# Lessons Learned

from Natural Gas STAR Partners



# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To
Instrument Air

Executive Summary

Pneumatic instrument system s powered by high-pressure natural gas are often used across the natural gas and petroleum industries for process control. Typical process control applications include pressure, temperature, liquid level, and flow rate regulation. The constant bleed of natural gas from these controllers is collectively one of the largest sources of methane emissions in the natural gas industry, estimated at approx imately 51 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year in the production sector, 14 Bcf per year in the transmission sector, and <1 Bcf from processing.

Companies can achieve sign ificant cost savings andmethane emission reductions by converting natural gaspowered pneumatic contro l systems to compressed instrument air systems. Instrument air systems substitute compressed air for the pressurized natural gas, eliminating methane emissions and providing additional safety benefits. Cost effect ive applications, however, are limited to those field sites with available electrical power, either from a utility or self-generated.

Natural Gas STAR Partners have reported savings of up to 70,000 thousand cubic feet (Mcf) per year per facility by replacing natural gas-powere d pneumatic systems with instrument air systems, representing annual savings of up to $490,000 per facility. Part ners have found that most investments to convert pneumatic systems pay for themselves in just over one year. Individual savings will vary depending on the design, condition and specific operating conditions of the controllers. 

### Technology Background

The natural gas industry uses a variety of process control devices to operate valves that regulate pressure, flow, temperature, and liquid levels. Most instrumentation and control equipment falls into one of three categories: (1) pneumatic; (2) electrical; or (3) mechanical. In the vast majority of applications, the natural gas industry uses pneumatic devices, which make use of readily available high-pressure natural gas to provide the required energy and control signals. Pneu matic instrument systems powered by high-pressure natural gas are used throughout the natural gas industry. In the production sector, an estimated 400,000 pneumatic devices control and monitor gas and liquid flows and levels in dehydrators and separators, temperature in dehydrator regenerators, and pressure in flash tanks. Most processing plants already use instrument air, but some use gas pneumatics, and including the gathering/booster stations that feed these processing plants, there are about 13,000 gas pneumatic
devices in this sector. In the transmission sector, an estimated 85,000 pneumatic devices actuate isolation valves and regulate gas flow and pressure at compressor stations, pipelines, and stor age facilities. Non-bleed pneumatic devices are also found on meter runs at distribution company gate stations and distribution grids where they regulate flow and pressure.

Exhibit 1 depicts a pneumatic control system powered by natural gas. The pneumatic control system consists of the process control instruments and valves that are operated by natural gas regulated at approximately 20-30 pounds



### Economic and Environmental Benefits

Method for Reducing

Natural Gas Losses Volume of

Natural Gas Savings (Mcf/ year) Value of Natural Gas Savings ($/ year) Payback (Months)

$3 per Mcf $5 per Mcf $7 per Mcf $3 per

Mcf $5 per

Mcf $7 per

Mcf
Replace Gas with Air in Pneumatic Systems (per facility) 20,000 $60,000 $100,000 $140,000 $60,000 12 8 6

General Assumptions:

a Cost of installing compressor, dryer and other accessories, and annual electricity requirements. Implementation Cost ($) a

1

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

Exhibit 1: Natural Gas Pneumatic Control System Exhibit 2: Signal and Actuation Schematics

per square inch (psi), and a network of distribution tubing to supply all of the control instruments. Natural gas is also used for a few “utility services,” such as small pneumatic pumps, compre ssor motor starters, and isolation shutoff valves. Exhibit 2 shows a simplified diagram of a pneumatic control loop. A process condition, such as liquid level in a separator vessel, is monitored by a float that is mechanically linked to the liquid level controller outside the vessel. A rise or fall in liquid level moves the float upward or downward, which is translated
to small needle valves inside the controller. Pneumatic supply gas is either directed to the valve actuator by the needle valve pinching off an orifice, or gas pressure is bled off the valve actuator. Increasing gas pressure on the valve actuator pushes down a diaphragm connected by a rod to the valve plug, causing the plug to open and increasing the flow of liquid draining out of the separator vessel. Gas pressure relieved from the valve actuator allows a spring to push the valve plug closed.

