January 19, 2012

Minor NSR Permitting Coordinator

US EPA Region 8

1595 Wynkoop Avenue, 8P‐AR

Denver, CO 80202‐1129

RE: Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation  

Revision to Application for New Construction for the Madrid/Rome Facility

To Whom It May Concern;

Enclosed please find the revised application for new construction for the Enerplus Resources (USA)

Corporation Madrid/Rome facility. Included in the application for new construction is a synthetic minor

limit request for the facility requesting federally‐enforceable limitations on the facility’s potential to

emit.

This revision is pursuant to changes in the availability of an oil and natural gas sales pipelines to the

facility. For your convenience, an entire new application has been provided, inclusive of Attachments A

through F. There were no changes to Attachment G in the formerly submitted application – please retain

these pages with this revision.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

Respectfully,

Tony Lucero

Enerplus Resources (USA) Operations

Environment, Health & Safety Coordinator
Application for New Construction

Madrid/Rome Facility

Prepared For: 

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation 

US Bank Tower, 950 17th Street 

Denver, CO 80202 

Revision Submittal Date: January 19, 2012 

Initial Submittal Date: December 22, 2011 

Prepared By: 

3700 East 41st Avenue 

Denver, CO 80216-6504 

303-289-7520 (Office) 

303-289-7521 (Fax) 
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

ii

Table of Contents 

General Facility Information ................................................................................................................................................... 1

Previous Permit Actions.......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Contact Information................................................................................................................................................................ 3

Facility Process Description .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Operating Schedule................................................................................................................................................................. 5

Process Flow Diagram (typ.) ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Type and Quantity of Fuels..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Attachments

Attachment A    Emission Units and Air Pollution‐Generating Activities

Attachment B    Proposed Emission Controls, Control Efficiencies and Manufacturer Guarantees

Attachment C    Criteria Pollutant Emission Estimates

Attachment D    Criteria Pollutant Emission Supporting Documentation

Attachment E    Qualitative Air Quality Analysis

Attachment F    Synthetic Minor Limit Request

Attachment G    Equipment Specifications and Guarantees
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

1

General Facility Information

1. (a) Company Name

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

(b) Operator Name

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

2. Facility Information

Madrid/Rome

3. Type of Operation

Oil and Gas Production

4.

5.

Portable Source

Temporary Source

  Yes

  Yes

  No

  No

6. NAICS Code

21111

7. SIC Code

1311

8. Physical Address (home base for portable sources)

East of State Highway 22 and south of BIA Road 17.

9. Reservation

Ft. Berthold Reservation

10. County

Dunn County

11. (a) Latitude

TBD

11. (b) Longitude

TBD

12. (a) Quarter Quarter  

NE / NW

12. (b) Section

18

12. (c) Township

147N

12. (d) Range

93W
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

2

Previous Permit Actions

Provide information for each permit that has been issued to this facility.

Facility Name on the Permit

No previous permit actions for this facility as specified in the EPA Region 8 Application for New Construction, Section B.

Permit Number

Date of the Permit Action

Facility Name on the Permit

N/A

Permit Number

Date of the Permit Action

Facility Name on the Permit

N/A

Permit Number

Date of the Permit Action
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

3

Contact Information

Company Contact

Tony Lucero

Title

EHS Coordinator

Mailing Address

US Bank Tower, Suite 2200, 950 – 17th Street, Denver, CO 80202‐2805

Email Address

tlucero@enerplus.com

Telephone Number

(720) 279‐5500

Facsimile Number

(720) 279‐5550

Operator Contact (if different from above)

Same as above.

Title

Mailing Address

Email Address

Telephone Number Facsimile Number

Facility Contact

Josh Ruffo

Title

Foreman

Mailing Address

PO Box 326

Email Address

jruffo@enerplus.com

Telephone Number

(720) 279‐5500

Facsimile Number

(720) 279‐5550

Compliance Contact

Tony Lucero

Title

EHS Coordinator

Mailing Address

US Bank Tower, Suite 2200, 950 – 17th Street, Denver, CO 80202‐2805

Email Address

tlucero@enerplus.com

Telephone Number

(720) 279‐5500

Facsimile Number

(720) 279‐5550
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

4

Facility Process Description

Generally, a crude oil reservoir contains not only the oil itself, but saline water and also a dissolved form of natural gas

due to the high pressures of the underground reservoir. Because fluids from a reservoir are under a higher pressure

below ground than at the ground surface, recovery of fluids is initially driven by rock and fluid expansion from reservoir

conditions to surface conditions.  After time this pressure source becomes depleted and the well will no longer flow to

surface and an artificial lift, usually in the form of a pump, must be installed to continue production.

Fluids produced at the wellhead(s) are transferred via an underground flowline(s) to various processing units utilized to

separate the fluids into three phases; oil, natural gas, and water. The separator and heater/treater processing units

separate the fluids into the three different process streams. The different fluid densities are used to separate the fluids

and heat is used to make the process more efficient.  Descriptions of the elements involved in the crude oil recovery

process are described below:

High‐Pressure Natural Gas

Dissolved natural gas entrained in the wellhead fluids evolves out of solution as the pressure of the fluid decreases.

Additionally, as the wellhead fluid(s) is heated, the natural gas components off‐gas more readily than the heavier oil

and water counterparts. Recovered natural gas is either used as fuel for onsite equipment or transferred to the

natural gas sales line for conveyance to a gas plant for sale.

Crude Oil

Recovered crude oil is separated from the saline water component of the recovered fluids in the heater/treater

processing units and is transferred via underground flowlines to aboveground oil storage tanks. Crude oil is

temporarily stored in these on‐site containers prior to being transferred to the lease automatic custody transfer

(LACT) unit for conveyance to a refining process plant.

Saline Water  

Recovered saline water is similarly separated from the crude oil component of the recovered fluids in

heater/treater processing units and is transferred via an underground flowline(s) to an aboveground storage

tank(s). Recovered water is temporarily stored on‐site prior to being loaded into tanker trucks for transport and

disposal.

Low‐Pressure Natural Gas

In addition to the natural gas recovered from the wellhead fluids as described above, natural gas is also collected

and recovered from off‐gassing that occurs from the crude oil stored in the on‐site storage tanks. This natural gas is

collected in what is called a vent line from the oil and water storage tank(s) at the facility. The natural gas that

cannot be routed to a sales line, or if a sales line is not present, is routed to an enclosed combustion device capable

of a minimum DRE of 98%.

Recycle Pump Process

This facility also has a recycle pump(s) that is used to return fluid from the above ground oil and water storage

tanks to the heater/treater in the event the oil or water does not meet quality standards and needs additional

processing.

Upset Conditions

If a sales line for natural gas and crude oil are present at the facility, a condition known as an “upset” may occur in

which the produced and recoverable natural gas cannot be transferred to the natural gas sales line. In these

instances, the high‐pressure natural gas will be routed to a ground pit flare capable of 90% DRE.  

If a sales line for natural gas and crude oil are not present at the facility, a ground pit flare capable of 90% DRE will

be used for upset conditions (i.e. 98% DRE device incurs downtime).
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

5

Operating Schedule

This facility is designed to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 52 weeks a year.
Ene

Process Flow Diagram (typ.)
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

7

Type and Quantity of Fuels

The table below details the type and quantity of fuels for each individual piece of equipment, including sulfur content,

that are proposed to be used on a daily, annual and maximum hourly basis.

Equipment Fuel Type Sulfur

Content Max. Hourly Daily Annual

Heater Treater Burner Natural Gas N/A 490 scf/hour 11.76 Mscf/day 4.29 MMscf/year

Heater Treater Burner Natural Gas N/A 490 scf/hour 11.76 Mscf/day 4.29 MMscf/year

Recycle Pump Gasoline 30 ppm 0.8 gallons/hour 1.6 gallons/day 20 gallons/year

Recycle Pump Gasoline 30 ppm 0.8 gallons/hour 1.6 gallons/day 20 gallons/year

145 kW Generator Natural Gas N/A 485 scf/hour 11.64 Mscf/day 4.25 MMscf/year

145 kW Generator Natural Gas N/A 485 scf/hour 11.64 Mscf/day 4.25 MMscf/year

The heater treater burner fuel consumption was calculated using the equipment capacity of 500,000 British thermal

units (Btu), with an assumption of continuous operation using natural gas fuel and an average gross heating value of

approximately 1,020 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf) (AP‐42, Vol. I, Ch 1.4: Natural Gas

Combustion).

The recycle pump fuel consumption was calculated using the actual fuel tank size of 1.6 gallons with an assumed use of

one tank per month.

The generator(s) fuel consumption was calculated by converting the generator size in kilowatts (kW)  into Btu per hour,

with an assumption of continuous operation using natural gas fuel and an average gross heating value of approximately

1,020 Btu/scf (AP‐42, Vol. I, Ch 1.4: Natural Gas Combustion).

Engines listed above will meet the applicable emission standards in accordance with published regulatory standards. EPA

emission standard certification(s) of conformity and emission warranties for proposed engines are included in

Attachment G.  
Attachment A

Emission Units and Air Pollution‐Generating Activities
Facility Name Madrid/Rome

Emitting Unit: Emitting Unit:

Unit Type: Unit Type:

Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput: Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput:

Emitting Unit: Emitting Unit:

Unit Type: Unit Type:

Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput: Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput:

Emitting Unit: Emitting Unit:

Unit Type: Unit Type:

Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput: Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput:

400 bbl/each

Recycle Pump (x2)

Honda Brand or Equivalent

8 HP/each

Sivallis Brand or Equivalent

Truck 

500,000 Btu/each 145 kW (1

Newage UCI27

Gener

Oil is sold t

Oil/Condensate Tanks (x10)

Welded Steel

Heater Treater Burner(x2)
Attachment B

Proposed Emission Controls, Control Efficiencies, Emission Limits and Monitoring
Facility Name Madrid/Rome

Emission Control Type Emission Control Type

Efficiency: Efficiency:

Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput: Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput:

Size: Size:

Monitoring: Monitoring:

Emission Control Type

Efficiency:

Max Rated Design Capacity/Throughput:

Size:

Monitoring:

Note: Manufacturer specifications and guarantees are appended to this permit.

Emergency Flare

90%

Wellhead production (see Input page)

N/A

Continuous Spark Ignitor

Enclosed Smokeless Combustor 

80 mscf/d maximum throughput per unit 

Continuous Pilot Flame 

98% 

Size and quantity of combustor(s) will be 

selected based on volume of actual 

throughput.
Attachment C

Criteria Pollutant and GHG Emission Estimates
Facility:

Madrid/Rome

PTE SYN PTE SYN PTE SYN PTE SYN

Oil/Condensate Tanks 1,527.39 30.55 2.67 0.05 3.35 3.35 18.22 18.22 N/A N/A N/A Treater Flare 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 

Emergency Flare 580.54 58.05 N/A N/A 2.15 2.15 11.71 11.71 N/A N/A N/A 

Treater Burner 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.26 N/A N/A N/A 

RICE Engine 3.15 3.15 N/A N/A 4.24 4.24 7.73 7.73 N/A N/A N/A Truck Loading 0.00 0.00 N/A N/APneumatic Pump 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Pneumatic Controllers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Glycol Dehydrator 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Totals (TPY) 2,111.10 91.77 2.68 0.06 10.04 10.04 37.91 37.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 

PTE SYN PTE SYN PTE SYN PTE SYN

Oil/Condensate Tanks 27.19 6,564.98 76.90 1.54 0.05 0.00 1,810.68 6,600.65Treater Flare 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Treater Burner 365.25 365.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 365.76 365.76RICE Engine 330.00 330.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 330.00 330.00Totals (TPY) 722.45 7,260.23 76.91 1.55 0.05 0.00 2,506.45 7,296.41

PTE SYN PTE SYN PTE SYN PTE SYN

Oil/Condensate Tanks 1.44 0.03 0.57 0.01 0.44 0.01 0.00 0.00

Treater Flare 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Totals (TPY) 1.44 0.03 0.57 0.01 0.44 0.01 0.00 0.00

Notes:

aPb, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are not created from standard O&G production operations. b No sulfur has been detected in Enerplus wells at this time.

Emission Source

HAP Breakdown

Benzene Toluene Xylenes

CO2 CH4 N2O

Emission Source

2,2,4 Trimethylpentane

CO2e

 Green House Gases PTE (TPY)

Emission Summary

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

*PTE column reflects emissions without controls. SYN column reflects post-control emission limits requested under this synthetic minor permit.

Emission Source PTE (TPY)

NOx bH2SO4 bSO2 

bH2S VOC HAP CO
Attachment D

Criteria Pollutant and GHG Emission Supporting Documentation
GREEN = Requires input

RED = No input required. This is a calculated value.

Facility Information

Line 1 Madrid/Rome Name of the facility and the well number.

Line 2 1/19/2012 Submittal Date.

Production Data Description

Line 3 BOPD 2,750 Average daily production in barrels of oil per day (BOPD).

Line 4 Mscfd 2,063 Average daily production of gas in Mscf per day. Estimated gas production based on actual Bakken gas production from exLine 5 Decline Factor 0.46

Expected decline factor for the first year of operation. Decline factor calculated from Enerplus wells operating in the Bakken 

year of production data - see criteria pollutant emission supporting documentation.

Line 6 Adjusted BOPD 1265 This is the calculated BOPD expected to be produced using the above entered decline factor.

Line 7 Adjusted Treater Gas (Mscfd) 948.75 This is the calculated mcfd of gas the well is expected to produce using the above entered decline factor.

Oil/Condensate Tank Data Description

Line 8 1 EF scf/bbl calculation method.

Line 9 EF scf/bbl 97.91

The scf/bbl from direct measurement or representative sample. EF value of 97.91 scf/bbl calculated by the Bakken VOC task emission supporting documentation.

Line 10 Estimated Tank Vapors (scfd) 123856.15 This is the estimated scfd of tank vapors based on the following: adjusted BOPD multiplied by the scf/bbl entered on Line 9Line 11 Lower Heating Value 2,178.25 Lower heating value (Btu/scf) of tank vapors. Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary. Line 12 Molecular Weight 38.18 Molecular weight of the tank vapors in pounds per pound-mole (lb/lb-mole). Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summa

Line 13 VOC% 67.07% VOC weight fraction of the tank vapor gas (C3+). Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 14 HAP% 0.12% HAP weight fraction of the tank vapor gas. Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.Line 15 CO2% 0.53% CO2 mole fraction of the tank vapor gas. Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 16 CH4% 8.04% CH4 weight fraction of the tank vapor gas. Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 17 H2S weight % 0.000% H2S weight percent of the tank vapor gas. Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary. 

Line 18 H2S mole % 0.000% H2S mole percent of the tank vapor gas. Estimated from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary. 

Line 19 2 Use the drop down menu to choose the appropriate emission control type.

Line 20 Control Destruction Efficiency 98% Control efficiency of applied control technology.

Treater Gas Data Description

Line 21 Btu/scf 1,473.10 Btu/scf of well stream gas. 

Line 22 Molecular Weight 27.11 Average molecular weight of the well stream gas in lb/lb-mole from the Gas Analysis Worksheet.

Line 23 Specific Gravity N/A If necessary to convert specific gravity to molecular weight, enter the specific gravity of the well stream gas.

Line 24 Calculated Molecular Weight N/A

For this facility, the average molecular weight has been applied from the Gas Analysis Worksheet. If no molecular weight is 

gravity to get a calculated molecular weight. 

Line 25 VOC% 37.77%

VOC weight fraction of the well stream gas (Note: Weight%, not Mole%). Value from lab gas analysis report - see criteria po

documentation.

Line 26 HAP% 4.49%

HAP weight fraction of the well stream gas. (Note: Weight%, not Mole%). Value from lab gas analysis report - see criteria po

documentation.

Line 27 H2S weight % 0.000% H2S weight percent of the well stream gas. Value from lab gas analysis report - see criteria pollutant emission supporting do

Line 28 H2S mole % 0.000% H2S mole percent of the well stream gas. Value from lab gas analysis report - see criteria pollutant emission supporting doc

Line 29 4 Use the drop down menu to choose the appropriate emission control type.

Line 30 Control Destruction Efficiency 100% Control efficiency of applied control technology.
GREEN = Requires input

RED = No input required. This is a calculated value.

Facility Information

Line 1 Madrid/Rome Name of the facility and the well number.

Line 2 1/19/2012 Submittal Date.

Treater Burner(s) Description

Line 32 Total Btu/hr 1,000,000 Total burner rating for the heater treater burner(s) in btu/hr. If there are multiple burners, add the total heat input together.

Line 33 Hours of Operation 8,760 The burner(s) is/are assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.

Truck Loading Description

Line 34 2 1 Use the drop down menu to choose the appropriate oil sales method. If oil is sold through a LACT, no input values are requ

Line 35 3 0 Use the drop down list to choose the appropriate mode of operation. The saturation factor will automatically be selected ba

Line 36 Molecular Weight 0.00 Molecular weight of tank vapors in lb/lb-mole. From AP-42 refer to Table 2 on the Truck Loading tab.

Line 37 Vapor Pressure 0.00 True vapor pressure of liquid loaded, pounds per square inch absolute (psia). From AP-42, please refer to Table 2 on the TrLine 38 Temperature 0.00 Temperature of bulk liquid loaded in Fahrenheit. Estimated average annual temperature.Line 39 Load Rate (bbl/hr) 0 Load rate of liquid loaded in barrels per hour.Line 40 Load Time (hrs) 0.00 The time it takes to loadout one load (hrs).

Pneumatic Pumps Description

Line 41 Number of Pneumatic Pumps 0 Number of pneumatic pumps at facility.

Line 42 Hours of Operation 8,760 Hours the pump is in operation annually. Line 43 scf/min 0.50 Pneumatic source consumption rate as per manufacturer data (scf/min).Line 44 1 Use the drop down menu to choose the appropriate emission control type.Line 45 Control Efficiency 100% Control efficiency of applied control technology.

Pneumatic Controllers Description

Line 46 Number of Pneumatic Controllers 0 Number of pneumatic controllers at facility.

Line 47 Bleed rate (scf/hr) 0.00 Average bleed rate of device (scf/hr).

Glycol Dehydrator Description

Line 48 VOC (TPY) 0.00 VOC emissions calculated in GRI-GLYCalc software (if no glycol dehydrator enter 0). Not applicable to this facility.

Line 49 HAP (TPY) 0.00 HAP emissions calculated in GRI-GLYCalc software (if no glycol dehydrator enter 0). Not applicable to this facility.
scf/day

Btu/scflb/lb‐mole

HAP wt Fraction

CO2 mole Fraction

CH4 wt Fraction

Controlled emissions are calculated based on a destruction effic

VOC: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 lb‐mole/scf x 38.183 lb/lb‐mole x 67.07% = 348.72 lb/hr

348.72 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 1527.39 TPY

HAP: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 lb‐mole/scf x 38.183 lb/lb‐mole x 0.12% = 0.61 lb/hr

0.61 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 2.67 TPY

NOx: 5,161 scf/hr x 2,178 Btu/scf x 1E-06 MMBtu/ Btu x 0.068 lb/MMBtu = 0.76 lb/hr

0.76 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 3.35 TPY

Madrid/Rome

Oil/Condensate Tanks

Molecular Weight 38.18

VOC wt Fraction 67.07%

0.12%

Lower Heating Value 2178.25

Flare Gas Volume 123,856

98%

0.53%8.04%

AP‐42 Table 13.5‐1a
CO: 5,161 scf/hr x 2,178 Btu/scf x 1E-06 MMBtu/ Btu x 0.37 lb/MMBtu = 4.16 lb/hr

4.16 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 18.22 TPY

E&P Tank v2.0 Summaryb ∑(Yj * Rj)

cCO2: 5,161 scf/hr x + 0.98 x 5,161 scf/hr x 2.55 = 12907.64 

12907.64 scf/hr x 0.0026 lb‐mole/scf x 44.01 lb/lb‐mole = 1498.85 lb/hr

1498.85 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 6564.98 TPY

E&P Tank v2.0 Summaryb

CH4: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 lb‐mole/scf x 16.04 lb/lb‐mole x = 17.56 lb/hr

17.56 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 76.90 TPY

N2O: 5,161 scf/hr x 2.2 lb/MMscf x 1E-06 Mmscf/ scf = 0.01 lb/hr

0.01 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.05 TPY

Notes:aNOx & CO emission factors are from AP-42 Table 13.5-1, Emission Factors for Flare Operations. 1,527.39 VOC TPY UncontrolledbCO2 and CH4 percent weights are from E&P Tank v2.0 Calculation Report Emission Summary.c CO2 calculated from Subpart W, Eq. W-20 and W-21. 30.55 VOC TPY Controlled

2.67 HAP TPY Uncontrolled0.05 HAP TPY Controlled3.35 NOx TPY

18.22 CO TPY27.19 CO2 TPY Uncontrolled

6,564.98 CO2 TPY Controlled

76.90 CH4 TPY Uncontrolled

1.54 CH4 TPY Controlled0.05 N2O TPY Uncontrolled0.00 N2O TPY Controlled

AP‐42 Table 1.4‐2

TOTALS

AP‐42 Table 13.5‐1a

0.527%

8.04%
HAP: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 38.18 lb/lb‐mole x 0.12% = 0.61 lb/hr

0.61 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 2.67 TPY

Benzene: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 38.18 lb/lb‐mole x 0.06% = 0.33 lb/hr

0.33 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 1.44 TPY

Toluene: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 38.18 lb/lb‐mole x 0.03% = 0.13 lb/hr

0.13 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.57 TPY

Xylenes: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 38.18 lb/lb‐mole x 0.02% = 0.10 lb/hr

0.10 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.44 TPY

2,2,4 Trimethylpentane: 5,161 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 38.18 lb/lb‐mole x 0.00% = 0.00 lb/hr

0.00 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 TPY

Benzene 1.44 TPY Unco

Benzene 0.03 TPY Cont

Toluene 0.57 TPY UncoToluene 0.01 TPY Cont

Xylenes 0.44 TPY UncoXylenes 0.01 TPY Cont

2,2,4 Trimethylpentane 0.00 TPY Unco2,2,4 Trimethylpentane 0.00 TPY Cont

TOTALS

Oil/Condensate Tanks 

HAP Emission Breakdown

Madrid/Rome
scfd

Btu/scflb/lb‐mole

HAP wt fraction

Controlled emissions are calculated based on a destruction efficiency of the VOC gas.

VOC: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.0026 lb‐mole/scf x 27.11 lb/lb-mole x 37.77% = 1068.19 lb/hr

1068.19 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 4678.67 TPY Uncontrolled

HAP: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.0026 lb‐mole/scf x 27.11 lb/lb-mole x 4.49% = 127.00 lb/hr

127.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 556.28 TPY Uncontrolled

H2S: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.0026 lb‐mole/scf x 27.11 lb/lb-mole x 0.00% = 0.00 lb/hr

0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 TPY Uncontrolled

SO2: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.0026 lb‐mole/scf x 27.11 lb/lb-mole x 0.00% = 0.00 lb/hr

0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 TPY Uncontrolled

NOx: 39,531 scf/hr x 1,473 Btu/scf x 0.000001 Mmbtu/ Btu x 0.068 lb/MMBtu = 3.96 lb/hr

3.96 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 17.34 TPY

CO: 39,531 scf/hr x 1,473 Btu/scf x 0.000001 Mmbtu/ Btu x 0.370 lb/MMBtu = 21.55 lb/hr

21.55 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 94.37 TPY

∑(Yj * Rj)

dCO2: 39,531 scf/hr x + 0.98 x 39,531 scf/hr x 1.56 = 60,620 scf/hr

60,620 scf/hr x 0.0026385 scf/lb‐mole x 44.01 lb/lb‐mole = 7,039 lb/hr

7,039 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 30,832 TPY

Madrid/Rome

Treater Flare

Flare Gas Volume 948,750

37.77%

Lower Heating Value 1473.1

100%

Avg. Molecular Weight 27.11

VOC wt fraction

0.440%

4.49%

AP‐42 Table 13.5‐1aAP‐42 Table 13.5‐1a

Treater Gas Analysis

Summaryb
CH4: 39,531 scf/hr x 1473.1 Btu/scf x 0.000001 Mmbtu/ Btu x 0.0010 kg/MMBtu = 0.06 kg/hr

0.06 kg/hr x 2.2046 lbs/kg x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.56 TPY

N2O: 39,531 scf/hr x 1473.1 Btu/scf x 0.000001 Mmbtu/ Btu x 0.0001 kg/MMBtu = 0.01 kg/hr

0.01 kg/hr x 2.2046 lbs/kg x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.06 TPY

Notes: NOTE: No emissions because source is routed directly to sales line.

H2S and SO2 emissions are not typical for wells in the Bakken formation and are 0.00 VOC TPY

therefore not calculated herein.

aNOx & CO emission factors are from AP-42 Table 13.5-1, Emission Factors for Flare Operations. 0.00 VOC TPY ControlledbCO2 percent weight is from Treater Gas Analysis.

