...............................................................................................................10
Figure 8 Effects on Far Distances - Class A...................................................................................................................10
Figure 9 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class B Scenario ...............................................................................................11
Figure 10 Class B Scenario - 3D Surface Plot ................................................................................................................12
Figure 11 Effects on Close Proximity - Class B .............................................................................................................12
Figure 12 Effects on Far Distances - Class B .................................................................................................................12
Figure 13 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant Class C Scenario ............................................................................................13
Figure 14 Class C Scenario - 3D Surface Plot ................................................................................................................14
Figure 15 Effects on Close Proximity - Class C .............................................................................................................14
Figure 16 Effects on Far Distances - Class C .................................................................................................................14
Figure 17 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class D Scenario .............................................................................................15
Figure 18 Class D Scenario - 3D Surface Plot ...............................................................................................................16
Figure 19 Effects on Close Proximity - Class D .............................................................................................................16
Figure 20 Effects on Far Distances - Class D ................................................................................................................16
Figure 21 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class E Scenario .............................................................................................17
Figure 22 Class E Scenario - 3D Surface Plot ................................................................................................................18
Figure 23 Effects on Close Proximity - Class E .............................................................................................................18
Figure 24 Effects on Far Distances - Class E .................................................................................................................18
Figure 25 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class F Scenario .............................................................................................19
Figure 26 Class F Scenario - 3D Surface Plot ................................................................................................................20
Figure 27 Effects on Close Proximity - Class F..............................................................................................................20
Figure 28 Effects on Far Distances - Class F .................................................................................................................20

List of Tables
Table 1 Top 20 Flaring Country (GGRF, 2011)................................................................................................................2
Table 2 Pasqual stability classes A to F ..........................................................................................................................7
Table 3 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class A Scenario ........................................................................................9
Table 4 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class B Scenario ......................................................................................11
Table 5 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class C Scenario ......................................................................................13
Table 6 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class D Scenario ......................................................................................15
Table 7 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class E Scenario ......................................................................................17
Table 8 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class F Scenario ......................................................................................19

iii

Introduction
Flaring is the practice of burning gas that is deemed uneconomical to collect and sell. Flaring is also used
to burn gases that would otherwise present a safety problem.
Flares emit a host of air pollutants, depending on the chemical composition of the gas being burned and
the efficiency and temperature of the flare. Flaring results in hydrogen sulfide emissions if hydrogen
sulfide is present in large enough amounts in the natural gas. There may also be additional by-products
formed if some of the chemicals used during the drilling or hydraulic fracturing process are converted to
a gaseous form and are burned along with the natural gas.
During upstream petroleum operations, flares are commonly used either for routine or emergency
purpose in the removal of associated gas for safe operations. This may be considered a better
alternative to vent boom due to the anticipated destruction of natural gas but the resulting several air
pollutants identified as emission products from this activity calls for another approach in natural gas
removal. Though IPCC (1996) recognized carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) as major output from
gas flares, Sonibare and Akeredolu (2004) predicted other products to include carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxide (NO), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2), from sweet natural gas while sour gas emits
sulphur dioxide (SO2) in addition. Incomplete combustion may be an impetus for the release of volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere from this same source. These additional products are
attributed to the variations in operating conditions of gas flares and the gaseous emissions have
degradation potential on the environment either as primary or secondary pollutants.
The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, in California has estimated that the following air
pollutants may be released from natural gas flares: benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs, including naphthalene), acetaldehyde, acrolein, propylene, toluene, xylenes, ethyl
benzene and hexane. Researchers in Canada have measured more than 60 air pollutants downwind of
natural gas flares. (Leahey, 2001)

Case Study Description

The case study of this term paper will focus on the southern part of Nigeria, Niger Delta, where there are
high flaring activities from the oil and gas producing facilities located in the region. All data as made
available by the ministry of environment and the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) of Nigeria
online are referenced and assumed data are indicated as well.
Nigeria flares 14.6 billion3 m of natural gas per year in conjunction with the exploration of crude oil in
the Niger Delta (GGFR 2011). This high level of gas flaring is equal to approximately one quarter of the
current power consumption of the African continent (GGFR 2011). This problem has been produced by a
range of international oil companies which have been in operation for over four decades (Africa News
Service 2003). The economic and environmental ramifications of this high level of gas flaring are serious
because this process is a significant waste of potential fuel which is simultaneously polluting water, air,
and soil in the Niger Delta.