As part of normal operation, natural gas powered pneumatic devices release or bleed gas to the atmosphere and, consequently, are a major source of methane emissions from the natural gas industry. Pneumatic control systems emit methane from tube joints, controls, and any number of points within the distribution tubing network. The actual bleed rate or emissions level largely depends on the design of the device. In general, controllers of similar design have simi lar steady-state bleed rates regardless of brand name. The methane emission rate will also vary with the pneu matic gas supply pressure, actuation frequency, and age or condition of the equipment.

Many Partners have found that it is economic to substitute compressed air for natural gas in pneumatic systems. The
use of instrument air eliminates methane emissions and leads to increased gas sales. In addition, by eliminating the use of a flammable substance, operational safety is significantly increased. The pr imary costs associated with
conversion to instrument ai r systems are initial capital expenditures for installing compressors and related equipment and operating costs for electrical energy to power the compressor motor. Existing pneumatic gas supply piping, control instrume nts, and valve actuators of the gas pneumatic system can be reused in an instrument air system.

A compressed instrument air syst em is shown in Exhibit 3. In these systems, atmospheric air is compressed, stored in a volume tank, filtered and dried for instrument use. Air used for utility services (e.g . small pneumatic pumps, gas
compressor motor starters, pneu matic tools, sand blasting) does not need to be dried. All other parts of a gas pneumatic system will work the same way with air as they do with gas.

The major components of an instrument air conversion project include the compressor, power source, dehydrator, and volume tank. The following are descriptions of each of

2

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

Exhibit 3: Compressed Instrument Air System

these components along with important installation
considerations.

 Compressor. Compressors used for instrument air delivery are available in va rious types and sizes, from rotary screw (centrifugal) compressors to positive displacement (reciprocating pi ston) types. The size of the compressor depends on the size of the facility, the number of control devices operated by the system, and the typical bleed rates of these devices. The compressor is usually driven by an electric motor that turns on and off, depending on the pressure in the volume tank. For reliability, a full spare compressor is normally installed.

 Power Source. A critical component of the instrument air control system is the power sourcerequired to operate the compressor. Because highpressure natural gas is abundant and readily available, gas pneuma tic systems can run uninterrupted on a 24-hour, 7-day per week schedule. The reliability of an instrument air system, however, depends on the reliability of the compressor and electric power supply. Most large natural gas plants have either an existing electric power supply or have their own power generation system. For smaller
facilities and remote locati ons, however, a reliable source of electric power can be difficult to assure. In some instances, solar-powered batte ry-operated air compressors can be cost effe ctive for remote locations, which reduces both methane emissions and energy consumption. Small natural gas powered fuel cells are also being developed.

 Dehydrators. Dehydrators, or air dryers, are an integral part of the instrument air compressor system. Water vapor present in atmospheric air condenses when the air is pressurized and cooled, and can cause a number of problems to these systems, including corrosion of the instrument parts and blockage of instrument air piping and controller orifices. For smaller system s, membrane dryers have
become economic. These are molecular filters that allow oxygen and nitrogen molecules to pass through the membrane, and hold back water molecules. They are very reliable, with no moving parts, and the filter element can be easily replaced. For larger applications, desiccant (alumina) dryers are more
cost effective.

 Volume Tank. The volume tank holds enough air to allow the pneumatic control system to have an uninterrupted supply of high pressure air without having to run the air compressor continuously. The volume tank allows a large withdrawal of compressed air for a short time, such as for a motor starter, pneumatic pump, or pneumatic tools, without affecting the process control functions.



### Economic and Environmental Benefits

Reducing methane emissions from pneumatic devices by converting to instrument air control and instrumentation systems can yield significant economic and environmental benefits for natural gas companies including:

 Financial Return From Reducing Gas Emission

Losses. Assuming a natural gas price of $7.00 per Mcf, savings from redu ced emissions can be estimated at $840 per year per device or $490,000 or more per year per facility. In many cases, the cost of converting to instrument ai r can be recovered in less than a year.

 Increased Life of Control Devices and Improved Operational Efficiency. Natural gas used in pneumatic control devices and instruments often contains corrosive gases (such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide) that can reduce the effective operating life of these devices. In addition, natural

3

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

gas often produces by-products of iron oxidation, which can plug small orifices in the equipment resulting in operational inefficiencies or hazards. When instrument air is used, and properly filtered and dried, system degradation is reduced and operating life is extended.