0.00 HAP TPY Uncontrolled

d CO2 calculated from Subpart W, Eq. W-20 and W-21. 0.00 HAP TPY Controlled

0.00 H2S TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 H2S TPY Controlled0.00 SO2 TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 NOx TPY

0.00 CO TPY0.00 CO2 TPY Uncontrolled0.00 CO2 TPY Controlled0.00 CH4 TPY Uncontrolled0.00 CH4 TPY Controlled0.00 N2O TPY Uncontrolled0.00 N2O TPY Controlled

Uncontrolled

Subpart C, Table C‐2c

TOTALS

cCH4 and N2O emission factors are from Subpart C, Table C-2 - Default CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Various 

Types of Fuel.

Subpart C, Table C‐2c
HAP 39,531 scf/hr x 0.002638522 lb‐mole/scf x 27.11 lb/lb-mole x 4.49% = 127.00 lb/hr

127.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 556.28 TPY Uncontrolled

Benzene: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 27.11 lb/lb‐mole x 1.27% = 35.89 lb/hr

35.89 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 157.19 TPY

Toluene: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 27.11 lb/lb‐mole x 1.50% = 42.33 lb/hr

42.33 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 185.43 TPY

Xylenes: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 27.11 lb/lb‐mole x 1.72% = 48.78 lb/hr

48.78 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 213.66 TPY

2,2,4 Trimethylpentane: 39,531 scf/hr x 0.002638522 scf/lb‐mole x 27.11 lb/lb‐mole x 0.00% = 0.00 lb/hr

0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 TPY

Benzene 0.00 TPY UncontrolledBenzene 0.00 TPY Controlled

Toluene 0.00 TPY UncontrolledToluene 0.00 TPY Controlled

Xylenes 0.00 TPY UncontrolledXylenes 0.00 TPY Controlled

2,2,4 Trimethylpentane 0.00 TPY Uncontrolled

2,2,4 Trimethylpentane 0.00 TPY Controlled

TOTALS

Treater Flare

HAP Emission Breakdown

Madrid/Rome
1,000,000 Btu/hr

AP-42 Table 

1.4-1

EFa

(lb/MMscf)

Avg. Gas Heating Value (Btu/scf)

Avg. Gas Heating Value (Btu/scf)

Sample Gas Heating Value (Btu/scf)

NOx: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 100.00 / 1020 x 1020 / 1439 = 0.07 lb/hr

0.07 lb/hr x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 0.30 TPY

AP-42 Table 

1.4-1

EFa

(lb/MMscf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Sample 

Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

CO: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 84.00 / 1020 x 1020 / 1439 = 0.06 lb/hr

0.06 lb/hr x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 0.26 TPY

AP-42 Table 

1.4-1

EFa

(lb/MMscf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Sample 

Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

VOC: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 5.50 / 1020 x 1020 / 1439 = 0.004 lb/hr

0.004 lb/hr x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 0.02 TPY

AP-42 Table 

1.4-1

EFa

(lb/MMscf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Sample 

Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

PM 10: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 7.60 / 1020 x 1020 / 1439 = 0.01 lb/hr

0.01 lb/hr x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 0.02 TPY

Madrid/Rome

Heater Treater Burner

Burner Rating
Madrid/Rome

Heater Treater Burner

AP-42 Table 

1.4-2

EFb

(lb/MMscf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Avg. Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

Sample 

Gas 

Heating 

Value 

(Btu/scf)

CO2: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 120,000 / 1020 x 1020 / 1439 = 83.39 lb/hr

83.39 lb/hr x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 365.25 TPY

Subpart Cc

(kg/MMBtu)

CH4: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 0.001 = 0.00 kg/hr

lb/kg

0.00 kg/hr x 2.205 x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 0.01 TPY

Subpart Cc

(kg/MMBtu)

N2O: 1.000 MMBtu/hr x 0.0001 = 0.0001 kg/hr

lb/kg

0.0001 kg/hr x 2.205 x 0.0005 ton/lb x 8760 hr/yr = 0.001 TPY

HAPs: 1.89 lb/MMscf / 1,020 Btu/scf x 1 MMBtu/hr = 0.002 lb/hr

0.002 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.008 TPY

Notes:

0.02 VOC TPY

bCO2 emission factor from AP-42 Table 1.4-2, Emission Factors for criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gases from Natural Gas Combustion. 0.30 NOx TPYcCH4 and N2O emission factors are from Subpart C, Table C-2,- Default CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Various Types of Fuel.

0.26 CO TPY

365.25 CO2 TPY

0.01 CH4 TPY

0.001 N2O TPY

0.01 HAPs TPY

TOTALS

AP-42 Table 1.4-1

EFa Avg. Gas Heating Value 

aNOx, CO, VOC, PM10 emission factors are from AP-42 Table 1.4-1,Emission Factors for Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases 

from Natural Gas Combustion.
MMscf/day

hrs/year

Btu/scf

lb/lb‐mole

VOC Wt. Fraction 0.38 lb/Mmbtu

a

CO Emission Factor lb/Mmbtu

a

NOx Emission Factor lb/Mmbtu Controlled emissions are calculated based on a

90% destruction efficiency of the VOC gas.

b

VOC: 2,062,500 scf/day x 0.0026 lb‐mole/scf x 27.11 lb/lb‐mole x 0.38 = 55,732 lb/day

 55,732 lb/day x 0.0005 ton/lb x 21 days/year = 580.54 TPY

c

CO: 2.06 MMscf/day x 1,473 Btu/scf x 0.37 lb/Mmbtu = 1124.16 lb/day

1124.16 lb/day x 21 days/year x 0.0005 ton/lb = 11.71 TPY

c

NOx: 2.06 MMscf/day x 1,473 Btu/scf x 0.068 lb/MMbtu = 206.60 lb/day

206.60 lb/hr x 21 days/year x 0.0005 ton/lb = 2.15 TPY

Notes:

Emergency flaring is assumed at 500 hours/year. 580.54 VOC TPY Pre‐Flare

58.05 d

VOC TPY Post Flare

11.71 CO TPY Post Flare

2.15 NOx TPY Post Flare

d

Emergency flaring for VOC emissions [controlled at 90% DRE] (ton/year) = Total Gas Production (scf/hr) * (1 lbmol/379 scf) * Gas MW (lb/lb-mole) * VOC Weight Fraction * DRE (0.10) * 1 ton/2000 lb * 21 day/yr

AP‐42 Table 13.5‐1

a

AP‐42 Table 13.5‐1

a

a

Emission factors for CO and NOx taken from AP-42, Table 13.5-1 (1/95).

b

Emergency flaring for VOC emissions [uncontrolled] (ton/year) = Total Gas Production (scf/hr) * (1 lb-mol/379 scf) * 

Gas MW (lb/lb-mole) * VOC Weight Fraction * 1 ton/2000 lb * 21 day/yr

c

Emergency flaring for CO and NOx emissions [product of VOC combustion] (ton/year) = Total Gas Production (scf/hr) 

* Gas Sample Heating Value (Btu/scf) *(1MMBtu/1,000,000 Btu)* Emission Factor (lb/MMBtu) * 1 ton/2000 lb * 21 

day/yr

TOTALS

0.068

Madrid/Rome

Emergency Flare of Production

Total Gas Production 2.06

Annual Operating Hours 500

Gas Sample Heating Value 1,473.10

Total Gas Production 27.11

0.37
Saturation Vapor Molecular Temp + Load Loss

Factor (S) Pressure (P) Weight (MW) 460 lb/1000 gal

12.46 x 0.00 x 0.00 x 0.00 / 460.00 = 0.00

LL Truck Load Load Time

lb/1,000 gal Rate bbl/hr hrs gal/bbl Emissions lb/hr

0.00 x 0.00 / 0.00 x 42.00 = 0.00

LL Annual Emissions

lb/1,000 gal bbl/yr gal/bbl lb/ton TPY VOC C3+ VOC

0.00 x 461725.00 x 42.00 / 2000.00 = 0.00 0.00

VOC

Emissions

Uncontrolled Control % TPY

0.00 100.00% 0.00 0.00

S Factor

Petroleum Vapor MW

Liquid at 60F

Mv(lb/lb-mole)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Crude Oil

RVP 5

(EPA AP-42 Values) Table 2 below may be used to provide the vapor pressure and molecular weight values for the above equation.

True Vapor Pressure, Pva (psi) at various temperatures in F

Submerged loading: dedicated normal service

1.8 5.7

Condensed Liquid

50 4.5 7.1 2.3 2.8 3.4 4 4.8

Vapor Density Density

Wvc(lb/gal W1(lb/gal)

at 60F at 60F

1.00

Madrid/Rome

Truck Loadout Emission Calculation

(EPA AP-42 Values) Table 1 below is required to supply the saturation factor variable in the above equation.

Cargo Carrier Mode of Operation

0.60

Submerged loading: dedicated vapor balance service

Tank Trucks and Rail Tank Cars Submerged loading of a clean cargo tank 0.50
Where:

PSCR = Pneumatic Source Consumption Rate (scf/min), as per manufacturers literature

Gas MW = Supply Gas Average Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole)

Supply Gas MW VOC wt fraction

0.50 scfm/min x 60 min/hr x 0.003 scf/lb-mole x 27.11 x 37.77% = 0.81 lb/hr VOC Uncontrolled

lbs/hr Hours lbs/ton

0.81 x 8760 x 2000 = 0.00 TPY VOC Uncontrolled 

Supply Gas MW HAP wt fraction

0.50 scfm/min x 60 min/hr x 0.003 scf/lb-mole x 27.11 x 4.49% = 0.10 lb/hr HAP Uncontrolled

lbs/hr Hours lbs/ton

0.10 x 8760 x 2000 = 0.00 TPY HAP Uncontrolled

100%

0

0.00 TPY VOC

0.00 TPY HAP

TOTALS

Control Efficiency

Number of Pumps

Madrid/Rome

Emissions from Pneumatic Pumps

Emissions (lb/hr) = PSCR (scf/min) x (60 min/1hr) x (1/379 scf/lb-mole) x (VOC wt. Fraction)

Emissions (TPY) = (lb/hr VOC) x (8760 hr/yr) x (1 ton/2000)
Where:

PSCR = Pneumatic Source Consumption Rate (scf/min), as per manufacturers literature

Gas MW = Supply Gas Average Molecular Weight (lb/lb-mole)

Supply Gas MW VOC wt fraction

0.00 scf/hr x 60 min/hr x 0.00263852 scf/lb-mole x 27.11 x 37.77% = 0.00 lb/hr VOC

lbs/hr Hours lbs/ton

0.00 x 8760 x 2000 = 0.00 TPY VOC

Supply Gas MW HAP wt fraction

0.00 scf/hr x 60 min/hr x 0.00263852 scf/lb-mole x 27.11 x 4.49% = 0.00 lb/hr HAP

lbs/hr Hours lbs/ton

0.00 x 8760 x 2000 = 0.0 TPY HAP

0.00 TPY VOC

0.00 TPY HAP

TOTALS

Emissions (lb/hr) = PSCR (scf/hr) x (1/379 scf/lb-mole) x (VOC wt. Fraction)

Emissions (TPY) = (lb/hr VOC) x (8760 hr/yr) x (1 ton/2000)

Madrid/Rome

Emissions from Pneumatic Controllers
Line 1 Number of Engines 4

RICE Engine #1

Line 2 Hours of Operation 8,760Line 3 Maximum HP Rating 194Line 4 NOx g/hp-hr 1Line 5 CO g/hp-hr 2Line 6 VOC g/hp-hr 0.7Line 7 N2O kg/mmBtu 0.0001Line 8 CO2 lb/106 scf 120,000Line 9 CH4 kg/mmBtu 0.001Line 10 NOx Control Efficiency 0%Line 11 CO Control Efficiency 0%Line 12 VOC Control Efficiency 0%

RICE Engine #2

Line 13 Hours of Operation 8,760Line 14 Maximum HP Rating 194Line 15 NOx g/hp-hr 1Line 16 CO g/hp-hr 2Line 17 VOC g/hp-hr 0.7Line 18 N2O kg/mmBtu 0.0001Line 19 CO2 lb/106 scf 120,000Line 20 CH4 kg/mmBtu 0.001Line 21 NOx Control Efficiency 0%Line 22 CO Control Efficiency 0%Line 23 VOC Control Efficiency 0%

RICE Engine #3

Line 24 Hours of Operation 8,760Line 25 Maximum HP Rating 8Line 26 NOx lb/hp-hr 0.011Line 27 CO lb/hp-hr 0.007Line 28 VOC lb/hp-hr 0.015Line 29 N2O kg/mmBtu 0.0006Line 30 CO2 lb/hp-hr 1.08Line 31 CH4 kg/mmBtu 0.003Line 32 NOx Control Efficiency 0%Line 33 CO Control Efficiency 0%Line 34 VOC Control Efficiency 0%

CO control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.VOC control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for carbon monoxide (CO).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for CO2.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for CH4.

Manufacturer's maximum hp rating.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in pounds per horsepower hour (lb/hp-hr) for nitrogen oxides (NOx).NOx control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.CO control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.VOC control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.

Description

Engine is assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for total organic compounds (TOC or THC).NOx control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for N2O.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for CO2.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for CH4.

RICE Input Data

Manufacturer's maximum hp rating.

Description

Manufacturer's maximum hp rating.Enter the number of engines that will be installed at the production facility.

Description

Engine is assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for CO2.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for CH4.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for carbon monoxide (CO).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for total organic compounds (TOC or THC).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for N2O.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in pounds per horsepower hour (lb/hp-hr) for nitrogen oxides (NOx).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in pounds per horsepower hour (lb/hp-hr) for nitrogen oxides (NOx).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for carbon monoxide (CO).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for total organic compounds (TOC or THC).NOx control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.Engine is assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.VOC control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for N2O.CO control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.
RICE Input Data

RICE Engine #4

Line 35 Hours of Operation 8,760Line 36 Maximum HP Rating 8Line 37 NOx lb/hp-hr 0.011Line 38 CO lb/hp-hr 0.007Line 39 VOC lb/hp-hr 0.015Line 40 N2O kg/mmBtu 0.0006Line 41 CO2 lb/hp-hr 1.08Line 42 CH4 kg/mmBtu 0.003Line 43 NOx Control Efficiency 0%Line 44 CO Control Efficiency 0%Line 45 VOC Control Efficiency 0%

RICE Engine #5

Line 46 Hours of Operation 0Line 47 Maximum HP Rating 8Line 48 NOx lb/hp-hr 0.011Line 49 CO lb/hp-hr 0.007Line 50 VOC lb/hp-hr 0.015Line 51 N2O kg/mmBtu 0.0006Line 52 CO2 lb/hp-hr 1.08Line 53 CH4 kg/mmBtu 0.003Line 54 NOx Control Efficiency 0%Line 55 CO Control Efficiency 0%Line 56 VOC Control Efficiency 0% VOC control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.

NOx control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.CO control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.VOC control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.

Description

CO control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for CH4.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for N2O.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for CO2.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in pounds per horsepower hour (lb/hp-hr) for nitrogen oxides (NOx).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for carbon monoxide (CO).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for total organic compounds (TOC or THC).NOx control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc) obtained from manufacturer data or actual test results.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in pounds per horsepower hour (lb/hp-hr) for nitrogen oxides (NOx).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for carbon monoxide (CO).Engine is assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.Manufacturer's maximum hp rating.Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for CH4.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or Subpart C factor in kg/mmBtu for N2O.

Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for total organic compounds (TOC or THC).Manufacturer's emission factor, actual test results or AP-42 factor in lb/hp-hr for CO2.

Description

Engine is assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.Manufacturer's maximum hp rating.
ENGINE #1

194 MAX HP 0% NOx DRE 0% CO DRE 0% VOC DRE

NOx: 1.00 g/HP-HR x 194 HP x 0 lb / grams = 0.43 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0 ton/lb = 1.87 NOx TPY Uncontrolled

1.87 NOx TPY Controlled

CO: 2.00 g/HP-HR x 194 HP x 0 lb / grams = 0.86 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0 ton/lb = 3.75 CO TPY Uncontrolled

3.75 CO TPY Controlled

VOC: 0.70 g/HP-HR x 194 HP x 0 lb / grams = 0.30 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0 ton/lb = 1.31 VOC TPY Uncontrolled

1.31 VOC TPY Controlled

N2O: 1.00E-04 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 194 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CO2: 120,000 lb/106 scf x 194 HP / 1020 Btu/scf x 2544 Btu/HP-hr = 58.06 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CH4: 1.00E-03 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 194 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

ENGINE #2

194 MAX HP 0% NOx DRE 0% CO DRE 0% VOC DRE

NOx: 1.00 g/HP-HR x 194 HP x 0 lb / grams = 0.43 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0 ton/lb = 1.87 NOx TPY Uncontrolled

1.87 NOx TPY Controlled

CO: 2.00 g/HP-HR x 194 HP x 0 lb / grams = 0.86 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0 ton/lb = 3.75 CO TPY Uncontrolled

3.74 CO TPY Controlled

VOC: 0.70 g/HP-HR x 194 HP x 0 lb / grams = 0.30 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0 ton/lb = 1.31 VOC TPY Uncontrolled

1.31 VOC TPY Controlled

N2O: 1.00E-04 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 194 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CO2: 120,000 lb/106 scf x 194 HP / 1020 Btu/scf x 2544 Btu/HP-hr = 58.06 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CH4: 1.00E-03 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 194 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

Madrid/Rome

Reciprocating Engine Emissions 

Subpart C, Table C-2bSubpart C, Table C-2b

AP-42, Table 1.4-2a

Subpart C, Table C-2b

AP-42, Table 1.4-2a

Subpart C, Table C-2b

Avg. Heating 

Value
Madrid/Rome

Reciprocating Engine Emissions 

ENGINE #3

8 MAX HP 0% NOx DRE 0% CO DRE 0% VOC DRE

NOx: 0.011 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.09 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.39 NOx TPY Uncontrolled

0.39 NOx TPY Controlled

CO: 0.007 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 CO TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 CO TPY Controlled

VOC: 0.015 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 VOC TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 VOC TPY Controlled

N2O: 6.00E-04 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 8 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 4.15873E-12 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CO2: 1.08 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 8.64 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 37.84 CO2 TPY Uncontrolled

CH4: 3.00E-03 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 8 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

ENGINE #4

8 MAX HP 0% NOx DRE 0% CO DRE 0% VOC DRE

NOx: 0.003 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.02 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.11 NOx TPY Uncontrolled

0.11 NOx TPY Controlled

CO: 0.007 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.06 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.25 CO TPY Uncontrolled

0.25 CO TPY Controlled

VOC: 0.015 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.12 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.53 VOC TPY Uncontrolled

0.53 VOC TPY Controlled

N2O: 6.00E-04 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 8 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CO2: 1.08 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 8.64 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 37.84 CO2 TPY Uncontrolled

CH4: 3.00E-03 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 8 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 8760 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

Subpart C, Table C-2b

Subpart C, Table C-2bSubpart C, Table C-2bSubpart C, Table C-2b

AP-42, Table 3.3-1aAP-42, Table 3.3-1a
Madrid/Rome

Reciprocating Engine Emissions 

ENGINE #5

8 MAX HP 0% NOx DRE 0% CO DRE 0% VOC DRE

NOx: 0.011 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.09 lb/hr x 0 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 NOx TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 NOx TPY Controlled

CO: 0.007 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.06 lb/hr x 0 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 CO TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 CO TPY Controlled

VOC: 0.015 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 0.12 lb/hr x 0 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 VOC TPY Uncontrolled

0.00 VOC TPY Controlled

N2O: 6.00E-04 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 8 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 0 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

CO2: 1.08 lb/HP-HR x 8 HP = 8.64 lb/hr x 0 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 0.00 CO2 TPY Uncontrolled

CH4: 3.00E-03 kg/mmBtu x 3.93E-07

g-mmBtu/kghp-hr x 8 HP x 0.0022046 lb / grams = 0.00 lb/hr x 0 hr/yr x 0.0005 ton/lb = 

Notes:aCO2 emission factor from AP-42 Table 1.4-2, Emissino Factors fr Criteria Pollutants and Greenhouse Gases from Natural Gas Combustion. 4.24 b CH4 and N2O Subpart C, Table C-2 - Default CH4 and N2O Emission Factors for Various Types of Fuel.

4.24 7.74 7.73 3.15 3.15 0.00 

330.00 

0.00 

TOTALS

AP-42, Table 3.3-1a

Subpart C, Table C-2bSubpart C, Table C-2b
Gas Analysis

Mole

Percent

Mole

Fraction

Molecular

Weight

MW

Component Wt Fraction

VOC Wt.

Fraction

HAP Wt.

Fraction

VOC Component

MW

Oxygen 0.0000 0.000 32 0 0Nitrogen 0.4169 0.004 28.01 0.11677369 0.003042659Carbon Dioxide 0.5269 0.005 44.01 0.23188869 0.0060421H2S 0.0000 0.000 34.08 0 0Methane 19.2347 0.192 16.04 3.08524588 0.080389272Ethane 30.6072 0.306 30.07 9.20358504 0.239808927Propane 30.0923 0.301 44.097 13.26980153 0.345758403 0.345758403 4.588145383i‐Butane 3.4974 0.035 58.12 2.03268888 0.052963811 0.052963811 0.10765895

n‐Butane 9.7930 0.098 58.12 5.6916916 0.148302911 0.148302911 0.844094433

i‐Pentane 1.7106 0.017 72.15 1.2341979 0.032158303 0.032158303 0.03968971

n‐Pentane 2.1712 0.022 72.15 1.5665208 0.04081732 0.04081732 0.06394118

Hexanes+ 1.8976 0.019 100.2 1.9013952 0.049542818 0.049542818 0.094200477Benzene 0.0310 0.000 78.11 0.0242141 0.000630923 0.000630923 0.000630923 1.52772E‐05 

Toluene 0.0105 0.000 92.14 0.0096747 0.000252084 0.000252084 0.000252084 2.43884E‐06 

Ethylbenzene 0.0035 0.000 106.17 0.00371595 9.68229E‐05 9.68229E‐05 9.68229E‐05 3.59789E‐07 

Xylenes 0.0070 0.000 106.17 0.0074319 0.000193646 0.000193646 0.000193646 1.43916E‐06 

224 Trimethylpentane 0.0000 0.000Total 100.00 1.00 38.38 0.6707 0.0012 5.74 

VOC Weight % 14.95

HAP Weight % 

Notes:Bold items are considered volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Pressure input for E&P Tank for the flash valve option is based on a corresponding elevation of 2,170 ft. above mean sea level.

Temperature input for E&P Tank for the flash valve option is based on an average temperature of 54OF for the month of May corresponding to the date the oil separator sample was collected referenced be

(Reference: http://www.weatherreports.com/United_States/ND/Mandaree).

Mole percentages input in E&P Tank are based on the oil separator analysis from the Leghorn Melodee facility collected on 05/30/2007, as analyzed by PENCOR of Broussard, Louisiana.

E&P Gas Analysis Worksheet













Gas Analysis

Mole

Percent

Mole

Fraction

Molecular

Weight

MW

Component Wt Fraction

VOC

Component

MW

Oxygen 0.000 0.000 32 0 0

Nitrogen 6.829 0.068 28.01 1.9128029 0.070549836Carbon Dioxide 0.440 0.004 44.01 0.193644 0.007142164

H2S 0.000 0.000 34.08 0 0

Methane 53.554 0.536 16.04 8.5900616 0.316826913Ethane 20.536 0.205 30.07 6.1751752 0.227758751Propane 10.970 0.110 44.097 4.8374409 0.178419148 0.863092082i‐Butane 1.305 0.013 58.12 0.758466 0.027974472 0.021217686

n‐Butane 2.392 0.024 58.12 1.3902304 0.051275815 0.071285196

i‐Pentane 0.524 0.005 72.15 0.378066 0.013944194 0.005271826

n‐Pentane 1.688 0.017 72.15 1.217892 0.044919464 0.054707056

Hexanes+1 0.441 0.004 100.2 0.441381 0.016279439 0.007185435

Benzene1 0.441 0.004 78.11 0.34407455 0.012690488 0.004366474 Toluene1 0.441 0.004 92.14 0.4058767 0.014969935 0.006075948 Xylenes1 0.441 0.004 106.17 0.46767885 0.017249381 0.008067171 2,2,4 Trimethylpentane 0.000 0.000 114.23 0 0 0 Total 100.00 1.00 27.11 1.04 VOC Weight Fraction 0.3777HAP Weight Fraction 0.0449

VOC Weight % 3.84

HAP Weight % 

Notes:Bold items are considered volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Mole percentages are based on the gas analysis report from the Ethan Hall 6B‐31‐30‐1H facility, dated 02/14/2011, as analyzed by Sathe Analytical Laboratory, Inc. o

of Williston, North Dakota.

