Presentations - 4C Conference
  • Sort by

  • Narrow by topic

  • Reset
Found 11 Results
LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

The Future Technology of LDAR

Joshua Pinter - CNTRAL Inc.

Description

In this presentation we will go over the current state of LDAR technology, including both hardware and software, and showcase emerging technologies that will dramatically shape the future workflows and efficiencies of the LDAR industry. From new mobile devices that allow for far more functionality than past generations to brand new technology that is still 2 - 5 years away from reaching mainstream, such as augmented reality. This presentation is aimed to not only get people prepared for the future and how our workflows will change but also to get people excited about the future of LDAR and the advancements that are coming, including heads up displays so you can have both hands free to monitor.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Is There A Better Way to Do LDAR?

Brian Whitley - Emission Monitoring Service, Inc. (EMSI)

Description

Is there a better way to do LDAR? For years we have cast a broad net over the program and called it compliance. With a closer look we now can call it a waste of money and resources. Is there a smarter way? Yes, there is. Join me and see data that shows a much better way to move the needle and lower our emissions while simultaneously lowering our cost. Smarter LDAR is real. A smaller carbon footprint can exist for every facility by utilizing modern technology and historical data. I hope to see you there.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Enhanced LDAR Training: An Unconventional Approach to Training LDAR Technicians

Todd Morrison - Insight Environmental

Description

Is your LDAR training up to date with modern technology? This presentation will detail the process of incorporating technology such as 3D modeling and virtual and augmented reality into your LDAR training.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Optical Gas Imaging: Examining Detection Limit and the Resulting Impact on Emissions Inventory

Jon Morris - Providence Photonics

Description

Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) has been widely used for detecting gas leaks from process equipment. However, the detection limit of an OGI camera has been an elusive performance metric and has not been systematically characterized and quantified. A substantial body of research has been performed that has shed some light on the OGI detection limits and the factors that dictate the detection limits. The OGI detection limit expressed as ppm-m can be calculated at a pixel level as a function of ΔT (differential temperature between the gas plume and the background), the OGI camera type, and the specific gas in question. Furthermore, the OGI detection limit expressed as a minimum mass leak rate (e.g., grams per hour -denoted DLgph) can be calculated based on the ΔT and the distance from the OGI camera to the leak location. With an OGI DLgph expressed as a function of ΔT and distance, an OGI leak survey protocol can be established that will provide operators a flexibility of using the most suitable combination of ΔT and distance in the field to achieve the same minimum detection limit. A numerically defined OGI detection limit will enable establishment of an emission factor for “non-detects” in a Leak Detection And Repair (LDAR) program. The contribution of the non-detects can be a significant contributor to the total fugitive emissions in an emission inventory due to the overwhelming number of components in the non-detect category. If a higher DLgph is adopted in a leak survey protocol, the emission factor for the non-detects will be higher, and vice versa. If desired, a DLgph value can be mapped to a “leak definition” in a conventional LDAR program, providing a transition from a Method 21 based LDAR program to an OGI based LDAR program for more efficient management of fugitive emissions.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Evaluation of Innovative Methane Detection Technologies

Tim Taylor - Colorado Air Pollution Control Division

Description

The Evaluation of Innovative Methane Detection Technologies summarizes the technical-regulatory guidance document of the same title published by the Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) in September 2018 (https://methane-1.itrcweb.org/). Over the last number of years, several state, national and international governments have passed or are considering methane emission regulations related to oil and natural gas production and distribution. Historically, gas detection technologies used to regulate fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector had to comply with EPA’s Method 21 requirements. With the advent of optical gas imaging (OGI) technologies, EPA established an alternative work practice (AWP) to allow inclusion of manually operated infrared cameras for leak detection. EPA's amendments to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) on methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC) for oil and gas sources include Method 21 and OGI technologies as approved compliance methods, as well as the option for approving new leak detection technologies. Colorado and Pennsylvania allow similar options in their regulation of methane and VOC from oil and gas operations. In response, innovators are currently developing new technologies that go beyond Method 21 and OGI. However, there is no standard methodology or protocol to evaluate performance of new technologies like these as compared to Method 21 or OGI. The ITRC guidance document seeks to provide a framework for evaluating methane and VOC detection technologies for use in meeting existing and forthcoming leak regulations, assisting with inventory monitoring and reporting, and for enhancing safety. The document also identifies regulatory barriers and opportunities for new or innovative leak detection technologies. The guidance document does not purport to provide "the answer" on how to evaluate leak detection technologies, particularly in regard to determining equivalency of new technologies or methods with existing, approved technologies or methods. However, the document does provide a starting point in this ongoing challenge and discussion, which continues beyond the publication of the document and will be refined further over time, including through efforts such as the Path to Equivalency project being lead by the Methane Emissions Technology Evaluation Center (METEC) at Colorado State University, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency's Leak Detection Technology Equivalency framework currently under development.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Understanding Cooled vs Uncooled Optical Gas Imaging