 Avoided Use Of Flammable Natural Gas. Using compressed air as an alternative to natural gas eliminates the use of a flammable substance, significantly increasing the safety of natural gas processing plants and tran smission and distribution systems. This can be particularly important at offshore installations, wh ere risks associated with hazardous and flammable materials are greater.

 Lower Methane Emissions. Reductions in methane emissions have been reported as high as 70,000 Mcf per facility annually, depending on the device(s) and the type of control application.



### Decision Process

The conversion of natural gas pneumatics to instrument air system is applicable to all natural gas facilities and plants. To determine the most cost-effective applications, however, requires a technical and economic feasibility study. The six steps outlined below, and the practical example with cost tables, equations, and factors, can help companies to evaluate their opportunities.

Step 1: Identify Possible Locations For Instrument Air System Installations.

Most natural gas-op erated pneumatic control systems can be replaced with instrument air. Instrument air systems will require new investme nts for the compressor, dehydrator, and other related equipment, as well as a supply of electricity. As a result, a first step in a successful instrument air conversion project is screening existing facilities to identify locations that are most suitable for cost effective proj ects. In general, three main factors should be considered during this process.

Decision Process for Converting Gas Pneumatic Devices to

Instrument Air:

1. Identify possible locations for system installations.

2. Determine optimal system capacity.

3. Estimate the project costs.

4. Estimate gas savings.

5. Evaluate the economics.

6. Develop an implementation plan. The average methane content of na tural gas varies by natural gas industry sector. The Natural Gas STAR Program assumes the following methane content of natural gas when estimating methane savings for Partner Reported Opportunities.

Production 79 %

Processing 87 %

Transmission and Distribution 94 % 

### Methane Content of Natural Gas

 Facility Layout. The layout of a natural gas facility can significantly affect equipment and installation
costs for an instrument ai r system. For example, conversion to instrument air might not be cost
effective at decentralized facilities where tank batteries are remote or widely scattered. Instrument air is most appropriate when used at offshore platforms and onshore facilities where pneumatics are consolidated within a relatively small area.

 Number Of Pneumatics. The more pneumatic controllers converted to instrument air, the greater the potential for reduced emissions and increased company savings. Conversi on to instrument air is most profitable when a company is planning a facility -wide change.

 Available Power Supply. Since most instrument air systems rely on electric power for operating the compressor, a cost-effective, uninterrupted electrical energy source is essential. While major facilities often have an existing power supply or their own power generation system, many smaller and remote
facilities do not. For these facilities, the cost of power generation generally makes the use of instrument air unprofitable. In addition, facilities with dedicated generators need to assess whether the generators have enough available capacity to support an air compression system, as th e cost of a generator upgrade can be prohibitive. Remote facilities should examine alternatives for power generation, which range from microturbines to solar power.

Step 2: Determine Optimal System Capacity.

Once project sites have been identified, it is important to determine the appropriate capacity of the new instrument air system. The capacity needed is a direct function of the amount of compressed air needed to both operate the pneumatic instrumentation and meet any utility air requirements.

4

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

 Instrument Air Requirements. The compressed air needs for the pneumatic system are equivalent to the volume of gas being used to run the existing instrumentation—adjusted for air losses during the drying process. The current volume of gas usage can be determined by a direct meter reading (if a meter has been installed). In nonmetered systems, a conservative rule-of-thumb for sizing air systems is one cubic foot per minute (cfm) of instrument air for each control loop (consisting of a pneumatic controller and a control valve). 

### Rule-of-Thumb

1 cfm air/control loop

The initial estimate of 

### Rule-of-Thumb instrument air needs should
17 percent of air input then be adjusted to account for is consumed by the air losses during the drying membrane dryer process. Typically, the membrane filters in the air dryer consume about 17 percent of the air input. As a result, the estimated volume of instrument air usage is 83 percent of the total compressed air supply: i.e., divide estimated air usage by 83 percent. Desiccant dryers do not consume air and therefore require no adjustment.

 Utility Air Requirements. It 

### Rule-of-Thumb is common to use compressed air

Pneumatic air uses: 1/3 for utility purposes, such as for instrument air; 2/3 engine starters, pneumatic for utility air driven pumps, pneumatic tools (e.g., impact wrenches), and sand blasting. Unlike instrument air, utility air does not have to be dried. The frequency and volumes of such utility air uses are additive. Companies will need to evaluate these other compressed air services on a site-specific basis, allowing for the possibility of expansion at the site. A general rule-of-thumb is to assume that the maximum rate of compressed air needed periodically for utility purposes will be double the steady rate
used for instrument air.