1Mole percentages for Hexanes+, benzene, toluene and xylenes are of equal value based on a Hexanes+ result of 1.762 as no extended gas analys is available.

Treater Gas Analysis Worksheet

Decline Factor Supporting Documentation
The Basis for the 0.6 Factor and How it Relates to 80% Decline in Production for the First Year

The first year daily production rates are represented by the jagged line in BOX 1. The area under the line

represents the total actual production volume for the first year. It is difficult to calculate the total volume

under the jagged line so it is smoothed out in BOX 2 using statistical methods.

BOX 1                   BOX 2

          

BOX 3                   BOX 4   

The smoothed curve is straightened out in BOX 3, and then leveled out in BOX 4. Now the production for the

first year is represented by the area under the line in BOX 4 which is easily calculated. Production curves from

a large sampling of wells indicate the average well declines by 80% during the first year. That 80% decline is

represented by the level line in BOX 4 after the first 30‐day average production rate is multiplied by 0.6.

Example:  For the first month the well makes an average 3.333 MMCFD.  With 80% decline during the first

year, the well will make 0.667 MMCFD at the end of the first year (3.333 – 0.8(3.333) = 0.667).    Then the

average daily production rate over 365 days is (3.33 + 0.667)/2 = 2.0 MMCFD which is the same as 3.333 x 0.6

= 2.0 MMCFD.

Start Up                    365 Days

MMCFD

Actual production during the first year is

represented by the area under the jagged line

which ultimately turns out to be ~730 MMCF.

Start Up                    365 Days

The jagged line representing daily production is

“smoothed” out using statistical methods.

Start Up                    365 Days

Start Up                    365 Days

2 MMCFD

Leveled” out, projected daily gas production

rate vs. time

Total projected production for the first year is

represented by the area under the straight line  

2 MMCFD x 365 days = 730 MMCF

The “smoothed” curve in BOX 2 is “straightened” out

using mathematical methods.
Decline Over First 12 Months = (1 ‐ 12th Month of Production) / (1st Month of Production)

Decline Factor (facility‐specific) = Average Production Over 12 Month Period / 1st Month of Production

  5. Average the decline factors from each specific facility to obtain a representative decline factor for the formation.

Representative Decline Factor for

the Formation= 0.459026

Burr

Prod_Month BOPD

Mar‐09 6238

Apr‐09 4092

May‐09 4104

Jun‐09 3552

Jul‐09 3324

Aug‐09 2854

Sep‐09 2593

Oct‐09 2414

Nov‐09 2162

Dec‐09 2151

Jan‐10 2053

Feb‐10 1775

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.715454

First Month's Production 6238

Last Month's Production 1775

Average BOPD 3109.333

Decline factor 0.49845

Four Bears

Dec‐08 7473

Jan‐09 3645

Feb‐09 3873

Mar‐09 4167

Apr‐09 3148

May‐09 3490

Jun‐09 2820

Jul‐09 2737

Aug‐09 2444

Sep‐09 2291

Oct‐09 1778

Nov‐09 2495

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.666131

First Month's Production 7473

Last Month's Production 2495

Average BOPD 3363.417

Decline factor 0.450076

Fredericks 5

Oct‐08 11838

Nov‐08 4545

Dec‐08 5793

Jan‐09 5012

Feb‐09 3909

Mar‐09 3706

Apr‐09 3573

May‐09 3334

Jun‐09 3042

Jul‐09 2886

Aug‐09 2762

Sep‐09 2465

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.791772

First Month's Production 11838

Last Month's Production 2465

Average BOPD 4405.417

Decline factor 0.372142

The decline factor was determined by following the method described in Appendix E of the North Dakota Air Pollution Control Permitting

& Compliance Guidance. The following steps outline the calculations used to determine the decline factor:

  1. For each month of the first 12 months of production, sum the production data to calculate a monthly total.

  2. Calculate a decline in production over the first 12 months by applying the following formula:

SUMMARY

  3. Calculate an average of the production data over the 12 month period.

  4. Calculate the decline factor for that facility by applying the following formula:

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Decline Factor Calculation

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Feb‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09 Dec‐09 Jan‐10

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Sep‐08 Dec‐08 Mar‐09 Jul‐09 Oct‐09 Jan‐10

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Sep‐08 Oct‐08 Dec‐08 Feb‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Decline Factor Calculation

Fredericks 6

Mar‐09 6852.7

Apr‐09 4388

May‐09 5106

Jun‐09 4388

Jul‐09 3549

Aug‐09 3073

Sep‐09 2812

Oct‐09 2570

Nov‐09 2318

Dec‐09 1735

Jan‐10 2307

Feb‐10 1739

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.746231

First Month's Production 6852.7

Last Month's Production 1739

Average BOPD 3403.142

Decline factor 0.496613

Tekakwitha

May‐08 12498

Jun‐08 6761

Jul‐08 6635

Aug‐08 7139

Sep‐08 5283

Oct‐08 4743

Nov‐08 3854

Dec‐08 4039

Jan‐09 3649

Feb‐09 2938

Mar‐09 3614

Apr‐09 2964

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.762842

First Month's Production 12498

Last Month's Production 2964

Average BOPD 5343.083

Decline factor 0.427515

Voigt 11

Aug‐08 8107.6

Sep‐08 4929

Oct‐08 3423

Nov‐08 6889

Dec‐08 4670

Jan‐09 3979

Feb‐09 3129

Mar‐09 3220

Apr‐09 2823

May‐09 2857

Jun‐09 2562

Jul‐09 2464

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.696088

First Month's Production 8107.6

Last Month's Production 2464

Average BOPD 4087.717

Decline factor 0.504183

Voigt 21

Jul‐08 16424

Aug‐08 4804

Sep‐08 8111

Oct‐08 7384

Nov‐08 5169

Dec‐08 5160

Jan‐09 4610

Feb‐09 3619

Mar‐09 3903

Apr‐09 3336

May‐09 3419

Jun‐09 3120

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.810034

First Month's Production 16424

Last Month's Production 3120

Average BOPD 5754.917

Decline factor 0.350397

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

Feb‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09 Dec‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

Apr‐08 Jun‐08 Jul‐08 Sep‐08 Oct‐08 Dec‐08 Feb‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Jun‐08 Jul‐08 Sep‐08 Oct‐08 Dec‐08 Feb‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Jun‐08 Jul‐08 Sep‐08 Oct‐08 Dec‐08 Feb‐09 Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Decline Factor Calculation

Woman Creek

May‐09 6123

Jun‐09 4204

Jul‐09 4558

Aug‐09 3452

Sep‐09 3379

Oct‐09 3092

Nov‐09 2572

Dec‐09 2494

Jan‐10 2296

Feb‐10 1949

Mar‐10 2030

Apr‐10 1810

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.704393

First Month's Production 6123

Last Month's Production 1810

Average BOPD 3163.25

Decline factor 0.516618

TSB

Jul‐09 17132.67

Aug‐09 13068.9

Sep‐09 10498.9

Oct‐09 7647.33

Nov‐09 9522.55

Dec‐09 7606.9

Jan‐10 4596.83

Feb‐10 8671.98

Mar‐10 7834.86

Apr‐10 6425.9

May‐10 6638.86

Jun‐10 6283.47

Decline over the first 12‐months 0.633246

First Month's Production 17132.67

Last Month's Production 6283.47

Average BOPD 8827.429

Decline factor 0.51524

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Mar‐09 May‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09 Dec‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

May‐09 Jul‐09 Aug‐09 Oct‐09 Dec‐09 Jan‐10 Mar‐10 May‐10 Jun‐10
Enerplus Resources (USA) Emission Calculator Supporting Documentation
i

Table of Contents 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................1

Unique Issues with Bakken Pool VOCs.......................................................................................................... 1

Potential to Emit ...........................................................................................................................................1

Emission Factors ...........................................................................................................................................1

Regulated Air Pollutant Sources ................................................................................................................... 2

Emission Calculation .....................................................................................................................................2

Emission Calculation Procedure.................................................................................................................... 2

Production Data ........................................................................................................................................2

Decline Factor Calculation Steps........................................................................................................... 3

Oil/Condensate Tank Data ........................................................................................................................ 3

Treater Gas Data .......................................................................................................................................4

Treater Burner(s) Data .............................................................................................................................. 5

Smokeless Combustion Devices (Flares)................................................................................................... 6

Truck Loading Data ...................................................................................................................................7

Pneumatic Pumps Data............................................................................................................................. 9

Pneumatic Pump Controls .................................................................................................................... 9

Pneumatic Controllers Data.................................................................................................................. 9

Glycol Dehydrator Data............................................................................................................................. 9

Calculating Glycol Dehydrator Emissions.............................................................................................. 9

Glycol Dehydrator Control Threshold ................................................................................................. 10

Glycol Dehydrator Controls................................................................................................................. 10

Glycol Dehydrator Federal Regulations.............................................................................................. 10

RICE Data Input .......................................................................................................................................10

Federal Regulations for RICE............................................................................................................... 11

Gas Analysis Worksheet Input ................................................................................................................ 11

E&P Tanks v2.0 Input .............................................................................................................................. 11
E‐ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AP‐42       EPA Publication AP‐42, Compilation of Air Pollutant      

     Emission Factors (5th Edition)  

bbl         barrel

BOPD         barrels of oil per day  

BTEX         benzene/toluene/ethyl‐benzene/xylenes  

Btu         British thermal unit  

Btu/hr         Btu per hour  

CO         carbon monoxide  

DRE         destruction and removal efficiency  

EF         emission factor  

Enerplus     Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

EPA         Environmental Protection Agency  

gpm        gallons per minute  

H2S         hydrogen sulfide  

HAP         hazardous air pollutants  

hp         horsepower  

lb         pound  

lb/lb‐mole       pound per pound mole  

LACT         Lease Automatic Custody Transfer  

MMBtu       one million Btu  

MMscf        one million standard cubic feet (scf × 106)  

MMscfd    1,000,000 scf per day  

Mscf         one thousand standard cubic feet (scf × 1000)  

Mscfd       1000 scf per day  

NDDoH       North Dakota Department of Health  

NESHAP       National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants  

NOx         nitrogen oxides  

NSCR         Non‐Selective Catalytic Reduction  
E‐iii

NSPS         New Source Performance Standards  

O&G         Oil and Gas  

PSD         Prevention of Significant Deterioration  

psig         pounds per square inch gauge  

psia         pounds per square inch absolute  

PTE         potential to emit  

RICE         reciprocating internal combustion engine  

scf         standard cubic foot  

scf/bbl        standard cubic foot per barrel  

SO2        sulfur dioxide  

S/W/B         standing/working/breathing losses  

TEG        tri‐ethylene glycol  

Title V         Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990  

TOC         total organic compounds  

TPY         tons per year  

VOC         volatile organic compounds
1

Introduction		

The following pages explain the emission calculation methods applied to Oil and Gas (O&G) production facilities on the

Ft. Berthold Indian Reservation that fall into one of the following categories:

a) Existing, unpermitted (Part 49) facilities seeking synthetic minor limits; or   

b) The construction of a new facility.  

The permitting official should note that emissions associated with the exploration and production of O&G resources

cannot be predicted with any degree of precision or accuracy until after it is determined the oil or gas well will actually

produce and site specific production data are collected and known. Therefore, unlike other stationary sources for which

projected emissions upon startup can be estimated in advance for purposes of pre‐construction air permitting,

emissions from O&G exploration and production facilities are only known post‐construction and completion. This

situation is unique to O&G exploration and production facilities and, therefore, requires a practical regulatory response.

To accommodate the need for registration pre‐construction Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation (Enerplus) has taken

a conservative approach to emission calculations for the start‐up of new exploration and production facilities, and the

modification of existing facilities.  

Applied control technologies have been referenced within this document for tank emissions and emissions from treater

flares. Emissions from other sources such as vehicle miles traveled, fugitive equipment leaks, truck loading, etc. are also

included in the calculations.  

Unique Issues with Bakken Pool VOCs		

The composition of crude oil from the Bakken Pool (defined as wells in the Bakken, Sanish and Three Forks formations)

typically contains a high amount of lighter end components which have the potential to produce increased volumes of

flash emissions. The North Dakota Department of Health (NDDoH) ‐ Bakken VOC Task Force and industry have created

Bakken default values based on Bakken production wells which have been utilized in instances where site‐specific data is

unavailable.

Potential to Emit		

The federal regulations define "potential to emit" as:  

“The maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational

design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including

air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of fuel

combusted, stored or processed, shall be treated as part of its design if the limitation or the effect it

would have on emissions is federally enforceable.”  

The PTE of VOCs, HAPs and other pollutants associated with oil and gas production have been calculated pre‐control for

determining source status. Post control emissions are also included to prove source ability to meet synthetic minor limit.  

Emission Factors

Emission factors relate the quantity of a pollutant released to an activity or production associated with the release of the

pollutant. Emission factors for engine emitting units have been obtained from the manufacturer documents. Additional

emission factors were taken from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards (OAQPS) AP‐42 emission factors. The AP‐42 is maintained by the Emission Factor and Inventory Group (EFIG)

and can be found online at the EPA’s Clearinghouse for Inventories & Emissions Factors (CHIEF):

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html.
E‐2

The EPA’s CHIEF website (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/index.html) contains information on and links for emissions

inventories, emissions factors, emissions modeling, and emissions monitoring.

Regulated Air Pollutant Sources		

When calculating facility emissions, each potential emitting unit located on the facility was considered to determine

source potential to emit.  Generally, the following are the most common emission sources and the type of regulated air

pollutants they may emit at a typical O&G production facility:  

a) Oil/Condensate Tanks – VOC, HAP, H2S (NOx, CO, SO2 when controlled)  

b) Treater Flares – VOC, HAP, NOx, CO, H2S, SO2  

c) Heaters/Burners – VOC, HAP, NOx, CO, SO2  

d) Truck Loading – VOC, HAP  

e) RICE Engines – VOC, HAP, NOx, CO  

f) Pneumatic Pumps – VOC, HAP  

g) Pneumatic Controllers – VOC, HAP  

Emission Calculation		

A facility’s emissions are calculated in an Excel workbook. The spreadsheet will serve two functions in that it will provide

a simple way of calculating facility‐wide emissions, as well as insuring that emissions are calculated in a manner similar

to those currently applied in states bordering the facility locations.

The Enerplus Emission Calculations Workbook contains the following 10 tabs:  

a) Input – The necessary data to perform calculations applied throughout the workbook shall be entered on this

tab.  

b) RICE Input – The necessary data to perform the required calculations for RICE shall be entered on this tab.

c) Emission Summary – The calculated emissions are summarized by source and pollutant on this tab.

1) Oil/Condensate Tanks – The tank vapor emissions are calculated here.  

2) Equipment Leaks – Connector, flange, and valve leaks are calculated here.

3) Treater Flare – The treater flare emissions are calculated here.  

4) Treater Burner – The treater burner emissions are calculated here.  

5) Truck Loading – The truck loading emissions are calculated here.  

6) RICE – The RICE emissions are calculated here.  

7) Pneumatic Pump – The pneumatic pump emissions are calculated here.  

8) Pneumatic Controllers –The pneumatic controller emissions are calculated here.  

Emission Calculation Procedure

The calculation workbook was completed per the detailed process below:  

Production Data

Line 3: New wells: the average daily production for a facility that has not been producing shall be calculated by applying

a conservative estimation based on an average from owner/operator wells that have production data for a year or more.

Existing wells: the average daily production in BOPD shall be calculated based on the most recent year of production.
E‐3

Line 4: New wells: the average daily production for a facility that has not been producing shall be calculated of gas in

Mscf per day, based on an average from owner/operator wells that have been in production for a year or more. Existing

wells: enter the average daily production in Mscf, based on the most recent year of production.

Line 5: New wells: enter 0.46 on this line (See calculation in Appendix D). Existing wells that have produced for more

than 18 months shall use a decline factor of 1.  

Decline Factor Calculation Steps

1) For each month of the first 12 months of production, sum the production data to calculate a monthly total.  

2) Calculate a decline in production over the first 12 months by applying the following formula:

Decline Over First 12 Months = (1‐12th Month of Production)/ (1st Month of Production)

3) Calculate an average of the production data over the 12 month period.

4) Calculate the decline factor for that facility by applying the following formula:

Decline Factor (facility‐specific) = Average Production Over 12 Month Period/ 1st Month of Production

5) Average the decline factors from each specific facility to obtain a representative decline factor for the

formation.

For further detail on decline factor calculation see Appendix D.2.

Line 6: The predetermined first year average daily oil production rate (BOPD) which is calculated by multiplying the

average daily rate entered on Line 3 by the decline factor entered on Line 5.  

Line 7: The predetermined first year average daily gas production rate (Mscfd) which is calculated by multiplying the

average daily rate entered on Line 4, by the decline factor entered on Line 5.  

Oil/Condensate Tank Data

Emissions from storage tanks that store crude oil (or other process condensate) include flashing losses, working losses,

and breathing losses. Vapors containing regulated pollutants are released from solution in hydrocarbon liquids as the

liquids are transferred from higher pressure vessel (separator) to lower pressure vessel (storage tank). These vapors are

called flashing losses. Vapors escaping from hydrocarbon liquids while they are stored in atmospheric tanks are called

standing/working/breathing (S/W/B) losses. Standing losses are essentially evaporation losses. Working losses are those

caused by decreased/increased tank vapor space occurring as the tank is filled/emptied. Breathing losses are those

promoted by daily ambient changes in air temperature and barometric pressure. Flashing losses are normally greater

than the working and breathing vapor losses. Oil/Condensate Tank emissions include all S/W/B losses and flashing

emissions.  

The workbook calculates the tank emissions by using either an actual direct measurement (scf/bbl), a representative

average or by using the Bakken Pool emission factor of 97.91 scf/bbl. In addition to the scf/bbl value, the workbook uses

the molecular weight, lower heating value of the fuel and the VOC, HAP, CH4, and CO2 weight fractions of the tank

vapors to calculate the tank vapor emissions.  

Line 8: The appropriate flash gas method is selected using the drop down box, determining the applicable tank vapor

emission factor (scf/bbl).  

1) Default Bakken EF .

2) Site Specific Direct Measurement.  

3) Representative Average.  
E‐4

Line 9: Enter the scf/bbl EF based on the method chosen on Line 8.

1) Default NDDoH Bakken EF: If site specific data is not available, the default Bakken EF of 97.91 scf/bbl shall be

applied.  

2) Direct Measurement: If site specific direct measurements have been taken, the measured scf/bbl EF determined

from direct measurement is applied.  

3) Representative average: The representative average scf/bbl.

Line 10: This value is calculated by multiplying the adjusted BOPD value on Line 6, by the scf/bbl entered in Line 9.  

Line 11: The lower heating value (Btu/scf) of site tank vapors. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.  

Line 12: Enter the molecular weight of the tank vapors in pounds per pound‐mole (lb/lb‐mole), taken from E&P Tank V2

Emission Summary.  

Line 13: The tank vapor gas (C3+) VOC weight fraction. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.  

Line 14: The tank vapor gas HAP weight fraction. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.  

Line 15: The tank vapor gas CO2 weight fraction. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 16: The tank vapor gas CH4 weight fraction. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 17: The H2S weight percent of the tank vapors. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 18: The H2S mole percent of the tank vapors. Taken from E&P Tank V2 Emission Summary.

Line 19: The drop down menu is used to select the technology applied to destruct tank vapors, the options are:  

1) Vapor Recovery Unit or Oil Stabilizer  

2) Enclosed Smokeless Combustor  

3) Utility Flare or Other 98% DRE Device  

4) Ground Pit Flare or other 90% DRE device  

Line 20: Destruction efficiency is based on the control type selected on Line 19.  

1) Vapor Recovery Unit or Oil Stabilizer = 99% DRE

2) Enclosed Smokeless Combustor = 98% DRE  

3) Utility Flare or Other 98% DRE Device = 98% DRE  

4) Ground Pit Flare or other 90% DRE device = 90% DRE

Treater Gas Data

The treater flare emissions are calculated within the Enerplus Emission Calculation Workbook using the following:  

1) The projected first year average daily gas production rate. This is calculated by multiplying the average daily rate

entered on Line 4, by the decline factor entered on Line 5.  

2) VOC, HAP, CH4, and CO2 weight fraction of the treater gas.  

3) H2S mole percent of the treater gas.  

4) Lower heating value of the treater gas.  

5) Average molecular weight of the treater gas  
E‐5

6) NOx & CO emissions are based on AP‐42 emission factors for industrial flares.  

Treater gas shall be routed to a gas gathering pipeline as soon as practicable. When a pipeline is not available, treater

gas shall be routed to a control system or device.

Line 21: Enter the site specific Btu/scf of the well stream gas.  

Line 22: Enter the average molecular weight of the well stream gas in lb/lb‐mole.  

Line 23: If it is necessary to convert specific gravity to molecular weight, enter the specific gravity of the well stream gas.  

Line 24: This is the calculated molecular weight of the well stream gas based on the specific gravity entered on Line 23.

Enter this value on Line 22.  

Line 25: Enter the VOC weight fraction of the well stream gas (C3+). Note that this is the weight percent, not the mole

percent of the gas.  

Line 26: Enter the HAP weight fraction of the well stream gas. Note that this is the weight percent, not the mole percent

of the gas. A complete list of HAPs is located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/orig189.html.  

Line 27: Enter the H2S weight percent of the well stream gas.  

Line 28: Enter the H2S mole percent of the well stream gas.  

Line 29: Use the drop down menu to select the type of device used to destruct the well stream gas from the following

options:  

1) Enclosed Smokeless Combustor  

2) Utility Flare or other 98% DRE Device  

3) Ground Pit Flare or other 90% DRE device  

4) Connected to Sales Line  

Line 30: No input required. This is a fixed destruction efficiency based on the control type selected on Line 29.  

1) Enclosed Smokeless Combustor = 98% DRE  

2) Utility Flare or Other 98% DRE Device = 98% DRE  

3) Ground Pit Flare or other 90% DRE device = 90% DRE  

4) Connected to Sales Line = 100% DRE  

Treater Burner(s) Data

Lines 31‐32: Emission estimates for natural gas burners, such as those found on heater/treaters or some flares, are

typically calculated using AP‐42 emission factors. The AP‐42 factors can be found at

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/index.html in Section 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion.

Natural gas burner emissions can be estimated using the following equation:

 





 



  



  100

100

200010

100

10 Pr

6

6 DRE

HV

HV

HV

B

BREF HO E

Avg

od

Avg

EFF

X

X    

where:
E‐6

EX = emissions for pollutant X (tpy);

EFX = emission factor for pollutant X (lb/MMscf);

BR = burner rating (MMBtu/hr);

BEff = burner efficiency (%);

HO = annual hours of operation (hr/yr);

HVAvg = average gas heating value (Btu/scf);

HVProd = produced gas heating value (Btu/scf);

DRE = destruction and removal efficiency (%);

1‐ton = 2000‐lb;

1‐MMBtu = 106

‐Btu; and

1‐MMscf = 106

‐scf.

Potential emissions must be calculated based on 8,760‐hrs/yr and using the manufacturer's maximum rated design

capacity of the burner. If the burner efficiency in not known, a value no greater than 80% may be assumed. For

uncontrolled emissions, the DRE is zero.

Some of the byproducts of natural gas combustion in process heaters, boilers, burners, etc. are regulated air pollutants.

NOx, CO, VOC, HAP & SO2 emissions from process unit heaters are calculated within the Oil & Gas Facility Emission

Calculation Workbook using the emission factors (EF) below from EPA AP‐42, Tables 1.4‐1, 1.4‐2 and 1.4‐3:  

Table 1.4‐1 Emission Factors from Natural Gas Combustion (Excerpt from AP‐42, Tables 1.4‐1, 1.4‐2 and 1.4‐3)  

Pollutant Natural Gas EF*

NOx   100 lb/MMscf  

CO   84 lb/MMscf  

VOC   5.5 lb/MMscf  

HAPS   1.89 lb/MMscf  

*Based on an average heating value of 1020 Btu/scf of natural gas.  

Line 31: Enter the total burner rating for the treater burner(s) in Btu/hr. If there are multiple burners at the facility,

enter the total heat input of all burners.  

Line 32: The burner(s) is/are assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.  

Smokeless Combustion Devices (Flares)

Emissions from a smokeless combustion device (e.g., flare) can be estimated using the following methods. Emission

factors for estimating NOX, CO, and total organic compounds (TOC) emissions can be found in AP‐42 Chapter 13.5:

Miscellaneous Sources – Industrial Flares (see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/index.html).  