Table 1 Top 20 Flaring Country (GGRF, 2011)

It is shocking to see the endless burning of this gas 24 hours a day. Even though Nigeria has grown to be
fairly dependent on oil and it has become the center of current industrial development and economic
activities in the country, Nigeria still rarely consider how oil exploration and exploitation processes
2

create environmental, health, and social problems in local communities near oil producing fields
(ORourke and Connolly 2003). For this reason, I hope that this study helps to be more aware of the
actual adverse effect the volume of flaring in the region has on the quality of the air at distances away
from the flare zones.

Figure 1 Gas flaring activities in close proximity to settlements. (Source: World Bank, 2011)

Why Gas Flaring Happens

In many oil fields, large volumes of gas are produced with crude oil when it is brought to the surface.
This is particularly true in the Niger Delta where much of the oil has a high proportion of this associated
gas. When most producing companies first built many of its production facilities in the 1950s, there was
little demand or market for gas in many parts of the world, including Nigeria. So, associated gas (AG)
was usually burned off safely a process called flaring. Since then, demand for gas in Nigeria and other
countries have now grown. Technology to harness, liquefy and export natural gas to distant markets has
become commercial and climate change has become an increasingly important issue.
Today, most people agree that continuous flaring of associated gas must be reduced significantly. It
contributes to greenhouse gases that cause climate change and it is a waste of resources and revenue.
There are more various reasons for the continuous gas flaring. From a political perspective, as Michael
Watts (2001) said In Nigeria, oil became the basis for important forms of political mobilization, in
which petro-capital became the cause of political violence against those advocating environmental
justice or compensation for the costs of ecological degradation. The Nigerian government has not
enforced environmental regulations effectively because of the overlapping and conflicting jurisdiction of
separate governmental agencies governing petroleum and the environment as well as because of nontransparent governance mechanisms (Kaldany 2001, GGFR 2002). Neither the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (FEPA) nor the Department of Petroleum Resources (DPR) has implemented antiflaring policies for natural gas waste from oil production, nor have they monitored the emissions to
ensure compliance with their own regulations (Manby 1999).

From an economic perspective, the Nigerian governments main interest in the oil industry is to
maximize its monetary profits from oil production (ESMAP 2001). Oil companies find it more
economically expedient to flare the natural gas and pay the insignificant fine than to re-inject the gas
back into the oil wells. Additionally, because there is an insufficient energy market especially in rural
areas (GGFR 2002), oil companies do not see an economic incentive to collect the gas so they flare the
gases as they are produced.
This paper, however, calls attention to the fact that in addition to this ethical concern of gas flaring,
there are very real potential economic and environmental benefits of recovering the gas as an energy
source. Correcting these market failures would be a simple way to ensure that the natural gas currently
flared is used more efficiently.

Procedure and Tools for Air Pollution Due to Flaring

The objectives of this study are achieved partially by the use of Dispersion Models of Gaussian
puff/plume model for buoyant gaseous releases from both gas and liquid sources. The model assumes a
Gaussian concentration distribution within the plume. For the steady state situations considered in this
study, such distribution is represented mathematically by the following relation:

Figure 2 Plume Dispersion from Stack Height

Where
C (x,y,z) is the avg. concentration (kg/m3),
H is the height of the releasing source (m),
X, Y, and Z, are distances in downwind, cross wind and vertical direction, respectively (m)
4

Q is release strength (kg/s)

U is wind velocity (m/s)
y and z are dispersion coefficients in y and z direction respectively (m). y and z is a function of
stability class, downwind distance.

Factors Affecting Dispersion

Dispersion models describe the airborne transport of toxic materials away from the release site into the
community. After a release the airborne toxic material is carried away by the wind in a characteristic
plume, as shown in Figure 2 Plume Dispersion from Stack Height above.
The maximum concentration of toxic material occurs at the release point (which may not be at ground
level). Concentrations downwind are less, because of turbulent mixing and dispersion of the toxic
substance with air. A wide variety of parameters affect atmospheric dispersion of toxic materials
considered in this exercise is:

Wind Speed
Atmospheric Stability
Ground Conditions
Height of the Release above ground
Initial momentum of the released material

Wind Speed

Any emitted gas is initially diluted with the passing volumes of air.
The emitted gas is carried downwind faster but is diluted faster by a larger quantity of air.
Wind speed and direction are often presented by wind rose diagram.
Near-neutral and stable air condition wind profile is given by:

Where, p is the power co-efficient. For Urban area p = 0.40; Sub urban area p =0.28; and Rural area p =
0.16.

Ground Conditions/Local Terrain effects:

Ground conditions/Terrain Characteristics affect the mechanical mixing at the surface and the
wind profile with height.
Trees and buildings increase mixing, whereas lakes and open areas decrease it.
Following Figure shows the change in wind speed versus height for a variety of surface
conditions.