Exhibit 4 illustrates how th e instrument air compressor size can be estimated. Using the rule-of-thumb of 1 cfm/ control loop, the current gas usage would translate to approximately 35 cfm of dry instrument air. Adjusting for the dryer's air consumption ( 17 percent of air input), the total instrument air supply requirement will be 42 cfm. Factoring in utility air needs of about 70 cfm, the project would require a total of 1 12 cfm of compressed air. 

### Exhibit 4: Calculate Compressor Size for Converting Gas Pneumati cs to Instrument Air

Given: For an average size production site with pneumatics, glycol dehydration, compression, 35 cont rol loops, and an average of 10 cfm utility gas usage for pneumatic pumps and compressor engine starting.

A = Total Compressed Air

IAu = Instrument air use

IAs = Instrument air supply

UAs = Utility air supply

L = Control loops

Rule-of-thumb: 1 cfm per control loop for estimating instrument air systems. Rule-of-thumb: 17% of air is bypassed in membrane dryers. Rule-of-thumb: 1/3 of total air used for instruments, 2/3 of total air used for utility services.

Calculate: A = Air compressor capacity required.

A = IAs + UAs

IAu = L * (1 cfm/loop)

IAs = IAu/(100% - % air bypassed in dryer)

UAs = IAu * (fraction of utility air us e) / (fraction of instrument air use)

A = (35*1) / (100% - 17%) + (35*1) * (2/3) / (1/3) = 112 cfm

Step 3: Estimate the Project Costs.

The major costs associated wi th installing and operating an instrument air system are the installation costs for compressors, dryers, and volume tanks, and energy costs. The actual installation costs will be a function of the size, location, and other location specific factors. A typical conversion of a natural gas pneumatic control system to compressed instrument air costs approximately $45,000 to $75,000.

To estimate the cost for a given project, all expenses associated with the compresso r, dryer, volume tank, and power supply must be calculated. Most vendors are willing to provide estimates of the equipment costs and installation requirements (including compressor size, motor horsepower, electrical power requirements, and storage capacity). Alternatively, operators can use the following information on the major system components to
estimate the total installed cost of the instrument air
system.

 Compressor Costs. It is common to install two compressors at a facility (one operating and one stand-by spare) to ensure reliability and allow for
maintenance and overhauls without service interruptions. The capacity for each of the compressors must be suffic ient to handle the total expected compressed air volume for the project (i.e., both instrument and utility air). Exhibit 5 presents

5

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

cost estimates for purchasing and servicing small, medium, and large compre ssors. For screw-type compressors, operators should expect to overhaul the unit every 5 to 6 years. This normally involves exchanging the compressor core for a rebuilt compressor at a cost of approximately $3,929, with an additional $720 in labor expense and a $650 core exchange credit.



### Exhibit 5: Air Compressor Costs

Service

Size Air

Volume

(cfm) Comp

ressor Type Horse

power Equip

ment
Costs

($) Annual

Service ($/yr) Service

Life (yrs)

Small

Medium

Large 30

125

350 Recipro -cating

Screw

Screw 10

30

75 3,275 a

16,371

28,812 434

868

868 1

5-6 b

5-6 b

a Cost included package compressor with a volume tank.

b Rebuilt compressor costs $3,929 plus $500 labor minus $500 core exchange credit.

 Volume Tank. Compressed air supply systems include a volume tank, which maintains a steady pressure with the on-off operation of the air compressor. The rule-of-thumb in determining the
size of the volume tank is 1-gallon capacity for each cfm of compressed air. Exhibit 6 presents equipment costs for small, medium, and large
volume tanks. Volume tanks have essentially no operating
and maintenance costs. 

### Rule-of-Thumb

1 gallon tank capacity/1

cfm air

 Air Dryer Costs. Because instrument air must be very dry to avoid plugging and corrosion, the compressed air is commonly put through a dryer. The most common dryer used in small to medium



### Exhibit 6: Volume Tank Costs

Service Size Air Volume (gallons) Equipment Cost ($)

Small a

Medium

Large 80

400

1,000 655

1,964

3,929

a Small reciprocating air compressors, 10 horsepower and less, are commonly supplied with a surge tank. applications is a permeable membrane dryer. Larger air systems can use multip le membrane dryers, or, more cost effectively, alum ina bed desiccant dryers. Membrane dryers filter out oil mist and particulate solids and have no moving parts. As a result, annual operating costs are kept low. Exhibit 7 presents equipment and service cost data for different size dryers. The appropriate sized dryer would need to accommodate the expected volume of gas needed for the instrument air system.