If the flared gas composition is not known, VOC emissions may be estimated using the TOC emission factor in the above

table. Calculations must be performed assuming TOC concentration is equivalent to total VOC concentration. NOX, CO,

and VOC flare emissions can be estimated using the following equation:
E‐7

2000

HVFCEF E X

X

     

where:

EX = emissions for pollutant X (tpy);

EFX = emission factor for pollutant X (lb/MMBtu);

FC = fuel consumption (MMscf/yr);

HV = fuel heating value (Btu/scf); and

1‐ton = 2000‐lb.

The fuel consumption (FC) can be calculated using the equation:

24

DPR HO FC GAS       

where:

FC = fuel consumption (MMscf/yr);

DPRGAS = maximum daily gas production rate (MMscf/day);

HO = annual hours of operation (hr/yr); and

1‐day = 24‐hours.

The produced gas flare emissions must be estimated using uncontrolled emissions calculations based on venting the

maximum daily production capacity for 8760‐hrs/yr.   

Truck Loading Data

Lines 32‐38: Loading losses occur as hydrocarbon vapors in the empty tank are displaced to the atmosphere as the

stored oil is loaded into the tank. Methods and emission factors for estimating tank loading losses may be found in AP‐

42 Chapter 5.2 – Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids (see

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch05/final/c05s02.pdf). The oil production rate used to calculate potential truck

loading loss emissions should be a daily maximum production rate not expected to be exceeded during normal

operation. The equation for estimating loading loss is:

460

46.12







T

MPS LL    

where:

LL = loading loss per 1000 gallons of liquid loaded (lb/1000‐gal);

S = saturation factor (unitless) (AP‐42, Table 5.2‐1);

P = true vapor pressure of liquid loaded (psia) (AP‐42, Table 7.1‐2);

M = molecular weight of  tank vapors (lb/lb‐mole) (AP‐42 Table 7.1‐2); and
E‐8

T = temperature of bulk liquid loaded (°F) (oR = oF + 460).

VOC emissions resulting from truck loading losses can be estimated using the following equation:

2000

 42365  L OIL

X

DPRL E     

where:

EX = emissions for pollutant X (tpy);

LL = loading loss per 1000 gallons of liquid loaded (lb/1000‐gal);

DPROIL = maximum daily oil production rate (bbl/day);

1‐year = 365‐days;

1‐bbl = 42‐gallons; and

1‐ton = 2000‐lb.

Table 5.2‐1 Saturation (S) Factors for Calculating Petroleum Liquid Loading Losses (Excerpt from AP‐42, Table 5.2‐1)  

Tank Truck: Mode of Operation* S Factor

Submerged loading of a clean cargo tank   0.50  

Submerged loading: dedicated normal service   0.60  

Submerged loading: dedicated vapor balance service   1.00  

Table 7.1‐2 Properties of Selected Petroleum Liquids (Excerpt from AP‐42, Table 7.1‐2)  

Petroleum

Liquid

Crude Oil

RVP 5

Vapor MW at 60 F

MV(lb/lb‐mole)

50

Condensed Vapor Density

at 60F WVC(lb/gal)

4.5

Liquid Density at

60F WL(lb/gal)

7.1

True Vapor Pressure, Pva (psi)

at various temperatures in F

40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1.8 2.3 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.8 5.7

O&G production facilities are not required to route emissions displaced from truck loading activities to a control system

or device due to safety concerns.

Line 33: Use the drop down menu to choose the appropriate oil sales method. If oil is sold through a Lease Automatic

Custody Transfer, no input values are required in Lines 34‐39.  

Line 34: Use the drop down list to choose the appropriate mode of operation. The saturation factor will automatically be

selected based on mode of operation.  

Line 35: Enter the molecular weight of tank vapors, lb/lb‐mole. If no site specific data is available, please refer to Table 2

on the Truck Loading tab.  

Line 36: Enter the true vapor pressure of liquid loaded, pounds per square inch absolute (psia). If no site specific data is

available, please refer to Table 2 on the Truck Loading tab.  

Line 37: Temperature of bulk liquid loaded in degrees Fahrenheit. If no site specific data is available, use an estimated

average annual temperature.  

Line 38: Enter the load rate of liquid loaded in barrels per hour.  

Line 39: Enter the time (in hours) it takes to load out one load.  
E‐9

Pneumatic Pumps Data

If a pneumatic pump uses natural gas as the fuel gas, the pump will release VOC and HAP emissions each time it strokes

since all motive gas is vented by the pump. The Workbook calculates emissions from the pump based on the following:  

a) Manufacturer’s information regarding gas usage (scf/hr)  

b) The VOC & HAP weight fraction of the motive gas  

c) Molecular weight of motive gas  

d) Hours of operation  

Pneumatic Pump Controls		

Owner/operator of O&G production facilities shall control pneumatic pumps that use natural gas as the motive gas, if

the PTE of VOCs from the pneumatic pump is >5 TPY per pump.  

Line 40: Enter the number of pneumatic pumps at the facility.  

Line 41: Enter the hours each pump is in operation annually. For winter months only, enter 4380 hours.  

Line 42: Enter the pneumatic source consumption rate from manufacturer’s data (scf/min).  

Line 43: Use the drop down menu to choose the appropriate emission control type.  

Line 44: No input required. Control efficiency is automatically calculated based on control type selected on Line 43.  

Pneumatic Controllers Data

Lines 45‐46: If a pneumatic controller uses natural gas as the motor fuel, VOC and HAP emissions shall be released

during device operation. The Workbook calculates emissions from the pump based on the following:  

a) Manufacturer’s information regarding gas usage (scf/hr)  

b) The VOC & HAP weight fraction of the fuel gas  

c) Molecular weight of fuel gas  

d) Hours of operation  

Bakken Pool O&G production facilities are not required to install add‐on controls for emissions from these types of

devices.

Line 45: Enter the number of pneumatic controllers at facility.  

Line 46: Enter the average bleed rate of device (scf/hr).  

Glycol Dehydrator Data

Lines 47‐48: Glycol, usually tri‐ethylene glycol (TEG), is used in dehydration units to absorb water from wet produced

gas. “Lean” TEG contacts the wet gas and absorbs water. The TEG is then considered “rich.” As the rich TEG is passed

through a reboiler and a flash separator (if installed) for regeneration, steam containing hydrocarbon vapors are

released. These are then vented from the dehydration unit flash separator and/or reboiler still vent.  

Calculating Glycol Dehydrator Emissions		

GRI‐GLYCalc V4.0 or higher shall be used to determine potential uncontrolled VOC and HAP emissions from the

process vents of the dehydration unit associated with the projected (decline factor applied) first year average daily

gas production rate. A copy of the run report shall be included with the Emission Calculation Workbook when

applicable. The estimated VOC and HAP emission values shall be entered on Line 59 & Line 60 on the Input Tab of

the Emission Calculation Workbook.  
E‐10

Glycol Dehydrator Control Threshold		

Emissions that meet or exceed the following thresholds require the still vent vapors be routed to a control device: ≥ 

5.0 TPY of any combination of HAPs, or ≥ 15.0 TPY any combination of VOCs.

Glycol Dehydrator Controls		

The following control systems or devices shall be applied for glycol dehydrator emissions:  

An enclosed, smokeless combustion device or flare that is designed and operated to reduce the mass content of

VOC and total HAP emissions in the vapors vented to the device by at least 98% by weight.  

Any other control device (e.g. condenser or ground pit flare) or configuration that can be demonstrated to reduce

the mass content of total HAP and VOC in the process gases vented to the device or configuration by at least 90% by

weight.  

Glycol dehydrator emission controls may be removed after one year of operation provided emissions have declined

to <15 TPY VOC and <5 TPY HAP. An updated GRI‐GLYCalc run with new calculations shall be submitted with a

request for control removal to regulating agency. No controls shall be removed prior to obtaining agency approval.  

Glycol Dehydrator Federal Regulations		

40 CFR 63, Subpart HH may be applicable to glycol dehydrators located at Bakken Pool O&G production facilities.  

Line 47: Enter the TPY of VOC emissions calculated in GRI‐GLYCalc V4 software. (If no glycol dehydrator is installed, enter

0).  

Line 48: Enter the TPY of HAP emissions calculated in GRI‐GLYCalc V4 software. (If no glycol dehydrator is installed, enter

0).  

RICE Data Input

Lines 1‐9: Emission estimates for internal combustion engines were calculated using manufacturer emission factors.

Internal combustion engine emissions were estimated using the following equation:

 



 



  

  100

100

2000

HOEREF DRE E X

X    

where:

EX = emissions for pollutant X (tpy);

EFX = emission factor for pollutant X (lb/hp‐hr or lb/MMBtu);

ER = engine rating (hp or MMBtu/hr);

HO = annual hours of operation (hr/yr);

DRE = destruction and removal efficiency (%); and

1‐ton = 2000‐lb.

Potential emissions were calculated based on 8760‐hours per year (hrs/yr) and using the manufacturer's guaranteed

maximum rated design capacity (horsepower). The horsepower (hp) rating was not adjusted for elevation and

temperature. For uncontrolled emissions, the destruction and removal efficiency (DRE) is zero.  

Line 1: Enter the number of engines to be installed at the production facility.  
E‐11

RICE Engine #1: Lines 2‐12

Line 2: Engine is assumed to operate 8,760 hours per year.  

Line 3: Enter the manufacturer’s maximum hp rating.  

Line 4: Enter the manufacturer's emission factor or actual test results for nitrogen oxides (NOx).  

Line 5: Enter the manufacturer's emission factor or actual test results for carbon monoxide (CO).  

Line 6: Enter the manufacturer's emission factor or actual test results for volatile organic compounds (VOC).  

Line 7: Enter the manufacturer’s emission factor, actual test results or Subpart W factor in kg/mmBtu for N2O.

Line 8: Enter the manufacturer’s emission factor, actual test results or Ap‐42 factor in lb/hp‐hr for CO2.

Line 9: Enter the manufacturer’s emission factor, actual test results or Subpart W factor in kg/mmBtu for CH4.

Line 10: Enter the NOx control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc.) obtained from

manufacturer data or actual test results.  

Line 11: Enter the CO control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc.) obtained from

manufacturer data or actual test results.  

Line 12: Enter the VOC control efficiency of any applicable controls (NSCR catalyst, AFRC, etc.) obtained from

manufacturer data or actual test results.  

Repeat the above input instructions for Line 2 through Line 12 for each additional engine at the facility. 

Federal Regulations for RICE		

There are several Federal regulations that may be applicable to RICE located at O&G production facilities. Listed below is

a brief summary of the Federal regulations that may be applicable. These regulations can be found at the following:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.  

40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII – Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines:

Applies to any compression‐ignition internal combustion engine where construction is commenced after July 11, 2005

and the engine is manufactured after April 1, 2006.  

40 CFR 60, Subpart JJJJ – Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines: Applies to

any spark‐ignition internal combustion engine where construction is commenced after June 12, 2006 and the engine is

manufactured:  

1) After July 1, 2007 for engines > 500 hp  

2) After January 1, 2008 for lean‐burn engines 500 < hp < 1350

3) After July 1, 2008 for engines < 500 hp

4) After January 1, 2009 for emergency engines  

40 CFR 63, Subpart ZZZZ – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Stationary Reciprocating Internal

Combustion Engines: Applies to any (new, existing, modified and reconstructed) RICE located at a major source or an

area source of HAPs.  

Gas Analysis Worksheet Input

Input mole percentages for gas component breakdown from representative treater gas analysis report.

E&P Tanks v2.0 Input

Input mole percentages from the Emission Summary: Stream Data: Total Emissions.
Attachment E

Qualitative Air Quality Analysis
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

E‐1

Qualitative Air Quality Impact Analysis

The proposed facility is located in relatively flat to gently rolling open terrain. There is minimal industrial development

within the surrounding few miles of the site, with the exception of occasional oil wells. Existing climate and air quality

conditions in the area are detailed in Chapter 3, Section 3.12, of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the

MHA Nation’s Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project. Rather than repeat that information here, the reader is referred to

the EIS document located on‐line (http://www.epa.gov/region8/compliance/nepa/refineryfeis.html). Most of the air

quality data summarized in this EIS were collected at monitor locations at White Shield, approximately 40 miles

southeast of the proposed facility project and near Beulah, approximately 50 miles southeast of the proposed facility.  

The area in which the facility is proposed is currently designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as

“attainment or unclassified” for all criteria air pollutants. The air quality monitoring data summarized in the above‐

referenced EIS indicate a wide margin of compliance with the measured concentrations for all pollutants shown, which

included SO2, NO2, PM10, PM2.5 and CO. No data were provided for ozone in the EIS section on air quality; however, a

review of ozone data on EPA’s AIRS web site indicates monitored locations in North Dakota, including several sites in

western and northwestern North Dakota, show compliance with the current National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone, based on the last three years of data (2006‐2008). While the compliance margin for ozone is less

significant than for other pollutants summarized in the EIS, because ozone is generally a regional air pollutant, smaller

projects such as the proposed facility are not expected to significantly affect the NAAQS attainment status for ozone.

For Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) to apply to a source for NAAQS for NOx and SO2, the Significant Impact

Level (SIL) for each constituent would have to be exceeded. Typically, air quality modeling is used to demonstrate

compliance of NO2 and SO2 concentrations; however, if it is determined that a source demonstrates that its NO2 and SO2

potential to emit (PTE) is under the 40 tons per year (TPY) threshold, then it can be implied that the source would not

meet the “Significant Emission Rate” (SER) for either constituent. In other words, the EPA construes this regulation to

mean that an ambient impact analysis in not necessary for pollutants with emission rates below the SERs specified in 40

CFR 52.21(b)(23)(i). An estimate of the NOx and SO2 emissions are included as part of this application indicating that the

annual tons per year for NOx and SO2 is below the 40 TPY level; therefore, the source is exempt from air quality modeling

for these constituents.

Perhaps the greatest current air quality concerns for projects involving combustion of petroleum‐related gases are EPA’s

recently promulgated 1‐hour NAAQS for both NO2 and SO2. These recent standards are more stringent than prior NAAQS

for NO2 and SO2, and the above‐referenced EIS did not compare monitoring data against the recently promulgated 1‐

hour standards. However, supplemental analysis not included in the original EIS document entitled Air Quality Modeling

Update for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation’s Proposed Clean

Fuels Refinery Project was provided at a later date. This supplemental analysis summarizes 1‐hour NO2 and SO2

monitoring data from Beulah, which indicated levels of approximately one‐quarter and one‐half of the respective

NAAQS levels for these recently promulgated 1‐hour standards. Given the Beulah monitoring site is much closer to

several power plants and a large coal gasification plant, the resulting NO2 and SO2 data are likely overestimated as

compared to the location of the proposed facility.
E‐2

Given the above discussion of existing monitored concentrations in the general area, it is expected that combustion

sources from the proposed facility would need to contribute a significant amount of pollutants if emissions were to

threaten attainment of the new 1‐hour NAAQS for NO2 or SO2.

For NO2, the proposed project would include the following sources:

Source

Distance to Nearest

Fenceline

(feet)

Stack Height

(feet) Fuel Source

Low‐Pressure

Enclosed

Combustion Device

50 15 Field Natural Gas

Utility Flare 50 20 Field Natural Gas

145 kW Generator 50 8 Field Natural Gas

145 kW Generator 50 8 Field Natural Gas

As discussed above and shown in the emissions calculations as part of this application, based on the fuel source of field

natural gas, these sources would have inherently low NOx emissions. The NOx emissions and the fuel heat input for these

combustion and utility flare devices would be similar to a natural‐gas fired boiler, except that a boiler extracts heat from

the combustion process. Given that the units would not extract heat from the combustion process, the plume rise of the

low‐pressure combustion device and utility flare would be significantly greater than for a natural gas‐fired boiler.

Additionally, given the very low NOx emissions from all units, the distance to the property line, exhaust height above

ground for the enclosed combustor and utility flare, and plume rise, it is quite clear that these units would pose no risk

in exceeding the NAAQS for NOx. If there were such a risk for this facility, there would be a similar risk of creating

ambient air problems for NOx at myriad locations nationwide, including many schools, universities, hospitals,

government facilities, etc., that operate natural gas boilers of similar sizes and larger.

In regard to SO2, the potential sources from this facility include both the combustion units and the natural‐gas fired

generators. The majority of oil production in North Dakota is Bakken formation oil, which is the driver behind this

proposed project. Data collected by the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) indicate that nearly all gas analyses

for Bakken wells are showing “zero” for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) content unless there is bacteria introduced into the well

during drilling (email correspondence with Todd Peterson, January 9, 2011). Because the source of natural gas for the

combustion units and the generators is field natural gas, and given the very low sulfur levels expected together with the

significant combustion device and utility flare exhaust height, plume rise, and distance of the flare from the nearest

ambient air boundary, it is clear that ambient SO2 impacts from this facility would be negligible.
Attachment F

Synthetic Minor Limit Request
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

F‐1

SYNTHETIC MINOR LIMIT REQUEST GENERAL INFORMATION

Company Name

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Facility Name

Madrid/Rome

Company Contact or Owner Name

Tony Lucero

Title

EHS Coordinator

Mailing Address

US Bank Tower, Suite 2200

950‐ 17th Street

Denver, CO 80202‐2805

Email Address

tlucero@enerplus.com

Telephone Number

(720) 279‐5500

Facsimile Number

(720) 279‐5550
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

F‐2

PROPOSED LIMITATION AND EFFECT ON THE POTENTIAL TO EMIT

Based on this facility’s maximum annual hydrocarbon production, this facility will require a federally‐

enforceable limitation on emissions to avoid an otherwise applicable federal Clean Air Act program, rule

or requirement, including Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and an applicable Title V

Operating Permit.  

Requested Limitation. To limit this facility’s potential to emit, Enerplus is requesting the following:

1) Mandated installation, operation and maintenance of 98% destruction removal efficiency

emission control equipment; and  

2) A production limit of 2,750 BOPD.

Selection of a control device will occur nearer to the time the facility commences construction as

combustor size(s) and quantity are likely to change as:

 Drill schedules change (i.e. all planned wells at a pad are not drilled at the same time; therefore

affecting the cumulative production rates and combustion unit sizing);

 Actual production rates are determined (i.e. actual production rate is lower than the

conservative average herein); and  

 Combustion unit availability closer to the time of well construction.

As such, vendor guarantees are included in Attachment G for the selected combustion units from which

Enerplus will utilize based on actual well production values of natural gas. These combustion unit(s) are

guaranteed to ensure 98% removal of VOC and HAPs; therefore, the most appropriate unit of this

selection will be installed as actual well construction/drilling commences. If an alternate combustion

unit(s) is selected, Enerplus will provide the EPA with the guarantee to ensure 98% removal of VOC and

HAPs for approval prior to installation.

Effect on Emissions. Estimates of the facility’s anticipated emissions with and without the above

requested limitations are provided in the emission summary in Appendix C.

Emission of hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocompound (PFC), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), ammonia

and lead are not typical of oil and gas production, and are therefore not anticipate to be emitted from

this facility.
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

F‐3

MONITORING, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING

Facility‐Wide Emissions

Monitoring

Facility‐wide hydrocarbon production will be recorded for each month by the 15th of the month

following the month in which production occurred, beginning with the first full calendar month

after production commences. The 12‐month rolling emissions total will be based upon

production from the facility and will incorporate the results of an extended laboratory analysis

of the oil and natural gas produced in the sub‐basin to confirm the accuracy of the emissions

estimates provided in the application within the first year of production.  

The determination of the volume of crude oil produced from effected sources will be made by

field personnel (pumpers) in accordance with the accepted procedures for the measurement of

oil and in compliance with Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 4, Part III.C., Oil Measurement by

Tank Gauging, as enforced by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  

The pumpers enter the data into the company oil production database. This data is tracked on a

daily basis for each well. The data will be extracted from this database for purposes of

documenting adherence to production limits set forth in the respective source synthetic minor

air permits.

Recordkeeping

The following records will be maintained for this facility:

1) Actual rolling monthly facility‐wide hydrocarbon production rate; and

2) Process units and emission control devices used.  

Recordkeeping documentation for the facility, including the recordkeeping specified in sections

below, shall be maintained onsite or at a central field office in an electronic format and

maintained as a permanent business record for a minimum of five years.

Control Systems for VOC and HAP Emissions

Monitoring

Utility flare and enclosed combustor operations will be monitored to confirm proper operation

as follows:

1) Monitoring of the pilot flame to ensure continuous ignition;

2) Visual confirmation that no smoke is present during operation of any enclosed

combustor or utility flare when an operator is onsite, at a minimum quarterly.
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

F‐4

Recordkeeping

The following records will be maintained for the control systems:

1) Instances in which a control device was bypassed or down each calendar month, the

reason for the incident, its duration, and the corrective actions taken or the

preventative measures adopted to avoid such bypasses or downtime.

2) Using the recording device and maintaining an electronic record, instances in which the

pilot flame or thermocouple is not operational.

3) Instances in which visible emissions are observed emanating from an enclosed

combustor process or temporary/emergency flare.

Equipment Leaks for VOC and HAP Emissions

Monitoring

Enerplus will develop an equipment leak inspection protocol for the purposes of detecting

equipment leak(s) at the facility. The protocol will include the following:

1. A detailed description of the procedures to be used for leak detection;

2. A requirement that inspections will be conducted annually; and  

3. Use of a log book or other means of recording inspections that contains a list, summary

description, or diagram showing the location of all equipment in hydrocarbon service at

the facility.

The inspection protocol will include the requirement for a baseline survey of the facility to be

performed within 1 year of the first date of production. Subsequent surveys will be conducted

commensurate with the results of the baseline surveys, but not be any less frequent than every

three years.

Recordkeeping

The following records will be maintained for the facility equipment leak program:

1) A record of leak detection inspections; and

2) A record of repairs made on leaking components.

Hydrocarbon Storage Tanks

Monitoring

Hydrocarbon storage tanks will be monitored to confirm proper operation as follows:

1) Annual inspection of thief hatch covers to ensure they are properly weighted and seated

and the gaskets are in good condition; and

2) Annual inspection of the pressure relief valves (PRV) to ensure they are set to release at

a pressure that will ensure flashing and standing/working/breathing losses are routed to an

emissions control systems under normal operating conditions.
Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation

Application for New Construction

Facility: Madrid/Rome

F‐5

Recordkeeping

1) A record of annual inspections of the hydrocarbon storage tanks that will include the

date, findings, required repairs and inspector details.
Attachment G

Equipment Specifications and Guarantees
Emission Control System Warranty

Your new Honda Power Equipment engine complies with the U.S. EPA, Environment Canada, and State of California emission regulations (models 

certified for sale in California only). American Honda Motor Co., Inc. provides the emission warranty coverage for engines in the United States and its 

territories. Honda Canada Inc. provides the emission warranty for engines in the 13 provinces and territories of Canada. In the remainder of this Emission 

Control System Warranty, American Honda Motor Company Inc. and Honda Canada Inc. will be referred to as Honda.

YOUR WARRANTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS:

California 

The California Air Resources Board and Honda are pleased to explain the emission control system warranty on your Honda Power Equipment engine. 

In California, new spark-ignited small off-road equipment engines must be designed, built, and equipped to meet the State's stringent anti-smog 

standards.

Other States, U.S. territories, and Canada

In other areas of the United States and in Canada, your engine must be designed, built, and equipped to meet the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada 

emission standards for spark-ignited engines at or below 19 kilowatts. Specific Honda products that do not meet the California emissions regulations 

can be identified by a “Not for sale in California” decal.

All of the United States and Canada

Honda must warrant the emission control system on your power equipment engine for the period of time listed below, provided there has been no abuse, 

neglect, or improper maintenance of your power equipment engine. Where a warrantable condition exists, Honda will repair your power equipment 

engine at no cost to you including diagnosis, parts, and labor.

Your emission control system may include such parts as the carburetor or fuel injection system, the ignition system, and catalytic converter. Also 

included may be hoses, connectors, and other emission-related assemblies (see page 2 for additional covered parts).

OWNER'S WARRANTY RESPONSIBILITY: 

As the power equipment engine owner, you are responsible for the performance of the required maintenance listed in your owner's manual. Honda 

recommends that you retain all receipts covering maintenance on your power equipment engine, but Honda cannot deny warranty coverage solely for 

the lack of receipts or for your failure to ensure the performance of all scheduled maintenance.

As the power equipment engine owner, you should however be aware Honda may deny you warranty coverage if your power equipment engine or a 

part has failed due to abuse, neglect, improper maintenance, or unapproved modifications.

You are responsible for presenting your power equipment engine to a Honda Power Equipment dealer as soon as a problem exists. The emission related 

warranty repairs should be completed in a reasonable amount of time, not to exceed 30 days.

If you have any questions regarding your emission warranty rights and responsibilities, you should contact the Honda office in your region:

WARRANTY COVERAGE: 

Honda power equipment engines sold in the United States and Canada are covered by this warranty for a period of two years from the date of delivery 

to the original retail purchaser or the length of the Honda Distributor’s Limited Warranty, whichever is longer. This warranty is transferable to each 

subsequent purchaser for the duration of the warranty period.