Figure 3 Effect of ground conditions on vertical wind gradient

Atmospheric Stability:
Stability is defined by atmospheric vertical temperature gradient.
At day time, the air temperature decreases rapidly with height, encouraging vertical motions. In the
night time, the temperature decrease is less, resulting in less vertical motion. Laps rate: Negative of the
temperature gradient in atmosphere. The dry adiabatic laps rate:

Figure 4 Air temperatures as a function of altitude for Day and Night condition

Atmospheric stability is classified into:

Unstable: Sun heats ground faster than heat can be removed so that air temperature near the ground is
higher than the air temperature at higher elevations.
Neutral: The air above the ground warms and the wind speed increases, reducing the effect of solar
input.
6

Stable: The sun cannot heat the ground as fast as the ground cools - temperature at ground is lower.
According to Pasqual stability classes (Denoted by A to F), the air conditions are normally classified into
six sub-classes as shown in the following table:

Table 2 Pasqual stability classes A to F

Height of the Release above ground:

Ground level concentration of a dispersed plume is decreased with the increase of source of release
height.

Momentum of the released material (Plume rise from flares):

Effective release height depends on initial buoyancy and momentum of the released material.
The momentum of a high-velocity jet will carry the gas higher than the point of release.
The gas heavier than air becomes neutral downwind as it mixes with air. It will initially be
negatively buoyant and will slump toward the ground.
The gas has a lower density than air, will initially be positively buoyant and will lift upward.

For flare stack releases, Turner suggested using the empirical Holland formula to compute the additional
height resulting from the buoyancy and momentum of the release:

where
H, is the correction to the release height H
us is the stack gas exit velocity (m/s)
d is the inside stack diameter (m)
u is the wind speed (m/s)
P is the atmospheric pressure (mb)
T, is the stack gas temperature (K), and
Ta is the air temperature (K).
7

Pollution Dispersal Assessment Results

This study focuses on the size of the dangerous cloud of the released gas as well as its location relative
to the source point. It should be emphasized that the aim is not to investigate or criticize a specific
installation.
However, the study considered data comparable to real situations that may develop in an oil and gas
flare stack within the country. Thus, the study may be useful and beneficial to the local industrial sector.
It should be also emphasized that the results of this study are purely computational and have not been
verified experimentally. However, so many researchers have conducted experiments using the Gaussian
model and have verified its reliability.
Different values of the meteorological parameters wind speed and atmospheric stability class as well as
the number of operating trains are considered.

Assumptions
The case assumes and deals with a wind speed of 1.5, 2.0, 2.56.0 m/s which were considered to be the
most often range encountered normally.
Stability classes A to F were considered for each of the wind speed cases.
In order to emphasize the environmental impact on the relatively populated areas, the source point is
assumed to be in the rural environment and the wind is assumed to blow from one direction.
Composition (by volume): 10% SO2, 10%H2O, 23.4%CO2, 56.6%N2. (Badr, 2004)
Total Emission Rate: 20 Kg/s
Toxic limits of SO2: TWA 5000 mmg/m3 (2 PPM) and STEL 13000 mmg/m3 (5 PPM) (NIOSH, 2012)
Stack height (m)
Stack diameter (m)
Emission rate (g/s)

60
0.9144
20000

Gas exit velocity (m/s)

Gas exit temperature (C)
Ambient Temperature

20
600
20

Pollutant Dispersion Result Class A Atmospheric Condition

Wind
Velocity
u (m/s)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6

Stack
Effect
Ht (m)
230.15
187.61
162.09
145.07
132.92
123.81
116.72
111.04
106.4
102.54

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.5
27977
51020
63773
69015
70043
68894
66690
64025
61217
58429

Estimated Concentration of Ground-Level Pollution (mmg/m3)

on Plume Centerline at Selected Distances (km) from Source
0.8
1.5
3
5
10
20
35
55664
34253
11353
4602
1355
417
167
59071
28356
8728
3482
1019
313
125
56256
23838
7069
2798
816
250
100
51918
20450
5934
2338
680
209
83
47537
17861
5110
2007
583
179
72
43540
15833
4486
1759
511
157
63
40013
14207
3997
1564
454
139
56
36931
12879
3604
1409
409
125
50
34242
11774
3281
1281
372
114
46
31888
10841
3011
1175
341
104
42