Ron Lucier and Craig O’Neill - FLIR

Description

For over a decade, FLIR Systems has manufactured infrared cameras to visualize gas leaks of various kinds. These optical gas imaging (OGI) cameras are developed to “see” a variety of gases including hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, sulfur hexafluoride, refrigerants, carbon monoxide, ammonia and more. These imagers are used to mitigate emissions, increase production efficiency, ensure safe work environments and more by a variety of industries. One great advantage of OGI cameras compared to other inspection technologies is the speed in which the technology can locate leaking components while not interrupting the industrial process. Historically OGI cameras have been designed with cooled infrared detectors that offer several advantages over uncooled thermal detectors but often come with a higher cost. Advancements in the technology of uncooled detectors have allowed the OGI camera manufacturers like FLIR to design and develop lower cost OGI solutions for these industries. While these are often lower in cost, there are some limitations versus imagers with cooled detectors. This paper will explain the differences in the two detector technologies and compare advantages/disadvantages of both.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

LDAR Case Study Comparison of Conventional Method 21 vs Alternative Work Practice

Terence Trefiak - Montrose Air Quality

Description

I am the Managing Director of Target Emission Services. We provide fugitive emission surveys for the natural gas industry (transmission, processing, storage and LNG). We specialize in using Optical Gas Imaging (OGI) to detect hydrocarbon leaks and vents for regulatory compliance (EPA Subpart W - Green House Gas). However, we have started to utilize OGI to meet our natural gas processing clients various LDAR requirements (EPA OOOO and KKK) by following the Method 21 Alternative Work Practice (AWP) which allows for the use of optical infrared hydrocarbon detection. This AWP was released to provide industry with an option to use Optical Gas Imaging to replace “conventional” TVA type LDAR equipment for Method 21 facility inspections. OGI uses a specialized filtered infrared camera to provide a real time video of hydrocarbon gas leaks that are invisible to the human eye. The camera can survey up to 1000-1500 components per hour (compared to only 50 components/hour with conventional equipment), surpassing both the efficiency and effectiveness of traditional hand held gas analyzers. In addition many components that are classified as difficult to monitor using conventional hand held equipment can be readily scanned at a distance with the camera. A video of each emission source can also be recorded to provide the exact location of the leak and helps to ensure that the correct repair actions are being made. The use of OGI is on average 10 – 20 times more efficient that conventional LDAR equipment presenting a significant cost savings.The main questions are, • Is the AWP approach as actually as effective as the conventional LDAR approach? • Why are most LDAR contractors not using the AWP approach?• What are the tangible benefits (cost, # and size of leaks detected, safety, etc.) of OGI vs Conventional?My presentation will attempt to answer these questions using actual case study data from 2 large gas processing facilities. The presentation will compare survey results from both OGI and conventional monitoring and show specific examples (survey cost/durations, leak videos, etc.)

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Back from the Future

Don Kinder - MarkWest, Jake Fournier - Marathon, and Deever Bradley - ERM -

Description

MarkWest migrated away from the AWP for LDAR compliance monitoring. We left where everyone is trying to go and reverted back to M21 monitoring for our LDAR programs. Will have some stats and such to show the difference in leak % with OGI vs M21.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Data Analysis and How it can Improve your LDAR Program

Derrick Mauk - Bureau Veritas

Description

1. What data can be analyzed? – A discussion of all LDAR data that is collected and what can be mined. 2. What data should be analyzed? – A discussion of what LDAR data should we be looking and paying attention to. 3. How do you perform data analysis? – Methods of how to mine through the Hundreds of Thousands of LDAR Data points. 4. Proactive Data Mining for Compliance. – How proactive data mining can prevent compliance issues? 5. Data Analysis to improve productivity. – How to insure good productivity. How to prevent bad productivity. 6. How can proactive data analysis can improve Inventory Projects? - Discussion on how performing data analysis on inventory projects can provide more accurate data.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

Methods for Enhancing Fugitive Emissions Prevention in Chemical Process Pipelines

Dale Rice - VSP Technologies

Description

Most fugitive emission reduction / elimination efforts in the industrial community, especially at chemical and refining facilities have been focused on component monitoring with the implementation of LDAR (Leak Detection and Repair) programs. USEPA studies have shown that the vast majority (between 80 and 90%) of fugitive emissions are associated with valve and connector leaks . While necessary, LDAR programs are, by definition, concerned with fixing leaks when they are encountered, not preventing them. Further, it could be argued that the greatest contribution to lowering fugitive emission rates from connectors and valves is through the use of consistent time-tested assembly and maintenance procedures, and the selection of the best available technology in terms of lowest emission valve packings, gaskets, torqueing equipment, and other equipment. An overview of best practices for achieving lowest fugitive emission rates for bolted flange connectors and valves including a fugitive emissions model for gasketed connectors will be presented.

Register Now →

LDAR / Fugitive Emissions Prevention

EPA AWP Approved

Karen Marsh - US EPA

Description

Coming soon.

Register Now →

Page 1 of 1

Privacy Preference Center

Performance

These are used to track user interaction and detect potential problems. These help us improve our services by providing analytical data on how users use this site.

_ga, _gid, _gat

Interaction

These are used to track user interaction, monitor for user requests, and respond to users' actions

__cfduid, __tawkuuid, TawkConnectionTime,

Close your account?

Your account will be closed and all data will be permanently deleted and cannot be recovered. Are you sure?