If any emission-related part on your engine is defective, the part will be repaired or replaced by Honda without charge for diagnosis, parts, or labor. All 

defective parts replaced under this warranty become the property of Honda. A list of warranted parts is on the reverse side of this warranty statement. 

Normal maintenance items, such as spark plugs and filters, that are on the warranted parts list are warranted up to their required replacement interval 

only.

Honda will also replace other engine components damaged by a failure of any warranted part during the warranty period. 

Only Honda approved replacement parts may be used in the performance of any warranty repairs and must be provided without charge to the owner. 

The use of replacement parts not equivalent to the original parts may impair the effectiveness of your engine emission control system. If such a 

replacement part is used in the repair or maintenance of your engine, and an authorized Honda dealer determines it is defective or causes a failure of a 

warranted part, your claim for repair of your engine may be denied. If the part in question is not related to the reason your engine requires repair, your 

claim will not be denied.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - Honda Canada Inc.

October 2009

Page 1 of 2

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Power Equipment Customer Relations 

4900 Marconi Drive

Alpharetta, Georgia 30005-8847

Telephone: (888) 888-3139

Email: powerequipmentemissions@ahm.honda.com

or

Honda Canada Inc.

Power Equipment Customer Relations

Visit www.honda.ca 

for contact information.

Telephone: (888) 946-6329

00X51-ZG0-6110 TO961 PWL50975-M
Emission Control System Warranty 

TO OBTAIN WARRANTY SERVICE: 

You must, at your own expense, take your Honda Power Equipment engine or the product on which it is installed, along with your sales registration card 

or other proof of original purchase date, to any Honda Power Equipment dealer who is authorized by Honda to sell and service that Honda product during 

his normal business hours. Claims for repair or adjustment found to be caused solely by defects in material or workmanship will not be denied because the 

engine was not properly maintained and used.

If you are unable to obtain emission warranty service or are dissatisfied with the warranty service you received, contact the owner of the dealership 

involved. Normally this should resolve your problem. However, if you require further assistance, contact the Honda office in your region:

EXCLUSIONS: 

Failures other than those resulting from defects in material or workmanship are not covered by this warranty. This warranty does not extend to emission 

control systems or parts that are affected or damaged by owner abuse, neglect, improper maintenance, misuse, misfueling, improper storage, collision, the 

incorporation of, or use of, unsuitable attachments, or the unauthorized alteration of any part.

This warranty does not cover replacement of expendable maintenance items made in connection with required maintenance service after the item’s first 

scheduled replacement as listed in the maintenance section of the product owner’s manual, such as: spark plugs and filters.

Disclaimer of Consequential Damage and Limitation of Implied Warranties: 

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Canada Inc. disclaim any responsibility for incidental or consequential damages such as loss of time or the 

use of the power equipment, or any commercial loss due to the failure of the equipment; and any implied warranties are limited to the duration of this 

written warranty. This warranty is applicable only where the California, U.S. EPA, or Environment Canada emission control system warranty regulation 

is in effect.

EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM WARRANTY PARTS:

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. - Honda Canada Inc.

October 2009

Page 2 of 2

American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Power Equipment Customer Relations 

4900 Marconi Drive

Alpharetta, Georgia 30005-8847

Telephone: (888) 888-3139

Email: powerequipmentemissions@ahm.honda.com

or

Honda Canada Inc.

Power Equipment Customer Relations

Visit www.honda.ca 

for contact information.

Telephone: (888) 946-6329

SYSTEMS COVERED

BY THIS WARRANTY:

PARTS

DESCRIPTION:

Fuel Metering Carburetor assembly (includes starting enrichment system), 

Engine temperature sensor, Engine control module, Fuel regulator, Intake manifold

Evaporative Fuel tank, Fuel cap, Fuel hoses, Vapor hoses, Carbon canister, Canister mounting brackets, 

Fuel strainer, Fuel cock, Fuel pump, Fuel hose joint, Canister purge hose joint

Exhaust Catalyst, Exhaust manifold

Air Induction Air filter housing, Air filter element*

Ignition Flywheel magneto, Ignition pulse generator, Crankshaft position sensor, 

Power coil, Ignition coil assembly, Ignition control module, Spark plug cap, Spark plug*

Crankcase Emission Control Crankcase breather tube, Oil filler cap

Miscellaneous Parts Tubing, fittings, seals, gaskets, and clamps associated with these listed systems.

Note: This list applies to parts supplied by Honda and does not cover parts supplied by the equipment manufacturer. Please see the original equipment 

manufacturer’s emissions warranty for non-Honda parts.

* Covered up to the first required replacement only. See the Maintenance Schedule in the owner’s manual.

PWL50975-M
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

2011 MODEL YEAR

CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY

WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1990

OFFICE 

A

ANN A

Certificate Issued To: Power Solutions International (U.S. Manufacturer or Importer)Certificate Number: BPWRB11.1NGP-002

Effective Date:

01/03/2011

Expiration Date:

12/31/2011 ______________________

Karl J. Simon, Director Compliance and Innovative Strategies D

Manufacturer: Power Solutions InternationalEngine Family: BPWRB11.1NGPCertificate Number: BPWRB11.1NGP-002Certification Type: Mobile and StationaryFuel : LPG/Propane Natural Gas (CNG/LNG)Emission Standards : NMHC + NOx ( g/kW-hr ) : 2.7 CO ( g/kW-hr ) : 4.4 HC + NOx ( g/kW-hr ) : 2.7CO ( g/Hp-hr ) : 2 VOC ( g/Hp-hr ) : 0.7 NOx ( g/Hp-hr ) : 1Emergency Use Only : 

N

Pursuant to Section 213 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. section 7547) and 40 CFR Part 1048, 40 CFR Part 60, 1065, 1068, and 60 ( stationary only and combined sterms and conditions prescribed in those provisions, this certificate of conformity is hereby issued with respect to the test engines which have been found to conform represent the following nonroad engines, by engine family, more fully described in the documentation required by 40 CFR Part 1048, 40 CFR Part 60 and produced This certificate of conformity covers only those new nonroad spark-ignition engines which conform in all material respects to the design specifications that applied documentation required by 40 CFR Part 1048, 40 CFR Part 60 and which are produced during the model year stated on this certificate of the said manufacturer, as d60. This certificate of conformity does not cover nonroad engines imported prior to the effective date of the certificate.It is a term of this certificate that the manufacturer shall consent to all inspections described in 40 CFR 1068.20 and authorized in a warrant or court order. Failure twarrant or court order may lead to revocation or suspension of this certificate for reasons specified in 40 CFR Part 1048, 40 CFR Part 60. It is also a term of this ceor suspended or rendered void ab initio for other reasons specified in 40 CFR Part 1048, 40 CFR Part 60.This certificate does not cover large nonroad engines sold, offered for sale, or introduced, or delivered for introduction, into commerce in the U.S. prior to the effect
Source Emissions Test Report 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. 

Flare Stack 

Inlet and Outlet NMOC Emissions 

Parshall, North Dakota 

Report prepared for: Report prepared by: 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. 

1012 24th Avenue, Suite 100 

Norman, Oklahoma 73069 

 Marcus Manning 

Portable Division Director 

Test Date:

June 14 - 15, 2011 

APT Project: CIM1122 
Table of Contents 

1. Introduction..................................................................................... 1

2. Methods.......................................................................................... 1

3. Test Program Summary....................................................... 2

4. Test Method Details............................................................. 3

5. Test Results Summary......................................................... 4 

Tables 

Table 1.1 : Contact Personnel....................................................... 1 

Table 3.1 : Sampling and Analytical Methods............................ 3 

 

Table 5.1 : Test Results Summary, Flare Outlet, 1 oz. Flow........ 5 

Table 5.2 : Test Results Summary, Flare Outlet, 4 oz. Flow........ 5 

 

Table 5.3 : Test Results Summary, Flare Outlet, 10 oz. Flow...... 6 

 

Table 5.4 : Test Results Summary, DRE Calculations............... 6 

Appendices 

Test Parameters................................................................ Appendix 1 

Field and Laboratory Data................................................... Appendix 2 

Calibration Information........................................................ Appendix 3 

 

Schematics.......................................................................... Appendix 4 
APT Project: CIM1122 

Test Report – Cimarron Energy Parshall Flare 

page 1 

1. Introduction 

Air Pollution Testing, Inc. (APT) was contracted by Cimarron Energy, Inc. to conduct 

source emission testing services at a facility near Parshall, North Dakota. 

The purpose of the test program was to determine the concentrations and mass 

emission rates of oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), methane 

(CH4) and non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) at both the inlet and outlet 

sampling locations of an enclosed flare stack. The unit is fed with off gas from various 

facility processes. Concurrent inlet gas velocity measurements, as well as pilot light 

data, were collected for the determination of total inlet emissions. All of the above data 

were combined to determine the overall destruction removal efficiency (DRE) of the unit. 

The emissions testing was conducted under three different operating conditions; 1 oz., 4 

oz. and 10 oz. inlet feed pressures. 

Table 1.1 provides contact information for key personnel involved in the test program. 

Cimarron Energy, Inc.: Parshall Flare 

Testing Program Contact Personnel 

Name, Title Company Address Phone, FAX, email 

Mr. Michael John, 

Process Engineer 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. 

1012 24th Ave NW, Suite 100 

Norman, Oklahoma 73069 

405-928-7373 ext. 111, 

405-928-7379 

mjohn@cimarron.com

Mr. Dave Maiers, 

Operations Director 

Air Pollution Testing, Inc. 

5530 Marshall Street 

Arvada, Colorado 80003 

303-420-5949, 

303-420-5920, 

dmaiers@airtest.net 

Table 1.1: Testing Program Contact Personnel 

2. Methods 

All testing was conducted in accordance with the following source emissions test 

methods referenced in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A. 

Method 1 – Sample and Velocity Traverses for Stationary Sources 

Method 2 – Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate (Type S 

Pitot Tube) 

Method 3A – Gas Analysis for the Determination of Emission Rate Correction Factor or 

Excess Air 

Method 4 – Determination of Moisture Content in Stack Gases 
APT Project: CIM1122 

Test Report – Cimarron Energy Parshall Flare 

page 2 

Method 10 – Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary Sources 

Method 18 – Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 

Chromatography 

Method 25A – Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentration Using a Flame 

Ionization Analyzer 

3. Test Program Summary

APT provided all necessary equipment and labor for the determination of all emission 

parameters detailed in Table 3.1 on the following page. 

Three, 1-hour sampling runs were conducted at 1 oz., 4 oz. and 10 oz. inlet feed 

pressure from the flare exhaust to determine pollutant concentrations. Concentration 

data were combined with concurrently collected oxygen (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), 

moisture (H2O) and gas velocity data to determine pollutant mass emission rates. 

Integrated samples were collected from both the pilot light and the waste gas inlet, 

concurrent with each sample run, for off-site analysis to determine the total hydrocarbon 

and NMOC content of the two streams for comparison with the exhaust stack levels. 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. – Parshall Flare 

Sampling and Analytical Methods

Gas Parameter EPA Method Analytical Method Laboratory 

Enclosed Flare Exhaust Measurements 

gas flow Methods 1, 2 draft gauge, thermocouple, pitot tube 

O2, CO2 Method 3A paramagnetic and non-dispersive infrared 

analyzers 

H2O Method 4 gravimetric 

CO Method 10 gas filter correlation, infrared analyzer 

NMOC Method 25A flame ionization detector with methane 

separation – Thermo Model 55 

APT, 

on-site 

C2H6 Method 18 gas chromatography APT, Arvada, CO 

Condensate Tank Waste Gas Measurements (Flare Inlet)

gas flow Methods 1, 2 draft gauge, thermocouple, pitot tube APT, 

on-site

VOC, NMOC ASTM D1945/1946 

gas chromatography / flame ionization 

detector / thermal conductivity detector 

Empact Analytical, 

Brighton, CO 

Flare Pilot / Assist Gas Measurements (Flare Inlet) 

gas flow Orifice Manufacturer provided constant value APT, 

on-site

VOC, NMOC ASTM D1945/1946 

gas chromatography / flame ionization 

detector / thermal conductivity detector 

Empact Analytical, 

Brighton, CO 

Table 3.1: Sampling and Analytical Methods
APT Project: CIM1122 

Test Report – Cimarron Energy Parshall Flare 

page 3 

4. Test Method Details 

4.1. Stack Gas Velocity, Volumetric Flow Rate and Moisture

Stack gas velocity, volumetric flow rate and moisture (H2O) content were measured in 

accordance with EPA Methods 1, 2 and 4. 

Each sampling period consisted of conducting a temperature and differential pressure 

traverse of the stack using a K-type thermocouple and an S-type pitot tube. Concurrent 

with each traverse, a sample of gas for moisture determination was extracted from the 

stack at a constant flow rate of no more than 0.75 cubic feet per minute (cfm). The gas 

sample passed through a stainless steel probe, through a series of four (4) chilled glass 

impingers, and through a calibrated dry gas meter. See Appendix 4 – Schematics for a 

diagram of the EPA Methods 1, 2 and 4 sampling train. 

Prior to sampling, the first two impingers were each seeded with 100 milliliters of water. 

The third impinger was empty. The fourth impinger was seeded with 250 grams of dried 

silica gel. Following sampling, the moisture gain in the impingers was measured 

gravimetrically to determine the moisture content of the gas. 

All of the above data were combined with concurrently collected diluent (O2 and CO2) 

data to calculate the stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate in units of feet per 

second (ft/sec), actual cubic feet per minute (acfm), dry standard (1 atmosphere and 

68°F) cubic feet per minute (dscfm), and pounds per hour (lb/hr). 

4.2. Diluent, Carbon Monoxide and Non-methane Hydrocarbons – Flare Exhaust

O2, CO2, CO and NMOC emission concentrations were measured in accordance with 

EPA Methods 3A (O2 and CO2), 10 (CO) and 25A (NMOC). 

Each sampling period consisted of extracting a gas sample from the stack at a constant 

flow rate of approximately three liters per minute (lpm). The sample passed through a 

refrigeration-type gas conditioner to remove moisture and into the sampling port of a 

TECO Model 48H gas filter correlation infrared CO analyzer, a Servomex Series 1400 

paramagnetic O2 / non-dispersive infrared CO2 analyzer and a Thermo Model 55 flame 

ionization analyzer equipped with a methane separator. The gas conditioner was 

bypassed for the NMOC analyzer. The gas concentrations were displayed on the 

analyzer front panels in units of either parts per million, dry volume basis (ppmvd – CO), 

percent, dry volume basis (%vd – O2 and CO2), or parts per million, wet volume basis as 

propane (ppmvw as C3H8 – NMOC) and logged to a computerized data acquisition 

system (CDAS). Please see Appendix 4 – Schematics for a diagram of the EPA 

Methods 3A, 10 and 25A sampling train. 

Before and after each sampling period, the analyzers were challenged with calibration 

gases to calibrate the instruments, to verify linearity of response, and to quantify zero 
APT Project: CIM1122 

Test Report – Cimarron Energy Parshall Flare 

page 4 

and span drift for the previous sampling period. The calibration gases were prepared 

and certified in accordance with EPA Protocol 1. To ensure no system bias, the 

analyzer calibrations were conducted by introducing all gases to the analyzers at the 

sampling probe tip at stack pressure. 

Following sampling, the CDAS data were averaged in one-minute increments, corrected 

for instrumental drift, and reported as average emission concentrations for each 

sampling period. 

4.3. Total Hydrocarbon / NMOC – Flare Inlets

Methane and NMOC concentrations were measured in accordance with ASTM D-1945 

and 1946, which are industry standard analytical methods for analysis of fuel gas type 

samples. Samples were collected from each inlet in Tedlar bags for off-site 

GC/FID/TCD analysis for C1 – C6+ hydrocarbons, oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen. 

The concentration data were combined with the pitot traverse data (condensate waste 

gas) or manufacturer data (pilot light) to calculate flare inlet NMOC mass flow to 

determine the control efficiency for NMOC. 

Laboratory analysis of the waste gas sample indicated high oxygen and nitrogen from 

likely sample leakage. The hydrocarbon and carbon dioxide concentrations were 

normalized to remove the leakage. DRE was calculated on both a mass flow in/out 

basis and by carbon balance. 

5. Test Results Summary 

The results of the testing are summarized in Tables 5.1 – 5.3. Any emission 

parameters not found in the tables may be found in Appendix 1 – Test Parameters. The 

following terms are used in the tables: 

• %vd – diluent concentration, dry volume percent 

• %vw – moisture content, wet volume percent 

• dscfm – stack gas flow rate, dry standard (one atmosphere, 68°F) cubic feet per 

minute 

•  ̊F – temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit 

• lb/hr – pollutant mass emission rate, pounds per hour 

• ppmvd – parts per million, dry volume basis 

• as C3H8 – as propane 

• DRE – destruction removal efficiency 
APT Project: CIM1122 

Test Report – Cimarron Energy Parshall Flare 

page 5 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. – Parshall Flare 

Flare Test Results Summary (06/15/2011) – 1 oz. Inlet Pressure

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3

Start Time 12:34 14:12 15:30 

Stop Time 13:34 15:12 16:30 

Average

Stack Temp ( ̊F) 936 811 889 879 

Stack Flow (MDSCFD) 2,105.3 3,924.0 4,059.4 3,362.4 

O2 (%vd) 18.5 18.3 18.2 18.3 

CO2 (%vd) 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.6 

H2O (%vw) 4.6 3.9 4.1 4.2 

Emission Data

CO (lb/hr) 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.9 

CO (tons/year) 3.0 4.6 4.4 4.0 

NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8) 46.0 69.8 46.0 53.9 

NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.46 1.30 0.89 0.89 

Table 5.1: Test Results Summary, Flare Outlet, 1 oz. Flow 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. – Parshall Flare 

Flare Test Results Summary (06/14/2011) – 4 oz. Inlet Pressure

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3

Start Time 10:48 12:55 14:14 

Stop Time 11:48 13:55 15:14 

Average

Stack Temp ( ̊F) 1,320 1,321 1,327 1,323 

Stack Flow (MDSCFD) 3,840.5 3,762.7 3,703.7 3,768.5 

O2 (%vd) 16.5 16.6 16.6 16.6 

CO2 (%vd) 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 

H2O (%vw) 4.4 6.2 4.9 5.2 

Emission Data

CO (lb/hr) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 

CO (tons/year) 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.6 

NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8) 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.8 

NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 

Table 5.2: Test Results Summary, Flare Outlet, 4 oz. Flow 
APT Project: CIM1122 

Test Report – Cimarron Energy Parshall Flare 

page 6 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. – Parshall Flare 

Flare Test Results Summary (06/14-15/2011) – 10 oz. Inlet Pressure

Run #1 Run #2 Run #3

Start Time 15:31 16:48 08:45 

Stop Time 16:31 17:48 09:45 

Average 

Stack Temp ( ̊F) 1,973 1,992 1,992 1,986 

Stack Flow (MDSCFD) 3,386.9 3,373.9 3,607.2 3,456.0 

O2 (%vd) 14.8 14.9 15.1 14.9 

CO2 (%vd) 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8 

H2O (%vw) 8.4 5.9 6.8 7.0 

Emission Data

CO (lb/hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 

CO (tons/year) 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 

NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8) 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 

NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 

Table 5.3: Test Results Summary, Flare Outlet, 10 oz. Flow 

Cimarron Energy, Inc. – Parshall Flare 

Flare Test Results Summary (06/14-15/2011) – DRE Summary 

1 oz. Flow 4 oz. Flow 10 oz. Flow

Waste Gas Inlet

Waste Gas Specific Gravity 1.46 1.44 1.45 

Waste Gas Heat Content (BTU) 2,273 2,252 2,308 

Waste Gas Flow (MCFD) 41.8 70.6 131.0 

Waste Gas Flow (MDSCFD) 37.4 64.8 119.5 

NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 150.6 260.0 489.2 

Pilot Inlet

Pilot Light Flow (MCFD) 0.3 0.3 0.3 

Pilot Light NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.5 0.5 0.5 

Total Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 151.0 260.5 489.7 

 

Total Outlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.9 0.01 0.01 

% DRE(mass flow in/out basis) 99.41 99.99 100.00 

% DRE(carbon balance) 98.94 99.99 100.00 

Table 5.4: Test Results Summary, DRE Calculations 
 Appendix One: Test Parameters
1 oz. Inlet Pressure 
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

6/15/2011

1 oz.

Run # 7 8 9 Average

Start Time 12:42 14:20 15:41

Stop Time 13:08 14:40 16:06

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Inlet Duct Diameter (inches) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

√∆PAVG Inlet Average (Delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2 0.1150 0.0940 0.1026 0.1039

CP Inlet Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

TS Inlet Stack Temperature (°F) 73 74 73 73

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 936 936 936 936

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64

Ps Inlet Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Carbon Dioxide (%vd) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Methane (%vd) 16.1 14.0 14.8 14.9

Ethane (%vd) 20.4 19.2 19.8 19.8

Propane (%vd) 33.0 32.1 32.9 32.7

Butanes (%vd) 18.9 18.7 19.1 18.9

Pentanes (%vd) 5.3 5.2 5.3 5.3

Hexanes+ (%vd) 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.6

Heat Content (Btu/scf) 2,304 2,224 2,290 2,273

Carbon Dioxide (%vd) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Methane (%vd) 47.5 47.5 47.5 47.5

Ethane (%vd) 19.2 19.2 19.2 19.2

Propane (%vd) 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.4

Butanes (%vd) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1

Pentanes (%vd) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Hexanes+ (%vd) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Heat Content (Btu/scf) 1,479 1,479 1,479 1,479

FACFM Pilot Light Flow (acfm) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

FDSCFM Pilot Light Flow (dscfm) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

dry Pilot Light NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 402,167 402,167 402,167 402,167

lb/hr Pilot Light NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47

Run # 7 8 9 Average

Bws Inlet Moisture Content (%/100) - saturated 0.029 0.030 0.029 0.030

MD Inlet Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 35.54 35.54 35.54 35.54

MA Inlet Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 35.03 35.01 35.03 35.02

VS Inlet Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 6.1 5.0 5.5 5.5

FACFM Inlet Gas Flow (acfm) 32 26 29 29

FDSCFM Inlet Gas Flow (dscfm) 29 23 25 26

dry NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 858,433 835,967 858,533 850,978

lb/hr NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 168 134 150 151

tpy NMOC (tons/year as C3H8

) 739 587 659 661

Field Reference Method Data

Waste Gas Data

Reference Method Calculations

Pilot Light Data 
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

6/15/2011

1 oz.