60
71
53
43
35
30
27
24
21
19
18

100
32
24
19
16
14
12
11
10
9
8

Table 3 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class A Scenario

Figure 5 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class A Scenario

Figure 7 Effects on Close Proximity - Class A

Figure 6 Class A Scenario - 3D Surface Plot

Figure 8 Effects on Far Distances - Class A

10

Pollutant Dispersion Result Class B Atmospheric Condition

Wind
Velocity
u (m/s)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6

Stack
Effect
Ht (m)
230.15
187.61
162.09
145.07
132.92
123.81
116.72
111.04
106.4
102.54

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.5
578
5118
14144
24357
33378
40423
45533
49033
51281
52590

Estimated Concentration of Ground-Level Pollution (mmg/m3)

on Plume Centerline at Selected Distances (km) from Source
0.8
1.5
3
5
10
20
35
20276
46522
22828
10061
3069
953
382
39880
45901
18336
7734
2316
716
287
51777
42143
15183
6265
1859
573
230
57292
38069
12910
5259
1552
478
191
58987
34377
11211
4529
1332
410
164
58600
31186
9898
3975
1166
358
143
57138
28460
8857
3542
1037
319
128
55157
26130
8011
3194
934
287
115
52964
24127
7311
2907
849
261
104
50726
22394
6723
2668
779
239
96

60
162
122
97
81
70
61
54
49
44
41

100
73
55
44
37
31
27
24
22
20
18

Table 4 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class B Scenario

Figure 9 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class B Scenario

11

Figure 11 Effects on Close Proximity - Class B

Figure 10 Class B Scenario - 3D Surface Plot

Figure 12 Effects on Far Distances - Class B

12

Pollutant Dispersion Result Class C Atmospheric Condition

Stack
Effect
Ht (m)
230.15
187.61
162.09
145.07
132.92
123.81
116.72
111.04
106.4
102.54

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.5
0
9
149
748
2047
4003
6395
8973
11539
13964

Estimated Concentration of Ground-Level Pollution (mmg/m3)

on Plume Centerline at Selected Distances (km) from Source
0.8
1.5
3
5
10
20
35
466
23993
37034
23997
10434
4434
2299
4331
40133
35551
20112
8159
3384
1740
12261
48035
32194
17012
6665
2731
1398
21417
50679
28848
14648
5622
2287
1168
29619
50596
25915
12823
4858
1967
1003
36099
49204
23425
11386
4274
1725
879
40851
47236
21321
10229
3814
1536
782
44145
45065
19536
9281
3443
1384
704
46296
42877
18011
8490
3138
1260
641
47582
40764
16696
7822
2882
1156
587

60
1259
949
761
635
545
477
424
382
347
319

100
727
547
438
365
313
274
244
219
200
183

Table 5 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class C Scenario

Figure 13 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant Class C Scenario

13

Figure 15 Effects on Close Proximity - Class C

Figure 14 Class C Scenario - 3D Surface Plot

Figure 16 Effects on Far Distances - Class C

14

Pollutant Dispersion Result Class D Atmospheric Condition

Stack
Effect
Ht (m)
230.15
187.61
162.09
145.07
132.92
123.81
116.72
111.04
106.4
102.54

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.5
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
9
22
44

Estimated Concentration of Ground-Level Pollution (mmg/m3)

on Plume Centerline at Selected Distances (km) from Source
0.8
1.5
3
5
10
20
35
0
18
2931
10353
15415
12054
8122
0
489
9933
17971
17159
10946
6785
5
2343
16950
21913
16739
9640
5730
46
5571
22010
23373
15667
8498
4929
198
9404
25132
23499
14476
7554
4312
530
13159
26822
22964
13342
6778
3827
1063
16468
27554
22124
12318
6137
3437
1773
19206
27672
21164
11409
5600
3118
2609
21377
27406
20179
10607
5147
2852
3518
23044
26906
19217
9899
4759
2627

60
5147
4109
3392
2879
2497
2203
1970
1781
1625
1494

100
3225
2510
2046
1724
1488
1309
1167
1053
960
881

Table 6 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class D Scenario

Figure 17 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class D Scenario

15

Figure 19 Effects on Close Proximity - Class D

Figure 20 Effects on Far Distances - Class D

Figure 18 Class D Scenario - 3D Surface Plot

16

Pollutant Dispersion Result Class E Atmospheric Condition

Stack
Effect
Ht (m)
132.1
125.51
120.81
117.22
114.36
111.99
109.99
108.27
106.76
105.42