### Exhibit 7: Air Dryer Costs

Service

Size Air

Volume

(cfm) Dryer Type Equipment Cost ($) Annual

Service ($/yr)

Small

Medium

Large 30

60

a

350 membrane

membrane

alumina 1,964

5,893

13,096 724

2,894

4,341

a Largest membrane size; use multiple units, larger volumes.

Using the equipment information described above, the total installed cost for a projec t can be calculated. Exhibit8 illustrates this using the earlier example of a mediumsized production facility with an instrument air requirement of 42 cfm and a maximum utility air requirement of 70 cfm (for a total of 112 cfm of compressed air). To estimate the installed cost of equipment, it is a common practice in industry to assume that installation labor is equivalent to equipmen t purchase cost (i.e. double equipment purchase cost to estimate the installed cost). This would be suitable for large, desiccant dried instrument air systems, bu t for small, skid-mounted instrument air systems a factor of 1.5 is used to estimate the total installed cost (installation labor is half the cost of equipment).

In addition to the facility cost s, it is also necessary to estimate the energy costs associated with operating the system. The most significan t operating cost of an air compressor is electricity, unl ess the site has excess selfgeneration capacity. To cont inue the example from above, assuming that electricity is purchased at 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) and that one compressor is in standby while the other compressor runs at full capacity half the time (a 50 percent operating factor), the electrical power

6

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

Exhibit 8: Calculate Total Installation Costs

Given:

Compressors (2) Volume Tanks (2

- small) Membrane Dryer

Installed Cost Factor = $32,742 (Exhibit 5) = $1,310 (Exhibit 6)

= $5,893 (Exhibit 7)

= 1.5

Calculate Total Installed Cost:

Equipment Cost = Compressor Cost + Tank Cost + Dryer

Cost = $32,742 + $1,310 + $5,893 = $39,945

Total Cost = Equipment Cost * Installation Cost

Factor = $39,945 * 1.5 = $59,917

cost amounts to $13,140 per year. This calculation is
shown in Exhibit 9.

Step 4: Estimate Gas Savings.

To estimate the gas savings that result from the installation of an instrument air system, it is important to determine the normal bleed rates (continuous leak from piping networks, control devices, etc.), as well as the peak bleed rates (associated with movements in the control devices). One approach is to list all the control devices,



### Exhibit 9: Calculate Electricity Cost

Given:

Engine Power Operating Factor (OF)

Electricity Cost = 30 HP = 50 percent

= $0.075/kwh

Calculate Required Power:

Electrical Power = Engine Power * OF * Electricity Cost = [30 HP * 8,760 hrs/yr * 0.5 * $0.075/ kwh] / 0.75 HP/kw = $13,140/yr

assess their normal and peak bleed rates, frequency of actuation, and estimates of leakage from the piping networks. Manufacturers of the control devices usually publish the emission rates for each type of device, and for each type of operation. Rates should be increased by 25 percent for devices that have been in service without overhaul for five to 10 years, and by about 50 percent for
devices that have not been overhauled for more than 10 years to account for increased leakage associated with wear and tear. Alternatively, installing a meter can be more accurate, provided moni toring occurs over a long enough period of time to take account of all the utility uses of gas (i.e., pumps, motor star ters, activation of isolation valves).

EPA’s Lessons Learned: Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry , provides brand name, model, and gas consumption information for a wide variety of currently used pneumatic devices. Manufacturer information and actual field measurement data, wherever available, are provided as well (see Appendix of that report). To simplify the calculation of gas savings for the purpose of this lesson learned analysis, we can use the earlier rules-of-thumb to estimate the gas savings. Th e gas savings for the mediumsized production facility example in Exhibit 4 include the conservatively estimated 35 cfm used in the 35 gas pneumatic controllers plus the gas used occasionally for
compressor motor starters an d small pneumatic chemical and transfer pumps. (Note that replacing these gas usages

will result in direct savings of gas emissions.) Natural gas is not used for pneumatic t ools or sand blasting, so additional compressed air provided for these services does

not reduce methane emission s. Assuming an annualaverage of 10 cfm gas use for natural gas powered noninstrument services, the gas sa vings would be 45 cfm. As shown in Exhibit 10, this is equivalent to 23,652 Mcf per year and annual savings of $165,600.