Run # 1 2 3 Average

Start Time 12:34 14:12 15:30

Stop Time 13:34 15:12 16:30

Sample Duration (minutes) 60 60 60

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Stack Diameter (inches) 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6

√∆PAVG Average (Delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.0780 0.1380 0.1475 0.1212

CP Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

TS Stack Temperature (°F) 936 811 889 879

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 936 936 936 936

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 27.64 27.64 27.64 27.64

Ps Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Yd Meter Y Factor (unitless) 0.9780 0.9780 0.9780 0.9780

Tm Meter Temperature (°F) 74 78 79 77

Vm Sample Volume (ft3

) 37.560 38.015 37.022 37.532

∆H Orifice Pressure Delta H (" H2O) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vlc Moisture (g) 34.0 28.7 30.1 30.9

O2%vd O2 (%vd) 18.5 18.3 18.2 18.3

CO2%vd CO2 (%vd) 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.6

N2%vd N2

 (%vd) 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0

dry CO (ppmvd) 107.2 89.1 81.4 92.6

wet CH4

 (ppmvw) 18.3 18.0 9.6 15.3

wet NMOC (ppmvw as C3H8

) 43.9 67.1 44.1 51.7

Run # 1 2 3 Average

Vmstd Sample Volume (dscf) 33.629 33.763 32.850 33.414

Vwstd Moisture Volume (scf) 1.60 1.35 1.42 1.46

Bws Moisture Content (%/100) 0.046 0.039 0.041 0.042

MD Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 28.98 29.00 29.02 29.00

MA Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 28.48 28.58 28.56 28.54

VS Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 7.4 12.4 13.7 11.2

FACFM Gas Flow (acfm) 4,382 7,386 8,135 6,635

FDSCFM Gas Flow (dscfm) 1,462 2,725 2,819 2,335

lb/hr Gas Flow (lb/hr) 6,791 12,611 13,080 10,827

Fo Fo (unitless) 1.640 1.551 1.499 1.564

lb/hr CO (lb/hr) 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.9

tpy CO (tons/year) 3.0 4.6 4.4 4.0

dry CH4

 (ppmvd) 19.2 17.4 9.2 15.3

lb/hr CH4

 (lb/hr) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

tpy CH4

 (tons/year) 0.3 79.0 42.3 40.5

dry NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 46.0 69.8 46.0 53.9

lb/hr NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 0.461 1.3042 0.8903 0.885

tpy NMOC (tons/year as C3H8

) 2.019 5.712 3.900 3.877

DRE TVOC DRE (%) - carbon balance 98.96% 98.67% 99.19% 98.94%

Field Reference Method Data

Reference Method Calculations
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182.0 1490.0 100.0

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 30.2

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

10.1 2.5 77.9 305.1 30.2

Linearity Bias (Zero) 0.0 0.0 -0.2 1.9 0.0

Linearity Bias (Span) 10.0 2.5 77.0 295.4 31.1

% % (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 30.2

21.10 5.00 182.0 750.0 50.1

1490.0 85.5

0.0 0.0 -0.2 1.9 0.0

10.0 2.5 77.0 295.4 31.1

21.1 5.0 179.0 749.6 50.5

1500.0 85.2

0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0

0.0 0.0 2.1 4.6 0.9

0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.3

0.00% 0.00% 0.77% 0.13% 1.00%

0.47% 0.40% 0.49% 0.65% 0.30%

0.00% 0.20% 1.65% 0.67% 0.90%

Linearity Information

Gas

Span Gas Value/Range

Bias Gas Value

Gas Concentration

1

2

3

4

Difference

1

4

Response

1

2

Span Bias 

Max Calibration Error

Bias Check (Zero)

Bias Check (Span)

2

3

4

Results

3

Zero Bias
Cimarron Energy Run 1

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND Start Time 12:34

Flare Run Length 60

06/15/11 Stop Time 13:34

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 100

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 30.2

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

10.1 2.5 77.9 305.1 30.2

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

10.1 2.5 77.9 305.1 30.2

0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0%

0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.9%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

18.5 1.5 107.2 18.3 43.9

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2

 %

Uncorrected 

CO2 %

Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

18.7 1.5 105.1 18.6 43.9

1 12:34 18.7 1.5 100.1 18.5 41.3

2 12:35 18.1 1.9 78.6 12.0 54.6

3 12:36 18.7 1.5 71.9 7.4 29.7

4 12:37 19.0 1.2 115.5 5.8 18.0

5 12:38 19.1 1.2 113.1 8.1 12.3

6 12:39 19.2 1.1 160.0 13.4 20.2

7 12:40 18.9 1.3 144.9 16.0 29.8

8 12:41 18.5 1.6 76.2 33.4 37.7

9 12:42 18.6 1.6 73.5 17.6 87.1

10 12:43 18.4 1.7 73.2 5.3 28.6

11 12:44 18.3 1.7 70.4 4.2 12.0

12 12:45 18.5 1.7 72.2 4.9 10.4

13 12:46 18.4 1.7 73.0 5.0 11.1

14 12:47 18.7 1.5 85.3 5.6 12.1

15 12:48 18.8 1.3 110.1 7.5 12.0

16 12:49 19.1 1.2 150.5 11.3 16.0

17 12:50 19.0 1.2 150.8 17.0 22.7

18 12:51 19.1 1.1 154.8 22.6 31.0

19 12:52 19.2 1.1 171.1 23.5 46.9

20 12:53 19.3 1.0 199.4 25.8 47.9

21 12:54 19.3 1.1 199.3 34.3 58.4

22 12:55 18.9 1.3 162.4 111.0 108.2

23 12:56 18.9 1.3 117.2 44.3 261.1

24 12:57 19.2 1.1 171.9 19.1 72.6

25 12:58 19.4 1.0 220.1 19.6 38.0

26 12:59 19.3 1.0 201.5 38.1 53.9

27 13:00 19.2 1.1 209.7 121.7 125.6

28 13:01 18.8 1.4 190.0 75.8 303.3

29 13:02 18.3 1.7 80.8 82.3 160.9

30 13:03 18.3 1.7 73.6 90.3 234.2

31 13:04 18.3 1.7 71.3 6.9 180.2

32 13:05 18.4 1.6 75.3 4.9 15.6

33 13:06 18.4 1.7 72.8 5.7 12.1

34 13:07 18.4 1.7 70.5 5.6 13.9

35 13:08 18.5 1.6 71.4 5.0 13.0

36 13:09 18.4 1.6 70.9 5.0 11.7

37 13:10 18.4 1.7 71.9 5.0 11.2

38 13:11 18.5 1.6 71.8 4.3 12.1

39 13:12 18.4 1.6 72.5 4.4 10.5

40 13:13 18.4 1.6 73.0 5.0 10.7

41 13:14 18.4 1.7 71.8 5.0 11.4

42 13:15 18.3 1.7 71.9 5.0 12.1

43 13:16 18.5 1.6 73.3 5.0 11.1

44 13:17 18.5 1.5 78.6 5.1 11.1

45 13:18 18.6 1.5 80.8 5.0 12.3

46 13:19 18.6 1.5 81.2 6.0 13.8

47 13:20 18.6 1.5 88.5 5.1 16.0

48 13:21 18.2 1.8 80.2 6.0 14.1

49 13:22 18.6 1.5 82.5 6.3 17.0

50 13:23 18.8 1.4 97.8 5.2 15.1

51 13:24 18.6 1.6 78.1 11.0 14.4

52 13:25 18.9 1.4 96.5 7.0 22.1

53 13:26 18.3 1.7 95.2 22.5 13.4

54 13:27 18.7 1.5 76.0 28.4 46.8

55 13:28 18.7 1.5 104.3 5.0 37.1

56 13:29 18.8 1.4 101.9 11.0 11.9

57 13:30 18.3 1.8 86.8 8.8 23.0

58 13:31 18.6 1.6 76.3 5.6 19.3

59 13:32 18.7 1.5 111.1 3.8 11.6

60 13:33 18.4 1.7 81.2 6.0 11.0

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Zero%

Span%

Calibration Information

Instrument Range

Span Gas Value

Gas

Zero%

Span%

Results

Post Test Calibration
Cimarron Energy Run 2

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND Start Time 14:12

Flare Run Length 60

06/15/11 Stop Time 15:12

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 100

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 30.2

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0

10.1 2.5 77.9 305.1 30.2

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.2

10.0 2.5 77.7 284.0 30.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2%

0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.8% 1.1%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

0.5% 0.6% 0.1% 1.4% 0.2%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

18.3 1.7 89.1 18.0 67.1

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2

 %

Uncorrected 

CO2 %

Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

18.4 1.7 87.5 17.7 66.7

1 14:12 18.6 1.6 84.2 12.7 43.4

2 14:13 18.9 1.3 123.5 8.9 40.7

3 14:14 18.7 1.5 138.5 17.7 36.4

4 14:15 18.5 1.6 91.7 20.9 63.2

5 14:16 18.3 1.8 83.7 16.3 84.1

6 14:17 18.5 1.7 80.0 9.4 56.2

7 14:18 18.9 1.3 114.7 7.0 34.2

8 14:19 18.4 1.7 114.6 12.7 28.3

9 14:20 18.7 1.4 97.9 17.9 47.1

10 14:21 18.6 1.5 109.6 19.1 68.7

11 14:22 18.5 1.6 85.7 16.6 70.9

12 14:23 18.2 1.8 77.6 10.0 59.5

13 14:24 18.2 1.8 73.7 9.0 39.8

14 14:25 18.3 1.8 75.1 7.0 36.1

15 14:26 17.7 2.1 71.6 6.7 25.2

16 14:27 17.8 2.1 67.5 7.5 27.0

17 14:28 18.1 1.9 72.2 5.0 24.7

18 14:29 18.2 1.9 73.3 7.6 13.6

19 14:30 18.3 1.8 74.1 8.0 24.1

20 14:31 18.5 1.6 76.4 7.6 25.6

21 14:32 18.4 1.7 78.6 7.1 25.6

22 14:33 18.4 1.7 77.2 8.0 26.6

23 14:34 17.9 2.0 73.9 8.0 30.2

24 14:35 18.2 1.8 71.5 6.8 29.1

25 14:36 18.4 1.7 76.7 6.9 23.1

26 14:37 18.3 1.7 78.4 9.0 25.5

27 14:38 18.1 1.9 72.6 9.0 30.2

28 14:39 18.3 1.8 71.1 7.4 30.1

29 14:40 18.3 1.8 72.5 6.9 25.2

30 14:41 18.7 1.5 83.7 6.6 25.1

31 14:42 18.9 1.3 135.2 6.1 23.6

32 14:43 18.1 1.8 101.1 18.0 30.8

33 14:44 17.9 2.0 70.7 12.0 66.1

34 14:45 18.5 1.6 76.0 6.9 41.4

35 14:46 18.4 1.7 83.8 6.2 23.6

36 14:47 18.4 1.7 74.4 12.9 27.3

37 14:48 17.9 2.0 71.0 10.1 41.6

38 14:49 18.4 1.7 76.3 7.1 34.0

39 14:50 18.2 1.8 81.1 7.9 20.5

40 14:51 18.1 2.0 72.3 9.6 28.8

41 14:52 18.7 1.5 88.5 7.9 31.0

42 14:53 18.5 1.6 100.7 8.1 26.2

43 14:54 18.5 1.6 79.7 12.0 27.0

44 14:55 18.1 1.9 81.6 12.7 45.3

45 14:56 18.4 1.6 75.9 10.2 40.3

46 14:57 18.4 1.7 82.8 6.0 30.0

47 14:58 18.2 1.8 76.4 13.2 23.5

48 14:59 18.3 1.7 74.6 11.4 50.2

49 15:00 18.6 1.5 84.0 9.3 37.5

50 15:01 18.7 1.5 98.9 8.7 31.2

51 15:02 18.9 1.3 126.9 13.1 32.9

52 15:03 18.6 1.5 108.9 164.8 80.1

53 15:04 18.5 1.6 88.7 180.2 782.4

54 15:05 18.6 1.5 92.0 118.2 720.1

55 15:06 18.7 1.5 109.6 12.3 349.6

56 15:07 18.5 1.6 97.7 16.1 43.4

57 15:08 18.5 1.6 92.2 12.6 54.8

58 15:09 18.6 1.6 105.8 13.1 41.1

59 15:10 18.5 1.6 102.9 15.2 45.7

60 15:11 18.4 1.7 97.0 17.7 55.6

Gas

Instrument Range

Post Test Calibration

Zero%

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Zero%

Calibration Information

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Span%

Span%
Cimarron Energy Run 3

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND Start Time 15:30

Flare Run Length 60

06/15/11 Stop Time 16:30

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 100

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 30.2

0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.2

10.0 2.5 77.7 284.0 30.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.0 2.5 76.6 305.8 28.1

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.7% 3.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.2%

0.0% 0.8% 0.6% 1.5% 1.9%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

18.2 1.8 81.4 9.6 44.1

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2

 %

Uncorrected 

CO2 %

Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

18.2 1.8 79.4 9.5 42.4

1 15:30 18.6 1.5 129.2 23.8 94.5

2 15:31 18.2 1.8 103.9 23.8 110.9

3 15:32 18.2 1.8 80.8 15.9 104.4

4 15:33 18.0 1.9 79.3 9.2 74.6

5 15:34 18.0 2.0 72.1 7.7 40.1

6 15:35 17.9 2.0 72.9 6.9 32.1

7 15:36 18.1 1.9 74.4 6.5 28.5

8 15:37 18.0 2.0 74.2 8.4 28.6

9 15:38 18.2 1.8 75.3 7.5 32.0

10 15:39 18.1 1.9 80.5 7.9 28.9

11 15:40 18.3 1.8 74.2 8.7 33.7

12 15:41 18.2 1.8 76.3 9.3 37.2

13 15:42 18.1 1.9 76.1 7.3 37.5

14 15:43 18.1 1.9 75.1 9.9 32.9

15 15:44 18.4 1.7 84.5 9.3 44.9

16 15:45 18.2 1.8 81.5 9.4 37.8

17 15:46 18.0 1.9 89.0 11.3 43.1

18 15:47 18.3 1.8 82.3 6.3 47.1

19 15:48 18.3 1.7 86.2 7.9 29.2

20 15:49 17.9 2.0 76.7 12.2 36.7

21 15:50 18.4 1.7 80.6 13.4 63.7

22 15:51 18.3 1.7 89.4 6.3 54.8

23 15:52 18.1 1.9 76.6 15.8 35.4

24 15:53 18.2 1.8 77.0 9.5 72.2

25 15:54 18.2 1.8 80.6 8.2 36.5

26 15:55 18.1 1.9 78.4 9.9 39.5

27 15:56 18.3 1.8 75.0 11.5 45.9

28 15:57 18.3 1.7 79.2 8.5 47.7

29 15:58 18.2 1.8 85.1 7.7 33.1

30 15:59 17.9 2.0 72.2 7.7 31.4

31 16:00 18.4 1.7 73.7 7.7 34.1

32 16:01 18.3 1.7 86.2 5.3 31.2

33 16:02 18.3 1.7 76.2 13.0 25.5

34 16:03 18.4 1.7 78.4 9.5 56.1

35 16:04 18.0 1.9 75.0 8.3 35.3

36 16:05 18.4 1.7 73.2 8.8 37.0

37 16:06 18.5 1.6 86.6 4.1 34.1

38 16:07 18.3 1.7 81.1 12.6 21.6

39 16:08 18.3 1.8 80.2 11.7 58.1

40 16:09 18.2 1.8 89.3 11.6 50.1

41 16:10 18.1 1.9 76.0 13.1 56.1

42 16:11 17.9 2.0 71.1 8.5 55.8

43 16:12 18.1 1.9 71.8 7.5 37.1

44 16:13 18.4 1.6 83.6 7.3 33.2

45 16:14 18.2 1.8 84.9 9.1 30.1

46 16:15 18.4 1.7 76.5 12.2 41.6

47 16:16 18.4 1.7 80.8 6.3 47.3

48 16:17 18.3 1.7 75.5 9.6 27.1

49 16:18 18.4 1.7 79.6 9.4 47.8

50 16:19 18.3 1.7 78.9 8.7 38.8

51 16:20 18.1 1.9 72.8 9.4 38.4

52 16:21 17.9 2.0 69.9 7.4 40.4

53 16:22 18.1 1.9 70.6 6.6 33.1

54 16:23 18.0 1.9 73.8 6.3 24.6

55 16:24 18.2 1.7 75.2 6.7 25.4

56 16:25 18.2 1.7 77.9 8.3 28.2

57 16:26 18.2 1.8 73.7 10.4 33.2

58 16:27 18.4 1.6 77.6 7.4 44.2

59 16:28 18.2 1.8 80.5 7.3 30.5

60 16:29 18.4 1.7 76.2 7.9 33.6

Zero%

Calibration Information

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Gas

Instrument Range

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Span%

Span%

Post Test Calibration

Zero%
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

6/15/2011

Outlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.89

Waste Gas Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 150.6

Pilot Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.5

Sum of Inlets NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 151.0

% DRE (mass flow in/out basis) 99.4%

% DRE (carbon balance) 98.9%

%DRE Calculations
4 oz. Inlet Pressure 
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

6/14/2011

4 oz.

Run # 4 5 6 Average

Start Time 10:56 13:15 14:28

Stop Time 11:02 13:21 14:36

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Inlet Duct Diameter (inches) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

√∆PAVG Inlet Average (Delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.1793 0.1769 0.1798 0.1787

CP Inlet Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

TS Inlet Stack Temperature (°F) 61 63 67 64

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 938 938 938 938

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 27.70 27.70 27.70 27.70

Ps Inlet Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2

Carbon Dioxide (%vd) 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4

Methane (%vd) 15.4 16.7 17.5 16.5

Ethane (%vd) 20.2 20.5 20.4 20.4

Propane (%vd) 31.5 32.2 32.1 31.9

Butanes (%vd) 18.1 17.9 18.6 18.2

Pentanes (%vd) 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.0

Hexanes+ (%vd) 2.8 2.4 3.0 2.7

Heat Content (Btu/scf) 2,227 2,229 2,299 2,252

Carbon Dioxide (%vd) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Methane (%vd) 46.3 46.3 46.3 46.3

Ethane (%vd) 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9

Propane (%vd) 15.8 15.8 15.8 15.8

Butanes (%vd) 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3

Pentanes (%vd) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Hexanes+ (%vd) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Heat Content (Btu/scf) 1,496 1,496 1,496 1,496

FACFM Pilot Light Flow (acfm) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

FDSCFM Pilot Light Flow (dscfm) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

dry Pilot Light NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 413,300 413,300 413,300 413,300

lb/hr Pilot Light NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49

Run # 4 5 6 Average

Bws Inlet Moisture Content (%/100) - saturated 0.019 0.021 0.024 0.021

MD Inlet Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 35.54 35.54 35.54 35.54

MA Inlet Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 35.20 35.18 35.12 35.17

VS Inlet Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 9.3 9.2 9.4 9.3

FACFM Inlet Gas Flow (acfm) 49 48 49 49

FDSCFM Inlet Gas Flow (dscfm) 46 45 45 45

dry NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 830,533 826,400 850,367 835,767

lb/hr NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 260 255 265 260

tpy NMOC (tons/year as C3H8

) 1142 1119 1162 1141

Field Reference Method Data

Waste Gas Data

Reference Method Calculations

Pilot Light Data 
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

6/14/2011

4 oz.

Run # 4 5 6 Average

Start Time 10:48 12:55 14:14

Stop Time 11:48 13:55 15:14

Sample Duration (minutes) 60 60 60

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Stack Diameter (inches) 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6

√∆PAVG Average (Delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.1607 0.1599 0.1560 0.1589

CP Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

TS Stack Temperature (°F) 1320 1321 1327 1323

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 938 938 938 938

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 27.70 27.70 27.70 27.70

Ps Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Yd Meter Y Factor (unitless) 0.9780 0.9780 0.9780 0.9780

Tm Meter Temperature (°F) 57 65 69 64

Vm Sample Volume (ft3

) 36.340 36.409 37.287 36.679

∆H Orifice Pressure Delta H (" H2O) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vlc Moisture (g) 32.7 46.2 37.2 38.7

O2%vd O2 (%vd) 16.5 16.6 16.6 16.6

CO2%vd CO2 (%vd) 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8

N2%vd N2 (%vd) 80.6 80.6 80.6 80.6

dry CO (ppmvd) 52.6 54.0 51.5 52.7

wet CH4

 (ppmvw) 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2

wet NMOC (ppmvw as C3H8

) 0.0 1.9 0.4 0.7

Run # 4 5 6 Average

Vmstd Sample Volume (dscf) 33.662 33.213 33.775 33.550

Vwstd Moisture Volume (scf) 1.54 2.18 1.75 1.82

Bws Moisture Content (%/100) 0.044 0.062 0.049 0.052

MD Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 29.12 29.11 29.10 29.11

MA Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 28.63 28.43 28.56 28.54

VS Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.9

FACFM Gas Flow (acfm) 10,158 10,145 9,894 10,065

FDSCFM Gas Flow (dscfm) 2,667 2,613 2,572 2,617

lb/hr Gas Flow (lb/hr) 12,435 12,327 12,031 12,265

Fo Fo (unitless) 1.523 1.547 1.562 1.544

lb/hr CO (lb/hr) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

tpy CO (tons/year) 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.6

dry CH4

 (ppmvd) 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.2

lb/hr CH4

 (lb/hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

tpy CH4

 (tons/year) 0.0 3.1 0.1 1.0

dry NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 0.0 2.0 0.4 0.8

lb/hr NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 0.000 0.0354 0.0068 0.014

tpy NMOC (tons/year as C3H8

) 0.000 0.155 0.030 0.062

DRE TVOC DRE (%) - carbon balance 100.00% 99.98% 100.00% 99.99%

Field Reference Method Data

Reference Method Calculations
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

06/14/11

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182.0 1490.0 10.0

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 79.5 300.9 3.0

Linearity Bias (Zero) 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.1

Linearity Bias (Span) 10.0 2.5 78.8 309.1 2.9

% % (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

21.10 5.00 182.0 750.0 5.0

1490.0 8.5

0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 78.8 309.1 2.9

21.1 5.0 180.1 758.9 5.0

1505.2 8.4

0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.3 9.1 0.1

0.0 0.0 1.9 8.9 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 15.2 0.0

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

0.14% 0.00% 0.38% 0.55% 0.50%

0.14% 0.60% 1.04% 1.02% 1.00%

Linearity Information

Gas

Span Gas Value/Range

Bias Gas Value

Gas Concentration

1

2

3

4

Difference

1

4

Response

1

2

Span Bias 

Max Calibration Error

Bias Check (Zero)

Bias Check (Span)

2

3

4

Results

3

Zero Bias
Cimarron Energy Run 4

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND Start Time 10:48:13

Flare Run Length 60

06/14/11 Stop Time 11:48

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 10

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

0.0 0.0 1.2 1.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 79.5 300.9 3.0

-0.1 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 81.1 305.9 3.0

0.5% 0.0% 2.2% 0.1% 0.0%

0.1% 0.2% 1.3% 0.2% 1.0%

0.5% 0.0% 2.2% 0.1% 0.0%

0.0% 0.2% 0.9% 0.3% 0.5%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

16.5 2.9 52.6 -0.5 -0.1

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

16.6 2.9 54.5 0.0 0.0

1 10:48 16.5 2.9 56.2 0.3 0.0

2 10:49 16.4 2.9 55.1 0.0 0.0

3 10:50 16.4 2.9 55.8 0.7 0.0

4 10:51 16.3 3.0 54.4 -0.2 0.0

5 10:52 16.8 2.7 57.5 0.1 0.0

6 10:53 16.8 2.7 59.0 -0.4 0.0

7 10:54 16.6 2.8 57.3 1.4 0.0

8 10:55 16.3 3.0 55.0 0.5 0.0

9 10:56 16.6 2.9 56.1 0.7 0.0

10 10:57 16.7 2.8 59.5 0.3 0.0

11 10:58 16.4 3.0 56.3 0.1 0.0

12 10:59 16.5 2.9 56.3 1.3 0.0

13 11:00 16.5 2.9 56.3 0.2 0.0

14 11:01 16.4 3.0 54.0 -0.1 0.0

15 11:02 16.3 3.0 53.5 -0.6 0.0

16 11:03 16.4 2.9 52.8 0.2 0.0

17 11:04 16.5 2.9 54.3 -0.5 0.0

18 11:05 16.4 3.0 53.0 -0.6 0.0

19 11:06 16.7 2.8 54.7 0.1 0.0

20 11:07 16.6 2.8 55.4 -0.2 0.0

21 11:08 16.4 3.0 53.1 -0.3 0.0

22 11:09 16.5 2.9 54.4 0.2 0.0

23 11:10 16.5 2.9 54.3 -0.4 0.0

24 11:11 16.4 3.0 53.5 -0.4 0.0

25 11:12 16.6 2.8 54.5 -0.5 0.0

26 11:13 16.5 3.0 54.2 0.3 0.0

27 11:14 16.8 2.8 56.0 -0.2 0.0

28 11:15 16.7 2.8 56.8 0.0 0.0

29 11:16 16.4 3.0 52.5 0.4 0.0

30 11:17 16.6 2.9 52.0 1.1 0.0

31 11:18 16.6 2.9 55.2 0.5 0.0

32 11:19 16.5 2.9 53.1 0.1 0.0

33 11:20 16.6 2.9 55.5 -0.2 0.0

34 11:21 16.4 2.9 53.4 0.0 0.0

35 11:22 16.5 3.0 52.1 0.1 0.0

36 11:23 16.7 2.9 54.6 -0.4 0.0

37 11:24 16.7 2.8 55.2 -0.2 0.0

38 11:25 16.8 2.8 57.3 -0.4 0.0

39 11:26 16.7 2.9 55.4 -0.3 0.0

40 11:27 16.8 2.8 55.3 0.8 0.0

41 11:28 16.5 2.9 53.1 -0.2 0.0

42 11:29 16.8 2.8 52.4 -0.3 0.0

43 11:30 16.9 2.7 55.3 0.0 0.0

44 11:31 16.8 2.8 54.7 0.1 0.0

45 11:32 16.7 2.8 54.8 0.2 0.0

46 11:33 16.9 2.7 55.3 -0.2 0.0

47 11:34 16.7 2.8 55.5 0.0 0.0

48 11:35 16.6 2.9 53.4 -0.1 0.0

49 11:36 16.6 2.9 52.8 0.6 0.0

50 11:37 16.7 2.8 54.6 -0.2 0.0

51 11:38 16.7 2.8 53.1 -0.8 0.0

52 11:39 16.7 2.8 54.1 0.4 0.0

53 11:40 16.7 2.8 52.4 -0.7 0.0

54 11:41 16.4 3.0 52.7 -0.4 0.0

55 11:42 16.3 3.0 50.3 0.2 0.0

56 11:43 16.7 2.8 51.5 -0.4 0.0

57 11:44 16.6 2.9 53.6 -0.1 0.0

58 11:45 16.7 2.8 51.7 -0.2 0.0

59 11:46 16.7 2.8 54.3 0.0 0.0

60 11:47 16.5 2.9 52.2 -0.1 0.0

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Zero%

Span%

Calibration Information

Instrument Range

Span Gas Value

Gas

Zero%

Span%

Results

Post Test Calibration
Cimarron Energy Run 5

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND Start Time 12:55:23

Flare Run Length 60

06/14/11 Stop Time 13:55

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 10

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

-0.1 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 81.1 305.9 3.0

0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 79.7 301.9 3.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%