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Estimated Concentration of Ground-Level Pollution (mmg/m3)

on Plume Centerline at Selected Distances (km) from Source
0.8
1.5
3
5
10
20
35
0
190
11621
25586
28278
21795
16487
0
343
12725
24294
24665
18349
13691
0
501
13172
22822
21868
15882
11740
0
650
13277
21412
19660
14026
10297
0
786
13194
20126
17876
12578
9185
0
909
13008
18970
16404
11414
8299
0
1017
12767
17936
15169
10458
7576
0
1113
12496
17009
14116
9656
6974
0
1198
12212
16175
13209
8974
6465
0
1272
11924
15423
12417
8387
6028

60
12454
10268
8761
7656
6810
6139
5594
5141
4759
4432

100
9549
7842
6673
5820
5169
4654
4236
3890
3598
3348

Table 7 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class E Scenario

Figure 21 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class E Scenario

17

Figure 23 Effects on Close Proximity - Class E

Figure 22 Class E Scenario - 3D Surface Plot

Figure 24 Effects on Far Distances - Class E

18

Pollutant Dispersion Result Class F Atmospheric Condition

Wind
Velocity
u (m/s)
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6

Stack
Effect
Ht (m)
119.83
114.36
110.46
107.49
105.11
103.14
101.48
100.05
98.799
97.69

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Estimated Concentration of Ground-Level Pollution (mmg/m3)

on Plume Centerline at Selected Distances (km) from Source
0.8
1.5
3
5
10
20
35
0
0
21
732
4221
6474
6395
0
0
43
1027
4725
6597
6284
0
0
68
1260
4970
6509
6047
0
0
94
1441
5072
6334
5778
0
0
119
1581
5092
6127
5510
0
0
144
1689
5062
5913
5255
0
0
167
1772
5004
5701
5018
0
0
188
1837
4929
5498
4800
0
0
208
1886
4843
5305
4599
0
0
226
1922
4753
5123
4414

60
5562
5361
5092
4818
4560
4322
4107
3911
3733
3571

100
4605
4392
4142
3898
3674
3471
3289
3125
2976
2842

Table 8 Ground level pollution dispersion - Class F Scenario

Figure 25 Diffusion of Flare Pollutant - Class F Scenario

19

Figure 27 Effects on Close Proximity - Class F

Figure 26 Class F Scenario - 3D Surface Plot

Figure 28 Effects on Far Distances - Class F

20

Conclusions and Observations

Gas flaring is not only the cause of economic loss, but also the cause of environmental degradation and
health risk. Theoretically, the combustion processes with complete combustion create relatively
innocuous gases such as carbon dioxide and water (Leahey and Preston 2001). However, because the
flaring efficiency depends on wind speeds, stack exit velocity, stoichiometric mixing ratios, and heating
value, the flaring in reality is rarely successful in the achievement of complete combustion (Leahey and
Preston 2001).
The result shows that gas flaring produces significant amounts of air pollutant concentration, the flaring
process with incomplete combustion emits a variety of compounds, including methane, propane, and
hazardous air pollution such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), and soot (Kindzierski 2000). And, it could be assumed that the gas flaring not equipped with a
gas scrubber will produce much more of those pollutants than a gas flaring equipped with a gas scrubber
as assumed by this effort.

21

References
1. Argo, J. 2001. Unhealthy effects of upstream oil and gas flaring.
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/oil-and-gas-exploration/soss-oil-and-gas-flaring.pdf,
accessed May 7, 2004
2. ESMAP (Joint UNDP/World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme). 2001.
African gas Initiative: main report. http://www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/energy/ AGI/24001 %20Africa%20Gas%20Initiative%20Main%20Report.pdf
3. Heinsohn, R. and Kabel, R., Sources and Control of Air Pollution, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999.

4. Kaldany, R. 2001. Global gas flaring reduction initiative. Oil, Gas and Chemicals World Bank
Group, Marrakesh.
5. Leahey, Douglas M., Preston, Katherine and Strosher, Mel. 2001. "Theoretical and Observational
Assessments of Flare Efficiencies, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Volume
51. p.1614.
6. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Website address:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/

7. NDDC (Niger Delta Development Commission) http://www.nddconline.org, accessed May 8,

2004.
8. Sonibare J.A. and Akeredolu F.A. (2005), Environmental Degradation Potential of Natural Gas
Flares in Upstream Petroleum Operations, NAFTA Croatia, 56(3), 125 135

9. SPDC (the Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited). 2002. People and the
environment annual report. SPDC, Nigeria. 52pp.
10. Wark, K., Warner, C., and Davis, W., Air Pollution: Its Origin and Control, 3/E, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1998.
11. Warren, P., Hazardous Gases & Fumes, A safety handbook, Butterworth Heinemann, 1997.

22