Step 5: Evaluate the Economics.

The cost effectiveness of replacing the natural gas pneumatic control systems wi th instrument air systems



### Exhibit 10: Calculate Gas Savings

Given:

Pneumatic instrument gas

usage Other non-instrument gas

usage = 35 cfm

= 10 cfm

Calculate Value of Gas Saved:

Volume of Natural Gas Saved = Instrument Usage + Other Usage

= 35 cfm + 10 cfm

= 45 cfm

Annual Volume of Gas Saved = 45 cfm * 525,600 min/yr / 1000 = 23,652 Mcf/yr

Annual Value of Gas Saved = volume * $7.00/Mcf = 23,652 Mcf/yr * $7.00/Mcf = $165,600/year

7

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

can be evaluated using straightforward cost-benefit economic analyses.

Exhibit 11 illustrates a cost-benefit analysis for the medium-sized production facility example. The cash flow over a five-year period is analyzed by showing the magnitude and timing of costs from Exhibits 8 and 9 (shown in parentheses) and benefits from Exhibit 10. The annual maintenance costs associated with the compressors and air dryer, from Exhibits 5 and 7, are accounted for, as well as a five-year major overhaul of a compressor per Exhibit 5. The net present value (NPV) is equal to the benefits minus the costs accrued over five years and discounted by 10 percent each year. The Internal Rate of Return (IRR) reflects the discount rate at which the NPV generated by the investment equals zero.

Step 6: Develop an Implementation Plan.

After determining the feasibility and economics of converting to an instrument air system, develop a systematic plan for implementing the required changes. This can include installing a gas measuring meter in the gas supply line, making an estimate of the number of control loops, ensuring an uninterrupted supply of electric energy for operating the compressors, and replacing old, obsolete and high-bleed controllers. It is recommended that all necessary changes be made at one time to 

### Nelson Price Indexes

In order to account for in flation in equipment and operating & maintenance costs, Nelson-Farrar Quarterly Cost Indexes (avail able in the first issue of each quarter in the Oil and Gas Journal ) are used to update costs in the Lessons Learned documents.

The “Refinery Operation Index” is used to revise operating costs while the “Machinery: Oilfield Itemized Refining Cost Index” is used to update equipment

costs.

To use these indexes in the future, simply look up the most current Nelson-Farrar index number, divide by the February 2006 Nelson-Fa rrar index number, and, finally multiply by the appropriate costs in the Lessons
Learned.

minimize labor costs and disruption of operations. This might include a parallel strategy to install low-bleed devices in conjunction with the switch to instrument air systems. There are similar economic savings for conserving instrument air use as for conserving methane emissions with low bleed pneumatic devices. Whenever specific pneumatic devices are being replaced, such as in
the case of alternative mechanical and/or electronic



### Exhibit 11: Economic Analysis of Instrument Air System Conversion

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Implementation Cost ($) (59,917)

O&M Cost ($) (13,140) a (4,630) b (13,140) (4,630) (13,140) (4,630) (13,140) (4,630) (13,140) (4,630)

Overhaul Cost ($) 0 0 0 0 0 (6,286) c

Total Cost ($) (59,917) (17,770) (17,770) (17,770) (17,770) (24,057)

Gas Savings ($) 0 165,600 d 165,600 165,600 165,600 165,600

Annual Cash Flow ($) (59,917) 147,830 147,830 147,830 147,830 141,543

Cumulative Cash Flow ($) (59,917) 87,912 235,742 383,571 531,401 672,944

Payback Period (months)

IRR

NPV e 5

246%

$496,570

a Electrical power at 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour.

b Maintenance costs include $1,736 compressor service and $2,894 air dryer membrane replacement.

c Compressor overhaul cost of $3,929, inflated at 10% per year.

d Value of gas = $7.00/Mcf.

e Net Present Value (NPV) based on 10% discount rate for 5 years.

8

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

systems, the existing pneumati c devices should be replaced on a similar economic basis as discussed in the companion
document Lessons Learned: Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry

.