0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.1%

0.5% 0.0% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.4% 0.8% 0.3% 0.9%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

16.6 2.8 54.0 0.7 1.9

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

16.6 2.8 55.8 0.7 1.9

1 12:55:23 16.4 2.9 61.7 1.0 0.2

2 12:56:23 16.6 2.8 53.9 0.9 0.2

3 12:57:23 16.6 2.8 57.9 0.1 0.1

4 12:58:23 16.5 2.9 58.3 0.7 0.9

5 12:59:23 16.4 2.9 52.1 0.4 1.0

6 13:00:23 16.6 2.8 56.6 0.0 0.4

7 13:01:23 16.5 2.8 54.9 0.0 0.0

8 13:02:23 16.5 2.9 54.2 0.0 -0.1

9 13:03:23 16.7 2.7 58.5 -0.1 0.3

10 13:04:23 16.7 2.8 57.3 0.4 0.0

11 13:05:23 16.4 2.9 56.8 0.9 1.1

12 13:06:23 16.6 2.8 53.6 1.0 1.7

13 13:07:23 16.4 2.9 54.9 0.1 1.0

14 13:08:23 16.7 2.7 56.2 0.0 -0.1

15 13:09:23 17.2 2.5 60.2 0.4 0.1

16 13:10:23 17.0 2.6 82.1 2.1 0.6

17 13:11:23 16.7 2.7 63.6 15.1 15.1

18 13:12:23 16.8 2.7 61.6 4.1 53.2

19 13:13:23 16.8 2.7 61.1 1.4 5.1

20 13:14:23 16.6 2.8 55.5 1.0 3.1

21 13:15:23 16.6 2.9 54.8 0.8 2.3

22 13:16:23 16.8 2.7 55.8 0.0 1.8

23 13:17:23 16.7 2.7 56.5 -0.1 0.8

24 13:18:23 16.9 2.7 58.2 0.4 0.7

25 13:19:23 17.0 2.6 56.9 1.1 1.6

26 13:20:23 16.8 2.7 57.5 1.0 1.9

27 13:21:23 16.7 2.7 54.8 1.0 1.8

28 13:22:23 16.7 2.7 53.6 1.1 2.3

29 13:23:23 16.9 2.6 58.9 0.9 1.7

30 13:24:23 16.9 2.6 60.0 1.2 1.4

31 13:25:23 17.0 2.6 63.2 2.0 2.0

32 13:26:23 16.5 2.9 58.3 1.9 3.4

33 13:27:23 16.6 2.8 51.9 1.3 5.5

34 13:28:23 16.6 2.8 56.2 0.5 1.8

35 13:29:23 16.3 3.0 52.5 0.0 0.4

36 13:30:23 16.5 2.9 50.6 -0.1 0.0

37 13:31:23 16.5 2.9 56.4 0.0 0.2

38 13:32:23 16.4 2.9 51.7 0.0 -0.4

39 13:33:23 16.4 2.9 53.2 0.0 0.4

40 13:34:23 16.5 2.9 54.2 -0.1 0.0

41 13:35:23 16.4 2.9 52.6 0.0 -0.2

42 13:36:23 16.4 2.9 52.7 0.0 -0.1

43 13:37:23 16.5 2.9 51.8 0.0 0.1

44 13:38:23 16.4 2.9 52.5 0.0 -0.3

45 13:39:23 16.3 3.0 51.6 0.0 -0.3

46 13:40:23 16.6 2.8 53.2 0.1 0.0

47 13:41:23 16.4 2.9 53.4 0.1 0.8

48 13:42:23 16.6 2.8 53.6 0.0 -0.3

49 13:43:23 16.5 2.9 51.3 -0.1 -0.3

50 13:44:23 16.3 3.0 52.9 0.0 -0.2

51 13:45:23 16.4 2.9 51.1 0.0 -0.1

52 13:46:23 16.6 2.8 52.2 0.0 0.0

53 13:47:23 16.6 2.8 57.2 -0.1 0.7

54 13:48:23 16.7 2.8 53.7 0.1 0.0

55 13:49:23 16.4 2.9 55.3 0.0 0.0

56 13:50:23 16.4 3.0 53.7 0.0 0.4

57 13:51:23 16.6 2.8 53.2 0.0 0.7

58 13:52:23 16.5 2.8 55.9 0.0 -0.3

59 13:53:23 16.4 2.9 53.4 0.1 -0.1

60 13:54:23 16.6 2.8 52.7 0.0 -0.1

Gas

Instrument Range

Post Test Calibration

Zero%

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Zero%

Calibration Information

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Span%

Span%
Cimarron Energy Run 6

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND Start Time 14:14:23

Flare Run Length 60

06/14/11 Stop Time 15:14

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 10

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 79.7 301.9 3.0

-0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 81.8 307.4 3.0

0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%

0.1% 0.6% 1.6% 0.1% 0.4%

0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.3%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

16.6 2.8 51.5 0.0 0.4

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

16.6 2.8 52.7 0.0 0.4

1 14:14 16.6 2.8 52.0 0.0 1.5

2 14:15 16.6 2.8 52.1 0.0 -0.1

3 14:16 16.7 2.7 50.0 0.0 -0.1

4 14:17 16.7 2.7 52.5 0.0 -0.1

5 14:18 16.7 2.7 51.7 -0.1 -0.2

6 14:19 16.6 2.8 52.5 -0.1 -0.2

7 14:20 16.7 2.8 53.9 -0.1 -0.1

8 14:21 16.7 2.7 53.9 -0.1 0.1

9 14:22 16.6 2.8 52.8 0.0 0.3

10 14:23 16.6 2.8 51.2 -0.1 0.3

11 14:24 16.6 2.8 52.7 -0.1 0.5

12 14:25 16.6 2.8 53.3 -0.1 1.6

13 14:26 16.5 2.9 51.4 -0.1 0.1

14 14:27 16.8 2.7 54.6 0.1 0.1

15 14:28 16.7 2.7 53.9 0.0 0.1

16 14:29 16.6 2.8 51.1 -0.1 -0.2

17 14:30 16.7 2.8 52.8 -0.1 0.5

18 14:31 16.8 2.7 52.7 -0.1 -0.1

19 14:32 16.6 2.8 56.0 0.0 0.1

20 14:33 16.7 2.8 49.2 -0.1 0.5

21 14:34 16.8 2.7 53.1 0.0 0.6

22 14:35 16.8 2.7 54.2 0.0 -0.4

23 14:36 16.6 2.8 50.1 0.0 0.6

24 14:37 16.5 2.9 52.0 0.0 0.7

25 14:38 16.8 2.7 48.7 -0.1 0.8

26 14:39 16.8 2.7 50.3 0.0 1.3

27 14:40 16.7 2.7 50.6 -0.1 1.2

28 14:41 16.8 2.7 52.4 -0.1 0.2

29 14:42 16.6 2.8 52.1 0.0 -0.2

30 14:43 16.7 2.7 51.1 0.0 -0.1

31 14:44 16.7 2.7 52.5 0.0 0.5

32 14:45 16.6 2.8 53.0 0.0 1.3

33 14:46 16.5 2.8 50.6 0.0 0.7

34 14:47 16.7 2.8 49.4 -0.1 0.1

35 14:48 16.8 2.7 56.2 0.0 -0.1

36 14:49 16.6 2.8 52.3 0.0 1.2

37 14:50 16.6 2.7 53.1 0.0 0.8

38 14:51 16.7 2.7 55.3 0.0 0.6

39 14:52 16.5 2.8 51.6 0.0 0.6

40 14:53 16.5 2.8 51.1 0.0 0.7

41 14:54 16.5 2.8 53.7 0.1 0.7

42 14:55 16.6 2.8 52.5 0.0 -0.1

43 14:56 16.5 2.8 54.7 0.1 0.2

44 14:57 16.6 2.8 53.2 0.1 0.6

45 14:58 16.7 2.7 53.5 -0.1 0.7

46 14:59 16.6 2.8 54.8 0.0 0.2

47 15:00 16.7 2.7 52.1 0.0 0.4

48 15:01 16.7 2.7 56.6 0.1 0.5

49 15:02 16.6 2.8 54.8 0.9 0.8

50 15:03 16.7 2.8 52.8 0.1 1.7

51 15:04 16.5 2.9 54.3 0.0 0.5

52 15:05 16.6 2.8 51.8 -0.1 0.7

53 15:06 16.8 2.7 52.9 -0.1 0.7

54 15:07 16.6 2.8 55.6 0.0 0.5

55 15:08 16.5 2.8 52.2 0.8 0.3

56 15:09 16.6 2.8 52.8 0.3 1.9

57 15:10 16.7 2.7 55.6 0.1 0.6

58 15:11 16.6 2.7 51.9 -0.1 0.2

59 15:12 16.6 2.8 51.5 0.0 0.3

60 15:13 16.6 2.7 54.6 0.0 0.7

Zero%

Calibration Information

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Gas

Instrument Range

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Span%

Span%

Post Test Calibration

Zero%
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

6/14/2011

4 oz.

Outlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.01

Waste Gas Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 260.0

Pilot Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.5

Sum of Inlets NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 260.5

% DRE (mass flow in/out basis) 99.99%

% DRE (carbon balance) 99.99%

%DRE Calculations
10 oz. Inlet Pressure 
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

6/14/2011

10 oz.

Run # 7 8 9 Average

Start Time 15:37 16:56 8:56

Stop Time 15:44 17:08 9:03

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Inlet Duct Diameter (inches) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

√∆PAVG Inlet Average (Delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.3290 0.3314 0.3338 0.3314

CP Inlet Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84

TS Inlet Stack Temperature (°F) 68 73 74 72

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 938 938 936 937

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 27.70 27.70 27.64 27.68

Ps Inlet Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5

Carbon Dioxide (%vd) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Methane (%vd) 16.5 17.9 17.6 17.3

Ethane (%vd) 20.5 20.5 21.3 20.8

Propane (%vd) 33.0 32.0 32.9 32.6

Butanes (%vd) 19.0 18.5 18.1 18.6

Pentanes (%vd) 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.2

Hexanes+ (%vd) 2.8 3.0 2.6 2.8

Heat Content (Btu/scf) 2,325 2,305 2,295 2,308

Carbon Dioxide (%vd) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Methane (%vd) 46.1 46.1 46.1 46.1

Ethane (%vd) 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9

Propane (%vd) 15.9 15.9 15.9 15.9

Butanes (%vd) 6.4 6.4 6.4 6.4

Pentanes (%vd) 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

Hexanes+ (%vd) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

Heat Content (Btu/scf) 1,514 1,514 1,514 1,514

FACFM Pilot Light Flow (acfm) 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18

FDSCFM Pilot Light Flow (dscfm) 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17

dry Pilot Light NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 421,267 421,267 421,267 421,267

lb/hr Pilot Light NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50

Run # 7 8 9 Average

Bws Inlet Moisture Content (%/100) - saturated 0.024 0.029 0.029 0.028

MD Inlet Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 35.54 35.54 35.54 35.54

MA Inlet Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 35.11 35.03 35.02 35.06

VS Inlet Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 17.2 17.4 17.6 17.4

FACFM Inlet Gas Flow (acfm) 90 91 92 91

FDSCFM Inlet Gas Flow (dscfm) 83 83 84 83

dry NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 864,867 851,467 848,100 854,811

lb/hr NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 494 486 487 489

tpy NMOC (tons/year as C3H8

) 2168 2131 2135 2145

Field Reference Method Data

Waste Gas Lab Data

Reference Method Calculations

Pilot Light Data 
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

6/14/2011

10 oz.

Run # 7 8 9 Average

Start Time 15:31 16:48 8:45

Stop Time 16:31 17:48 9:45

Sample Duration (minutes) 60 60 60

hrs Hours of Operation / Year 8760 8760 8760 8760

DS Stack Diameter (inches) 42.6 42.6 42.6 42.6

√∆PAVG Average (Delta P)1⁄2

 (" H2O)1⁄2

0.1719 0.1681 0.1813 0.1738

CP Pitot Tube Constant (unitless) 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83

TS Stack Temperature (°F) 1973 1992 1992 1986

Pbar Barometric Pressure (mbar) 938 938 936 937

Pbar Barometric Pressure (" Hg) 27.70 27.70 27.64 27.68

Ps Stack Pressure ('' H2O) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Yd Meter Y Factor (unitless) 0.9780 0.9780 0.9780 0.9780

Tm Meter Temperature (°F) 74 79 62 72

Vm Sample Volume (ft3

) 37.385 37.148 37.088 37.207

∆H Orifice Pressure Delta H (" H2O) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vlc Moisture (g) 65.2 43.7 52.2 53.7

O2%vd O2 (%vd) 14.8 14.9 15.1 14.9

CO2%vd CO2 (%vd) 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.8

N2%vd N2 (%vd) 81.3 81.3 81.1 81.2

dry CO (ppmvd) 15.5 21.0 15.4 17.3

wet CH4

 (ppmvw) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

wet NMOC (ppmvw as C3H8

) 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.3

Run # 7 8 9 Average

Vmstd Sample Volume (dscf) 33.536 33.037 33.984 33.519

Vwstd Moisture Volume (scf) 3.07 2.06 2.46 2.53

Bws Moisture Content (%/100) 0.084 0.059 0.068 0.070

MD Molecular Weight Dry (lb/lb-mole) 29.22 29.21 29.21 29.21

MA Molecular Weight Wet (lb/lb-mole) 28.28 28.55 28.45 28.43

VS Gas Velocity (ft/sec) 21.5 21.0 22.7 21.7

FACFM Gas Flow (acfm) 12,780 12,486 13,507 12,925

FDSCFM Gas Flow (dscfm) 2,352 2,343 2,505 2,400

lb/hr Gas Flow (lb/hr) 11,304 11,069 11,903 11,425

Fo Fo (unitless) 1.562 1.565 1.537 1.555

lb/hr CO (lb/hr) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

tpy CO (tons/year) 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8

dry CH4

 (ppmvd) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

lb/hr CH4

 (lb/hr) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

tpy CH4

 (tons/year) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

dry NMOC (ppmvd as C3H8

) 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4

lb/hr NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 0.005 0.0107 0.0013 0.006

tpy NMOC (tons/year as C3H8

) 0.022 0.047 0.006 0.025

DRE TVOC DRE (%) - carbon balance 100.00% 99.99% 100.00% 100.00%

Field Reference Method Data

Reference Method Calculations
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

06/14/11

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182.0 1490.0 10.0

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

-0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 78.0 294.2 3.0

Linearity Bias (Zero) 0.0 0.0 -0.2 1.9 0.0

Linearity Bias (Span) 10.0 2.5 77.0 295.4 3.0

% % (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

21.10 5.00 182.0 750.0 5.0

1490.0 8.5

0.0 0.0 -0.2 1.9 0.0

10.0 2.5 77.0 295.4 3.0

21.1 5.0 179.0 749.6 5.0

1500.0 8.4

0.0 0.0 0.2 1.9 0.0

0.0 0.0 2.1 4.6 0.0

0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0

0.47% 0.00% 0.71% 0.13% 1.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.55% 0.08% 0.20%

0.00% 0.20% 1.65% 0.67% 0.40%

Span Bias 

Max Calibration Error

Bias Check (Zero)

Bias Check (Span)

2

3

4

Results

3

Zero Bias

4

Difference

1

4

Response

1

2

Gas Concentration

1

2

3

Linearity Information

Gas

Span Gas Value/Range

Bias Gas Value
Cimarron Energy Run 7

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND Start Time 15:31:23

Flare Run Length 60

06/14/11 Stop Time 16:31

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 10

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

-0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 81.8 307.4 3.0

0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 80.2 305.0 3.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

0.1% 0.2% 0.8% 0.3% 0.6%

0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.4% 0.9% 0.2% 0.2%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

14.8 3.9 15.5 0.0 0.3

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

14.8 3.9 16.5 0.0 0.4

1 15:31 14.7 4.0 17.1 0.1 0.9

2 15:32 14.9 3.9 17.2 0.0 0.8

3 15:33 14.9 3.9 15.5 0.1 0.8

4 15:34 14.8 3.9 18.4 0.0 0.8

5 15:35 14.9 3.9 14.5 -0.1 0.8

6 15:36 14.8 4.0 14.0 0.0 0.8

7 15:37 14.9 3.9 15.2 -0.1 0.8

8 15:38 14.8 4.0 15.8 0.0 0.8

9 15:39 14.7 4.0 13.9 0.0 0.8

10 15:40 15.0 3.9 15.8 0.0 0.2

11 15:41 14.8 3.9 13.6 0.0 -0.3

12 15:42 15.0 3.8 22.7 -0.1 0.5

13 15:43 15.1 3.8 17.4 0.0 0.6

14 15:44 14.9 3.9 17.4 -0.1 0.5

15 15:45 14.8 4.0 14.1 0.0 0.3

16 15:46 14.9 3.9 15.4 0.0 0.0

17 15:47 14.8 4.0 30.7 -0.1 0.5

18 15:48 14.8 4.0 15.9 0.0 0.2

19 15:49 15.2 3.7 23.0 0.0 0.4

20 15:50 14.5 4.1 21.8 -0.1 0.4

21 15:51 14.9 3.9 11.6 0.0 0.2

22 15:52 14.7 4.0 16.3 -0.1 0.5

23 15:53 14.8 4.0 13.1 -0.1 0.5

24 15:54 15.1 3.8 16.2 0.0 0.5

25 15:55 14.9 3.8 16.6 0.0 0.5

26 15:56 14.9 3.9 15.8 0.0 0.5

27 15:57 15.2 3.7 20.7 0.0 0.9

28 15:58 15.0 3.8 22.7 -0.1 0.6

29 15:59 15.0 3.8 21.9 0.0 0.2

30 16:00 14.9 3.9 23.2 0.0 0.1

31 16:01 14.8 4.0 14.1 0.0 0.5

32 16:02 14.9 3.9 17.5 0.0 0.6

33 16:03 14.8 4.0 13.2 0.0 0.1

34 16:04 14.9 3.9 18.2 0.1 0.2

35 16:05 14.8 4.0 15.4 0.0 0.3

36 16:06 14.8 4.0 14.0 -0.1 -0.5

37 16:07 14.8 4.0 14.6 -0.1 0.4

38 16:08 14.8 4.0 13.9 -0.1 0.6

39 16:09 14.4 4.2 16.7 0.0 0.6

40 16:10 15.0 3.8 12.0 -0.1 0.5

41 16:11 15.0 3.8 24.2 0.0 0.6

42 16:12 15.1 3.8 30.0 -0.1 0.8

43 16:13 14.9 3.9 14.9 0.0 0.7

44 16:14 14.9 3.9 19.4 -0.1 0.6

45 16:15 14.7 4.0 12.9 -0.1 0.4

46 16:16 14.7 4.0 17.8 -0.1 -0.2

47 16:17 14.6 4.1 19.6 0.0 0.4

48 16:18 15.0 3.9 15.7 0.0 0.2

49 16:19 14.8 4.0 17.2 0.0 0.2

50 16:20 15.1 3.8 15.9 0.0 0.6

51 16:21 14.7 4.0 17.6 0.1 1.0

52 16:22 14.4 4.2 10.5 0.0 0.6

53 16:23 14.6 4.1 11.3 0.0 -0.2

54 16:24 14.6 4.0 13.7 0.0 -0.5

55 16:25 14.6 4.1 11.3 0.0 -0.1

56 16:26 14.8 3.9 13.9 -0.1 -0.8

57 16:27 14.6 4.1 11.1 0.1 -0.3

58 16:28 14.5 4.2 11.8 0.0 0.1

59 16:29 14.6 4.1 14.5 0.0 0.4

60 16:30 14.7 4.0 11.0 -0.1 0.6

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Span%

Span%

Post Test Calibration

Zero%

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Zero%

Calibration Information

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Gas

Instrument Range
Cimarron Energy Run 8

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND Start Time 16:48:23

Flare Run Length 60

06/14/11 Stop Time 17:48

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182 1490 10

10.00 2.48 79.1 300.0 3.0

0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 80.2 305.0 3.0

-0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 81.3 299.1 3.1

0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0%

0.1% 0.2% 1.4% 0.7% 1.2%

0.3% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.4% 0.6%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

14.9 3.8 21.0 0.0 0.6

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

14.9 3.8 22.0 0.0 0.7

1 16:48 14.7 4.0 17.2 -0.1 2.4

2 16:49 15.2 3.6 22.6 0.0 1.4

3 16:50 14.9 3.8 24.1 -0.1 1.4

4 16:51 14.6 4.1 19.9 -0.1 1.2

5 16:52 14.7 4.0 14.8 0.0 1.3

6 16:53 14.6 4.0 13.2 0.0 1.3

7 16:54 14.5 4.2 14.0 -0.1 1.2

8 16:55 14.7 4.0 13.0 0.0 1.4

9 16:56 15.1 3.8 15.6 0.1 1.4

10 16:57 15.1 3.7 22.6 0.1 1.4

11 16:58 14.8 3.9 20.1 0.0 1.4

12 16:59 14.8 3.9 16.4 0.1 1.4

13 17:00 14.6 4.1 13.2 0.0 1.2

14 17:01 14.7 4.0 13.7 -0.1 1.2

15 17:02 14.9 3.9 14.1 0.0 1.2

16 17:03 14.7 4.0 13.0 -0.2 1.2

17 17:04 14.6 4.0 17.6 0.0 1.2

18 17:05 14.8 3.9 11.7 0.1 0.2

19 17:06 14.8 3.9 14.5 -0.1 -0.5

20 17:07 14.6 4.0 13.4 0.0 -0.4

21 17:08 14.6 4.1 14.8 -0.1 0.3

22 17:09 14.8 4.0 14.8 -0.1 0.3

23 17:10 15.0 3.8 20.3 0.0 0.9

24 17:11 14.8 4.0 18.5 0.0 1.0

25 17:12 15.1 3.7 21.2 -0.1 1.0

26 17:13 15.0 3.8 20.2 -0.1 1.0

27 17:14 15.1 3.7 20.0 0.1 0.5

28 17:15 15.0 3.8 18.7 0.1 -0.6

29 17:16 15.2 3.7 19.3 -0.1 -0.2

30 17:17 15.3 3.6 31.2 -0.1 0.5

31 17:18 15.1 3.7 24.2 -0.1 1.0

32 17:19 15.1 3.8 21.0 -0.1 1.2

33 17:20 15.0 3.9 19.8 -0.1 0.8

34 17:21 15.1 3.7 20.4 -0.1 0.8

35 17:22 15.0 3.7 22.1 0.0 1.1

36 17:23 15.0 3.8 18.9 0.0 1.2

37 17:24 15.2 3.7 22.7 0.0 -0.4

38 17:25 15.1 3.7 23.3 -0.1 -0.1

39 17:26 14.9 3.8 18.2 -0.2 0.5

40 17:27 15.0 3.8 19.8 0.0 0.7

41 17:28 15.1 3.7 22.9 -0.1 -0.4

42 17:29 15.3 3.6 138.2 -0.1 0.9

43 17:30 15.3 3.7 90.9 0.0 0.4

44 17:31 15.0 3.8 32.2 -0.1 -0.2

45 17:32 15.1 3.7 47.7 -0.1 -0.5

46 17:33 15.0 3.9 18.3 -0.1 0.3

47 17:34 14.9 3.8 14.7 -0.1 1.1

48 17:35 14.9 3.8 18.0 0.0 1.2

49 17:36 14.9 3.8 15.8 0.1 0.6

50 17:37 15.2 3.7 20.5 0.0 -0.3

51 17:38 15.0 3.8 20.9 -0.1 1.0

52 17:39 14.9 3.9 13.3 0.0 1.2

53 17:40 15.3 3.6 24.7 -0.1 1.2

54 17:41 14.8 3.9 18.7 0.0 1.0

55 17:42 14.7 4.0 14.4 -0.1 0.5

56 17:43 14.7 4.0 15.9 -0.1 0.3

57 17:44 14.8 3.9 12.4 0.0 0.2

58 17:45 14.9 3.8 18.2 -0.1 0.1

59 17:46 14.9 3.9 14.6 -0.1 0.2

60 17:47 14.8 3.9 14.8 0.1 0.3

Zero%

Calibration Information

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Gas

Instrument Range

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Span%

Span%

Post Test Calibration

Zero%
Cimarron Energy Run 9

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND Start Time 8:45:06

Flare Run Length 60

06/14/11 Stop Time 9:45

O2 CO2 CO CH4 NMHC

21.1 5.0 182.0 1490.0 10.0

10.0 2.5 79.1 300.0 3.0

-0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1

10.0 2.5 78.0 294.2 3.0

0.0 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.0

10.0 2.5 77.1 301.4 3.0

0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 1.0%

0.1% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 1.0%

0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0%

0.0% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%

 Corrected O2 

%

 Corrected 

CO2

 %

 Corrected CO 

ppm

 Corrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Corrected 

TVOC ppm

15.1 3.8 15.4 -0.1 0.1

Run Length 

(Minutes) Time Uncorrected 

O2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO2 %

 Uncorrected 

CO ppm

 Uncorrected 

CH4 ppmvw

 Uncorrected 

TVOC ppm

15.1 3.8 16.0 0.0 0.1

1 6/15/11 8:45 15.2 3.7 16.8 0.0 0.4

2 6/15/11 8:46 15.0 3.8 15.4 0.0 0.3

3 6/15/11 8:47 15.1 3.8 15.0 -0.1 0.3

4 6/15/11 8:48 15.1 3.8 14.2 0.0 0.3

5 6/15/11 8:49 15.1 3.8 13.9 0.0 0.3

6 6/15/11 8:50 15.2 3.7 14.68 -0.1 0.3

7 6/15/11 8:51 14.9 3.9 15.0 0.0 0.3

8 6/15/11 8:52 15.1 3.7 14.9 0.0 0.3

9 6/15/11 8:53 15.1 3.8 14.0 0.0 0.4

10 6/15/11 8:54 15.0 3.8 15.2 0.0 0.3

11 6/15/11 8:55 15.0 3.9 14.4 -0.1 0.0

12 6/15/11 8:56 15.1 3.8 13.8 -0.1 0.4

13 6/15/11 8:57 15.2 3.8 15.0 0.0 0.8

14 6/15/11 8:58 15.0 3.8 16.2 -0.1 0.7

15 6/15/11 8:59 15.0 3.9 13.1 0.0 0.3

16 6/15/11 9:00 15.1 3.8 14.2 -0.1 0.1

17 6/15/11 9:01 15.0 3.9 14.8 -0.1 0.1

18 6/15/11 9:02 15.2 3.8 15.5 0.0 0.2

19 6/15/11 9:03 15.0 3.9 14.8 0.0 0.1

20 6/15/11 9:04 15.0 3.8 14.2 0.0 0.0

21 6/15/11 9:05 14.9 3.9 13.16 0.0 0.1

22 6/15/11 9:06 15.0 3.9 13.9 0.0 0.1

23 6/15/11 9:07 15.0 3.9 13.2 -0.1 0.1

24 6/15/11 9:08 15.0 3.9 13.1 0.0 0.2

25 6/15/11 9:09 15.1 3.8 15.2 0.0 0.3

26 6/15/11 9:10 14.8 4.0 12.0 0.0 0.2

27 6/15/11 9:11 15.2 3.7 16.0 0.0 0.3

28 6/15/11 9:12 15.0 3.8 14.7 -0.1 0.2

29 6/15/11 9:13 15.1 3.8 14.0 0.1 0.0

30 6/15/11 9:14 14.8 4.0 14.0 0.0 -0.4

31 6/15/11 9:15 15.0 3.8 13.1 -0.1 0.1

32 6/15/11 9:16 14.7 4.1 13.4 -0.1 0.0

33 6/15/11 9:17 14.9 4.0 11.8 -0.1 0.0

34 6/15/11 9:18 14.9 4.0 13.7 0.0 0.0

35 6/15/11 9:19 15.1 3.8 13.5 -0.1 0.1

36 6/15/11 9:20 15.5 3.6 17.4 -0.1 0.0

37 6/15/11 9:21 15.2 3.7 23.0 0.1 0.0

38 6/15/11 9:22 14.9 4.0 15.2 0.1 0.1

39 6/15/11 9:23 15.5 3.6 18.2 0.0 0.2

40 6/15/11 9:24 15.5 3.6 22.6 0.0 0.0

41 6/15/11 9:25 15.5 3.5 26.7 0.0 0.0

42 6/15/11 9:26 15.2 3.8 17.7 0.0 0.0

43 6/15/11 9:27 15.5 3.6 17.3 0.1 0.0

44 6/15/11 9:28 15.7 3.5 26.1 0.0 0.0

45 6/15/11 9:29 15.7 3.4 29.9 0.0 0.0

46 6/15/11 9:30 15.3 3.7 23.4 -0.1 0.0

47 6/15/11 9:31 15.0 3.9 15.1 0.0 0.1

48 6/15/11 9:32 15.4 3.7 17.4 0.1 0.1

49 6/15/11 9:33 15.2 3.7 19.0 -0.1 0.0

50 6/15/11 9:34 15.0 3.9 14.0 0.1 -0.1

51 6/15/11 9:35 15.0 3.9 14.0 0.0 0.0

52 6/15/11 9:36 15.3 3.7 15.8 0.0 0.0

53 6/15/11 9:37 15.1 3.8 16.9 0.1 0.0

54 6/15/11 9:38 15.1 3.8 16.3 0.0 0.0

55 6/15/11 9:39 15.1 3.8 15.5 0.0 0.0

56 6/15/11 9:40 15.3 3.8 15.6 0.2 -0.1

57 6/15/11 9:41 15.4 3.8 18.8 0.0 0.0

58 6/15/11 9:42 15.1 3.9 15.2 0.0 0.0

59 6/15/11 9:43 15.2 3.9 14.8 -0.1 -0.1

60 6/15/11 9:44 15.1 4.0 13.8 0.0 -0.1

Results

Absolute Bias (Zero)

Span%

Span%

Post Test Calibration

Zero%

Absolute Bias (Span)

 Absolute Drift (Zero)

Absolute Drift (Span)

Zero%

Calibration Information

Span Gas Value

Calibration 

Pretest Calibration

Gas

Instrument Range
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall ND

Flare

6/14/2011

10 oz. 

Outlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.01

Waste Gas Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8

) 489.2

Pilot Inlet NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 0.5

Sum of Inlets NMOC (lb/hr as C3H8) 489.7

% DRE (mass flow in/out basis) 100.00%

% DRE (carbon balance) 100.00%

%DRE Calculations
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

EPA Methods 1-4: Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate

Sample Calculations

sample volume (scf) = 17.64 * VM * YD * {PB + ∆H/13.6}

TM + 460

= 17.64 * 37.56 * 0.978 * { 27.64 + 1.0 / 13.6}

74 460

= 33.629

moisture volume (scf) = 0.04715 * VLC

= 0.04715 * 34

= 1.603

moisture content (% / 100) = VW(STD)

(VM(STD) + VW(STD))

= 1.603

( 33.629 + 1.603 )

= 0.046

molecular weight, dry (grams/mol) = (0.440) * (%CO2

) + (0.320) * (%O2) + (0.280) * (%N2 + %CO)

= (0.440) * 1.5 + (0.320) + 18.5 + (0.280) * ( 80 + 0.0)

= 28.98

molecular weight, actual (grams/mol) = MD * (1 - BWS) + (18.0) * BWS

= 28.98 * (1 - 0.046 ) + (18 * 0.046 )

= 28.48

+
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

EPA Methods 1-4: Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate

Sample Calculations (continued)

gas velocity (ft/sec) = 85.49 * CP * √∆PAVG *

[PB + PS / 13.6] * MA

= (85.49) * 0.83 * 0.078 * 936 +

27.64 + 0.00 * 28.48

13.6

= 7.4

π * (DS / 12)2

gas flow (acfm) = 60 * 4 * VS

π * ( 42.63 / 12)2

= 60 * 4 * 7.4

= 4,382

π * (DS / 12)2

TSTD * [PB + PS / 13.6]

gas flow (dscfm) = 60 * VS * (1 - BWS) * 4 * (TS + 460) * PSTD

π * ( /12)2 528 * [ 27.64 + 0.00 / 13.6 ]

= 60 * ) * * ( 936 + 460) * 29.92

= 1,462

7.4

TS + 460

42.6

* (1 - 0.046 4

[ ]

460
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

EPA Methods 1-4: Determination of Stack Gas Velocity and Volumetric Flow Rate

Variables and Abbreviations

BWS - moisture content of the gas (wet volume percent/100)

%CO - carbon monoxide content of the gas (dry volume percent)

%CO2

 - carbon dioxide content of the gas (dry volume percent)

CP - pitot tube constant (unitless)

DS - diameter of the stack (inches)

∆H - pressure differential at dry gas meter exit orifice (inches water)

MD - molecular weight of the dry gas (grams per mol)

MA - molecular weight of the wet gas (grams per mol)

%N2

 - nitrogen content of the gas (dry volume percent)

%O2 - oxygen content of the gas (dry volume percent)

PAVG - average square root of the stack gas pitot differential pressure (inches water)

PB - barometric pressure (inches mercury)

PS - stack pressure relative to barometric presure (inches water)

PSTD - standard pressure (29.92 inches mercury)

TM - average dry gas meter temperature (oF)

TS - average stack temperature (oF)

TSTD - standard temperature (528 oR)

VLC - volume of moisture collected as a liquid (milliliters)

VM - volume indicated on dry gas meter (uncorrected actual cubic feet)

VMSTD - volume of gas through dry gas meter (corrected dry standard cubic feet)

VS - stack gas velocity (feet per second)

VWSTD - volume of moisture collected as a gas at standard conditions (standard cubic feet)

YD - dry gas meter calibration factor (unitless)
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

EPA Method 3A: Determination of O2 / CO2 Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary 

Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure )

Sample Calculations

CO2 conc, drift cal (%vd) = (%FSSTACK - %FS0

) * [Span Gas Conc (%vd)]

(%FSSPAN-%FS0)

= ( 1.5 - 0 ) * ( 2.48 )

( 2.5 ) - ( 0 )

= 2.5

O2 conc, drift cal (%vd) = (%FSSTACK - %FS0

) * [Span Gas Conc (%vd)]

(%FSSPAN-%FS0)

= ( 18.7 - 0.0 ) * ( 10 )

( 10.1 ) - ( 0.0 )

= 18.5

Variables and Abbreviations

cal - calibrated

conc - concentration

CO2

 - Carbon Dioxide

O2 - Oxygen

%FSSPAN - average analyzer reading for span gas (percent of full scale)

%FSSTACK - average analyzer reading for stack gas (percent of full scale)

%FS0 - average analyzer reading for zero gas (percent of full scale)

%vd- dry volume percent
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

EPA Method 10: Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary 

Sources (Instrumental Analyzer Procedure )

Sample Calculations

CO conc, drift cal (ppmvd) = (%FSSTACK - %FS0

) * [Span Gas Conc (ppmvd)]

(%FSSPAN-%FS0

)

= ( 105.1 - 1.2 ) * ( 79.1 )

( 77.9 ) - ( 1.2 )

= 107.2

CO emissions (lb/hr) = [CO (ppmvd)]*(FDSCFM)*(1.556 X 10 E-7)*(46.01)

= ( 107.2 )* 1,462 * (1.556 X 10E-7) * (46.01)

= 0.70

Variables and Abbreviations

cal - calibrated

conc - concentration

FDSCFM - gas flow (dry standard cubic feet per minute, where standard = 29.92 inches Hg and 68oF)

%FSSPAN - average analyzer reading for span gas at probe tip (percent of full scale)

%FSSTACK - average analyzer reading for stack gas (percent of full scale)

%FS0

 - average analyzer reading for zero gas at probe tip (percent of full scale)

lb/hr - pounds per hour

ppmvd - parts per million, dry volume basis

g/bhp-hr - grams per brake horsepower-hour
Cimarron Energy

Liberty Oil Well

Parshall, ND

Flare

06/15/11

EPA Method 25A: Determination of Total Gaseous Organic Concentrations Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer

Sample Calculations

NMOC conc, drift cal (ppmvd as C3H8) = (%FSSTACK - %FS0

) * [Span Gas Conc (ppmvd)]

(%FSSPAN-%FS0

)

= ( 43.9 - 0.0 ) * ( 30.2 )

( 30.2 ) - ( 0.0 )

= 43.9

NMOC emissions (lb/hr as C3H8) [NMOC (ppmvd)]*(FDSCFM)*(1.556 X 10 E-7)*(44.09)

= ( 43.9 ) * ( 1,462 ) * (1.556 X 10 E-7) * 44.09

= 0.46

Variables and Abbreviations

as C3H8 - as propane or C3

BWS - moisture content of the gas (wet volume percent/100)

cal - calibrated

conc - concentration

FDSCFM - gas flow (dry standard cubic feet per minute, where standard = 29.92 inches Hg and 68oF)

%FSSPAN - average analyzer reading for span gas at probe tip (percent of full scale)

%FSSTACK - average analyzer reading for stack gas (percent of full scale)

%FS0 - average analyzer reading for zero gas at probe tip (percent of full scale)

lb/hr - pounds per hour

tpy - tons per year

ppmvw - parts per million, wet volume basis

g/bhp-hr - grams per brake horsepower-hour

=
Appendix Two: Field and Laboratory Data
1 oz. Inlet Pressure 






4 oz. Inlet Pressure 







10 oz. Inlet Pressure 
























 Appendix Three: Calibration Data















 Appendix Four: Schematics
F F

ft3

“Hg

orifice

manometer dry gas

meter

air-tight

pump

vacuum

gauge

main valve

bypass

valve

thermocouples

sample probe

S-type pitot

with

thermocouple

100 mL H20

250g Silica gel

empty

100 mL H20

stack wall

chilled impinger train

sample line

pitot lines

EPA Methods 1,2, & 4

sampling train schematic
EPA Methods 3A, 10, 18 & 25A

sampling train schematic

CO

O2 CO2

CDAS

stack wall

sample probe

with

in-stack filter

moisture removal

system with pump

calibration gas

manifold pressure

regulator and pressure

gauge

sample transport lines

heated sample lines

calibration valve

sample control valve

with bypass

flowmeter

sample control

valve

Servomex Series 1400

TECO Model 48H

JUM Model VE-7 FID

pump

VOC

Tedlar bag for

subsequent GC

analysis



















 

PROJECT #98-19895

INCINERATOR EFFICIENCY SURVEY 

QUESTOR TECHNOLOGIES INC. 

MOBIL LONE PINE 06-03-030-27-W4M 

INCINERATOR EXHAUST STACK 

November 5, 1998

Prepared by: 

MAXXAM ANALYTICS INC. 

9331 - 48th Street 

Edmonton, Alberta 

T6B 2R4 

Submitted to: 

QUESTOR TECNOLOGIES INC. 

Suite 500, 665-8 Street SW 

Calgary, Alberta 

T2P 3K7 
 Questor Technologies Inc. 

 Mobil Lone Pine Creek (06-03) - November 1998 

 Project #98-19895

 

-iSUMMARY

On November 5, 1998, the Edmonton office of Maxxam Analytics Inc. conducted a source emission survey and efficiency 

test on the Incinerator Exhaust Stack that was operating on a Mobil well site (06-03-030-27-W4M) near the Mobil Lone 

Pine Creek Gas Plant. Sampling was carried out on the separator inlet to determine concentrations of organic compounds 

and water content. Sampling was carried out on the separator outlet to determine concentrations of organic compounds, 

total reduced sulphur compounds and water content. Sampling was carried out on the incinerator exhaust stack to 

determine concentrations of sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, total reduced sulphur compounds 

and organic compounds. Furthermore, destruction efficiencies were determined for total reduced sulphur compounds 

and organic compounds. 

The summary of results is as follows: 

 RUN: SEP. INLET SEP. OUTLET STACK AVERAGE

 DATE: Nov. 5, 1998 Nov. 5, 1998 Nov. 5, 1998 

 TIME: 12:06 - 13:06 12:06 - 13:06 12:06 - 13:06 

WATER CONTENT 

(lb. water/million ft3 of wet gas) 6.4 4.3 - - 

SULPHUR DIOXIDE 

(ppmv wet) - - 547 - 

(ppmv dry) - - 610 - 

(kg/hr) - - - - 

OXIDES OF NITROGEN (as NO2) 

(ppmv wet) - - 67 - 

(ppmv dry) - - 75 - 

(kg/hr) - - - - 

CARBON MONOXIDE 

(ppmv wet) - - 226 - 

(ppmv dry) - - 252 - 

(kg/hr) - - - - 
 Questor Technologies Inc. 

 Mobil Lone Pine Creek (06-03) - November 1998 

 Project #98-19895

 

-ii-

 TOTAL REDUCED SULPHUR COMPOUNDS 

Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) - 10400 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 

Carbonyl Sulphide (COS) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) - 6 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 Carbon Disulphide (CS2) (ppmv wet) - - <0.4 - 

 (ppmv dry) - <0.5 <0.5 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS 

Methane (CH4) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 825000 816900 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 

 Ethane (C2H6) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 44100 44800 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 

Propane (C3H8) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 13700 14800 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 Butane (C4H10) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 7040 9420 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 

Pentane (C5H12) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 3520 5880 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

 Hexane (C6H14) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 1960 3510 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 
 Questor Technologies Inc. 

 Mobil Lone Pine Creek (06-03) - November 1998 

 Project #98-19895

 

-iii-

 

Heptane + (C7H16) (ppmv wet) - - <0.9 - 

 (ppmv dry) 4680 3690 <1.0 - 

(g/hr) - - - - 

Components heavier than heptane are presented in Appendix II of this report 

DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCIES – TRS (as Sulphur) 

(total in – ppmv as Sulphur) 10420 - - - 

(total out – ppmv as Sulphur) 1.50 - - - 

(% efficiency) >99.99 - - - 

DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCIES – GASEOUS ORGANICS (as CH4) 

(total in – ppmv as Methane) 851328 - - - 

(total out – ppmv as Methane) 1.37 - - - 

(% efficiency) >99.99 - - - 
Mr. Kim Eastlick

Facilities Division

EnvironmentSafety & Technical Services

AlbertaEliergy ai1dUtilities Board

Regarding: Portable Incinerator Test

Shell 29 Limestone 14-2-33-10W5m

Jan 25, 2000/03/04

Shell Canada Limited

400-4th Avenue S.W.

P.O. Box 100. Station M

Calgary, Alberta, T2P2H5

20 March, 2000

Attached arethe findings of the Portable incinerator test conducted by Shell Canada Limited in

conjunction with Norward Energy Services, the owner of the incinerator, and Questor

Technologies, the manufacturer of the incinerator.

Yours truly,

..tt£.. ..•.•.•...~~ R.L~ Nels()n.

qrillingand Production EngineE!ring Advisor

Copies

RobertKnowles

Divisi.onManager

Norwa;rdEnergy Limited

DanierMotyka

President/CpO

Questor Technology Inc

CAPPWellTestFlaring Comrnitteemembers & CAPP Well Construction Committee Chairman

CAPP Environmental Committee Chairman·

File: Incinertatornote to EUB.DOC
page 1

Conducted on Jan 25, 2;000

Incineratortest on Shell 29 Limestone 14-2-33-10 W5M

Portable Well "'Fest Incinerator Test Results

Shell 29 Limestone 14-2-33-10W5M

2-2-33-10W5 surface location
Maxxam Analytics Inc.

Summary of Inlet and Exhaust Gas Analysis

Incineratbrtest on Shell 29 Limestone 14-2-33-10 W5M page 11

Attachment 3

And

Air /Fuel Calculations
200

200

833

833

333

333

933

933

3500

3500

13933

13933

10.39

103900

766300

766300

AVERAGE

Shell Canada Limited

Limestone 29 - "l1luary 2000

Project #00-20310

9.98

99800

msoo

772500

a

JiUl.25, 2000

19:04 - 20:04

":..-... - .: - ';~- -."

10.69

106900

764200

764200

4

JiUl.25,2000

18:00 -19:00

10.51

105100

1

JiUl.25,20oo

16:53 -17:53

(pp,nvwet) 762200

(ppmv dry) 762200

(ppm» ioet) 14400 14000 13400

(ppmv dTY) 14-100 14000 13400

(ppmv tuet) 1000 700 800

(ppmvdry) 1000 700 800

(ppmv.loet) 900 900 1000

(ppmvdry) 900 900 1000

(ppmv wet) 400 200 400

(ppm» dry) 400 200 400

(ppmvwet) 200 200 200

(ppmvdry) 200 200 200

(ppmv wet) 4800 3800 1900

(ppmvdry) 4800 3800 1900

1;2.4 -(3 o

INCINERATOR INLET (126 E3m3/day)

RUN:

DATE:

TIME:

HYDROGEN SULPHIDE

Mole %

ppmv(dTY)

ORGANICCOMPOUNDS

Metltalle .(CH~)

Etlzalle(CJlJ

Propane(CPJ

Blltane (C.,H.,,)

Pentane (C,lfJ:)

Hexane (CJlIJ

I

lill,"""--~";,;,,;,,,,;;,---~--------

I

fi,141~~~~ _

··1·

I

-iv-

. -....."- '-'.. ".. - ." ~~~ -.
_ -_ , .. Limestone 29 - January 2000

Project #00-20310

851

960

27.3

30.6

6597

7415

AVERAGE

47

53

28.7

32.2

6510

7316

,1

Jan. 25, 2000

19:04.; 20:04

32

36

33.4

64-l0

37.4

i212

Z

Jan. 25,2000

18:00- 19:00

22.3

19.7

6842

7718

2473

2790

1

Jari. 25,2000

16:53- 17:53

RUN:

DATE:

,TIME:

!;la-f)u

INCINERATOR EXHAUST STACK (126 E3rn3lday)

SULPHUR DIOXIDE

OXIDESOFNITRQGEN (as N02)

(ppmvlvet)

(ppmvdry)

(ppmvtl1et)

(pplnvdry)

(ppmtrtuet)

(ppmvtiry)

·CARBONMONOXIDE

~I

r

I I

?I~........-------.,.-- ~---- '[I

I

iii.·••••· ••·l?.....-~ '.·........-...--.;......----.....;.--------------------------------: \' .: ,,1=-.,· --------~ __---------'

\ 1

I

'i

II

I

I

I

I

. ',' -..,' ......,

"TcrTAL REDUCED SULPHUR COMPOUNDS

CarbollylSrtlplridll (COS) (pprnv uret} <0.9

(ppm» dry) <1.0

.' .- ...- ....,

.Hydrogensulpl,ide·(H2s) (ppmv wet) <0.9

(ppmv dry) <1.0

I

I'

CarbotJ,.VisulpJiide.(CSJ (ppmv wet) <0.9

(ppm» dry) <1.0

<0.9 <0.9 <0.9

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

<0.9 <0.9 <0.9

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

<0.9 <0.9 <0.9

<1.0 <1.0 <1.0

2.7 24.5 9.3

3.0 27.5 10.5

<0.9 <0.9 <0.9

<1.0 <-LO d.O

4.5 23.1 10.7

5.0· 26.0 '12.0

4.4

5.0

<0.9

<1.0

(ppmvwet) <0.9

(ppmu dry) <1.0

(ppmv wet)

(ppmvdry)

Ethane.(CzHJ

ORGANIC.CQMPOUNDS

Methani!(CHJ (pp"ivlvet)

(ppm» dry)

\ I"--o ....~~~ _

I

I

i,

-v-

-~. .'!:.'.: _. ~..: • - ." "-- =.,.-.-.'.:.-.-.....':.-::::---:'.."
Limestone 29 - January 2000

Projf!ct 1100-20310

(ppm» tuet) 0.9 0.9 16.9 6.2

(ppm» dry) 1.0 1.0 19.0 7.0

(pp111V wet) <0.9 <0.9 .<0.9 <0.9

(pprnvdry) <1.0 <1.0 <LO <LO

(ppmv wet) <0.9 <0.9 <0.9 <0.9

(ppmt: dry) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

(ppmvwet) <0.9 <0.9 <0.9 <0.9

(ppm» dry) <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Pe1ltane(CsHrJ

Butane (CPuJ

I

1 Hexane (CJ{.J

II .

II Heptane + (C,HIJ

1'_~".i;;V}\:~ _

I

I

103900

<4.0

>99.9962

GASEOUS.ORGANICS DESTRUC110NE:{FICIENCIES (as CH,) @ 126 E3m3/d

(total in- pplrrv as S"lpll",) 105100 106900 99800

. (totalouf-pprnvas S"lpl,ur) <4.0 <4.0 <4.0

(%e!ficiency) >99.9962 >99.9963 >99.9960

T;i:- i'I.:fuocro.-t f"'it;.i;, Qlr J~/oJT;.h- 1if~'! 9'1,P 99R

(total iII-pprnvas Methane) 828102 821376 818214

(total out-ppmv as Met/'ane) <36.4 <38.4 <185.8

(% l!fficie"cy) >99.9956 ;>99.9953 >99.9773

822564

<86.9

>99.9894

-vi-

....----- ------ - ".- ..•... -: "._ ..... .-- ".; . ••..;....o¥iT.;., .: •., ." . "'-.' ,- " •• ..: ..... '..-...".