When assessing options for converting gas pneumatic controls to instrument air, natural gas price may influence the decision making proce ss. Exhibit 12 shows an economic analysis installing two 30 hp compressors, two medium sized volume tanks, and a medium sized membrane dryer at different natural gas prices.



### Partner Experiences

Several EPA Natural Gas Star Partners have reported the conversion of natural gas pneumatic control systems to compressed instrument air systems as the single most significant source of methan e emission reduction and a
source of substantial cost savings. Exhibit 13 below highlights the accomplishments that several Natural Gas STAR Partners have reported. 

### Exhibit 12: Gas Price Impact on Economic Analysis

$3/Mcf $5/Mcf $7/Mcf $8/Mcf $10/Mcf

Value of

Gas Saved $70,971 $118,286 $165,600 $189,257 $236,571

Payback

Period (months) 14 8 5 5 4

Internal

Rate of

Return (IRR) 84% 166% 246% 286% 365%

Net

Present

Value ( i

=10%) $137,853 $317,211 $496,570 $586,249 $765,607



### Other Technologies

The majority of Partners' ex periences in substituting natural gas-powered pneumatic devices and control
instrumentation with alternativ e controllers have involved



### Exhibit 13: Partner Reported Experience

Gas STAR

Partner Description of Project Project Cost ($) Annual Emissions Reductions (Mcf/yr) Annual Savings ($/yr) a Payback (months) b

Unocal c (now Chevron) Installed an air compression system in its Fresh Water Bayou facility in southern Vermillion Parish, Louisiana $79,000 69,350 $485,450 2

Texaco c (now Chevron) Installed compressed air system to drive pneumatic

devices in 10 South Louisiana

facilities $52,000 23,000 $161,000 4

Chevron c Converted pneumatic controllers to compressed air, including new installations $227,000 over 2

years 31,700 $221,900 7

ExxonMobil d Installed instrument air systems at 3 production

satellites and 1 central tank battery at Postle CO 2 unit $72,000 19,163 $134,141 7

Shell Used instrument air operated devices on over 4,300 valves at off-shore platforms Not available 532,800 $3,729,600 Not available

Marathon Installed 15 instrument air systems in New Mexico

facilities Not available 120 - 38,000 per facility $840 - 226,000 Not available

a Value of gas = $7.00/Mcf.

b Calculated based on Partner-reported costs and gas savings updated to 2006 costs.

c Data for this report were collected prior to the Chevron-Texaco and C hevron-Unocal mergers.

d Data for this report were collected pr ior to the Exxon/Mobil merger in 1999.

9

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

the installation of compresse d instrument air systems. Some additional alternatives to gas pneumatics implemented by Partners are described below:

 Liquid Nitrogen. In a system using liquid nitrogen, the volume tank, air compressor, and dryer are replaced with a cylinder co ntaining cryogenic liquid nitrogen. A pressure regulator allows expansion ofthe nitrogen gas into the instrument and controlpiping network at the desired pressure. Liquid nitrogen bottles are replaced periodically. Liquid nitrogen-operated devices require handling of cryogenic liquids, which can be expensive as well as a potential safety hazard. Large volume demands on a liquid nitrogen system require a vaporizer.

 Mechanical Controls and Instrumentation System. Mechanical instrume nt and control devices have a long history of use in the natural gas and petroleum industry. They are usually distinguished by the absence of pneumatic and electric components, are simple in design, and require no power source. Such equipment operates using springs, levers, baffles, flow channels, and hand wheels. They have several disadvantages, such as limited application, the need for continuous calibration, lack of sensitivity, inability to handle large variations, and potential for sticking parts.

 Electric and Electro-Pneumatic Devices. As a result of advanced technology and increasing sophistication, the use of electronic instrument and control devices is increasing. The advantage of these devices is that they require no compression devices to supply energy to operate the equipment; a simple 120 -volt electric supply is used for power. Another advantage is that the use of electronic instrument and control devices is far less dangerous than using combustible natural gas or cryogenic liquid nitrogen cylinders. The disadvantage of these devices is their reliance on an uninterrupted source of electric supply, and significantly higher costs.

Although these options have ad vantages, systems using air instead of natural gas are the most widely employed alternative in replacing natural gas-operated pneumatic control devices. It is important to note that maintaining a constant, reliable supply of dry, compressed air in a plant environment is a significant cost, albeit more economic than natural gas. Therefore, a parallel strategy to install low-bleed devices in conjunction with the switch to instrument air systems (refer to Lessons Learned: Options for Reducing Methane Emissions from Pneumatic Devices in the Natural Gas Industry ), and to design a maintenance schedule to keep the instruments and control devices in tune, is often economic. Such actions can significantly reduce the consumption of instrument air in the overall system and, therefore, minimize both the size of the compression system and the electricity consumption over the life of the plant.



### Lessons Learned

The lessons learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners are:

 Installing instrument air sy stems has the potential to increase revenues and substantially reduce methane
emissions.

 Instrument air systems can extend the life cycle of system equipment, which can accumulate trace amounts of sulfur and various acid gases when controlled by natural gas, thus adding to the potential savings and in creasing operational
efficiencies.

 Remote locations and facilities without a reliable source of electric supply often need to evaluate alternate power generation sources. When feasible, solar-powered air compressors provide an economical and ecologically beneficial alternative to expensive electricity in remote production areas. On site generation using microturbines running on natural gas is another alternative.

 A parallel strategy of installing low-bleed devices in conjunction with the switch to instrument air systems is often economic.

 Existing infrastructure can be used; therefore, no pipe replacement is needed. However, existing piping and tubing should be flushed clear of

accumulated debris.

 Rotary air compressors are normally lubricated with oil, which must be filtered to maintain the life and proper performance of membrane dryers.

 Use of instrument air will eliminate safety hazards associated with flammable natural gas usage in pneumatic devices.

 Nitrogen-drive systems may be an alternative to instrument air in special cases, but tends to be

10

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

expensive and handling of cryogenic gas is a safety

concern.

 Report reductions in methane emissions from converting gas pneumatic controls to instrument air in your Natural Gas STAR Annual Report.



### References

Adams, Mark. Pneumatic Instrument Bleed Reduction Strategy and Practical Application , Fisher Controls International, Inc.1995.

Beitler, C.M., Reif, D.L., Reuter, C.O. and James M. Evans. Control Devices Monitoring for Glycol Dehydrator Condensers: Testing and Modeling Approaches , Radian International LLC, Gas Research Institute, SPE 37879, 1997.

Cober, Bill. C&B Sales and Services, Inc. Personal contact.

Fisher, Kevin S., Reuter, Curtis, Lyon, Mel and Jorge Gamez. Glycol Dehydrator Emission Control Improved , Radian Corp., Public Service Co. of Colorado Denver, Gas Research Institute.

Frederick, James. Spirit Energy 76. Personal contact.

Games, J.P., Reuter, C.O. and C.M. Beitler, Field Testing Results for the R -BTEX Process for Controlling Glycol Dehydrator Emissions , Gas Research Institute, Radian Corporation, SPE 29742, 1995.

Gunning, Paul M. U.S. EPA Natural Gas STAR Program. Personal contact.

Gupta, Arun, Ansari, R. Rai and A.K. Sah. Reduction of Glycol Loss From Gas Dehydration Unit At Offshore Platform in Bombay Offshore—A Case Study , N.A.K.R. IOGPT, ONGC, India, SPPE 36225, 1996.

Reid, Laurance, S. Predicting the Capabilities of Glycol Dehydrators , SPE

AIME, Laurance Reid Associates.

Scalfana, David B., Case History Reducing Methane Emissions From High
Bleed Pneumatic Controllers Offshore , Chevron U.S.A. Production Co. SPE 37927, 1997.

Schievelbein, V.H., Hydrocarbon Recovery from Glycol Reboiler Vapor With Glycol-Cooled Condenser , Texaco, Inc. SPE 25949. 1993.

Schievelbein, Vernon H. Reducing Methane Emissions from Glycol Dehydrators , Texaco EPTD, SPE 37929, 1997.

Soules, J.R. and P.V. Tran. Solar-Powered Air Compressor: An Economical and Ecological Power Source for Remote Locations , Otis Engineering Corp. SPE 25550, 1993.

11

# Convert Gas Pneumatic Controls To Instrument Air
(Cont’d)

United States Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation (6202J) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460

October 2006

EPA provides the suggested methane em issions estimating methods contained in this do cument as a tool to develop basic methane e missions estimates only. As regulatory reporting demands a higher-level of accuracy, the methane emission estimating methods and terminology contained in t his document may not conform to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule, 40 CFR Part 98, Subpart W methods or those in other EPA regulations.

12