Talk:Gas flare

Expansion

Lots of expansion possible for this one... how much stranded gas is flared annually, for example? Andrewa 04:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone maybe explain why flaring is better then just releasing the gas into the atmosphere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.215.219 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely you can answer that for yourself. Would you want to have a flammable gas released into the atmosphere close to your home, apartment, workplace, camp site, etc.? mbeychok (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a list of alternative methods of reducing pressure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.176.109 (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo

This could do with additional photos. The current one doesn't even have a clear picture of the flame. Particularly interesting would be a closeup of the nozel-vent-pilot assembly. —BenFrantzDale 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I figured the same, so I have organized the flare images at Commons a little better, so now there are plenty more photos to choose from. Having done that job, I'll leave the rest to the next person. __meco (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

French entry

FYI, the French corresponding entry was just updated in a large way.--Environnement2100 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturer links?

The manufacturers of flares have some technical info on their sites, including photos, but I'm not sure if adding the links would be against policy; what do you think? The two I found from a quick search are John Zink,Enerflex Mactronic and Tornado Combustion Technologies Inc. I don't work for either of these companies or anyone else in the oil and gas industry. 68.13.240.14 (talk) 03:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Needed Items

Primary purpose is disposal of industrial gasses anytime that anything needs to be cleared. Yes, it is the final line of emissions defense, but this isn't the only reason that things are flared in industry. Destruction efficiency - 99% in good operation, 93% in bad (smoking or heat content <200 BTU/scf for unassisted or <300 BTU/scf for assissted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.227.3.1 (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the layout of the article and added headings so that the system can generate a useful TOC. I have not edited the content. I'm removing the cleanup tag, feel free to readd it if there are more cleanups needed. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

External link

The external link is just an advert for a component that could be used in FGR - suggest it is removed? 80.254.146.116 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have removed this80.254.146.116 (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why and how this article was upgraded and improved

This article was first written in 2006. It was intended to explain what a emergency flare stack was and how it operated as a safety tool in industrial plants such as petroleum refineries, chemical plants and natural gas processing plants. In my opinion, it was in need of upgrading and improving which I have now done as outlined below:

• The article had three photos. Two of those photos were replaced by more appropriate ones and one was replaced by a schematic flow diagram of an overall flare stack system:
  • The first photo was of a badly smoking plume from a oil refinery flare stack in Thailand. The photo only showed a far distant elevated flare stack with a smoking plume and the refinery itself could not be discerned to any extent. Most of the time (98% or more), modern refinery flare stacks only exhibit a small pilot flame. In most cases, when an emergency occurs in the refinery and pressure relief valves release gases to the flare, they are burned smokelessly as designed to do. It is very rare for an event to occur in a refinery so as to result in a badly smoking flare stack. The choice of such a photo struck me as being biased and not complying with WP's NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. The photo was replaced by a close up, detailed photo of a modern flare stack clearly within a refinery.
  • The second photo was of a spherical tank holding biogas and with some nearby standby gas vents which were not flare stacks ... just plain vents. That photo was simply not relevant to this article. It was replaced by the schematic flow diagram of an overall flare stack system.
  • The third photo was a very, very small one, taken at night, of a far distant flare in the Stanlow refinery in England. Were it not for the photo's caption, it would be difficult to even discern what that photo was showing. It was replaced by a larger, very clear photo of gas flaring from an oil well site in Nigeria.
• The introductory section was re-worded to provide better clarity and more technical integrity. The last sentence was removed because flaring of associated gas from oil wells and gas wells is covered in a later section of the article ... and because that sentence also indicated non-compliance with WP's NPOV policy.
• The section entitled "Function" was re-titled as "Overall flare system in industrial plants". The schematic flow diagram was placed in this section and the section's text was re-worded and expanded quite a bit.
• The next three sections ("Climatic effects", "Volume" and "Russian flaring") were each fairly short and were combined into one section entitled "Environmental impacts of flaring associated gas from oil drilling sites".
• All of the references were checked. One was no longer available and it was replaced. One reference was removed and two new references were added. Some of the references are now also used twice.

I hope that this adequately explains why and how the article was upgraded.mbeychok (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The flare stack flow diagram http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/FlareStack_System.png, as well as numerous other improvements constitute a great upgrade. Thank you mbeychok.

Suggestion for your consideration:

The first photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PTT_flame_1.jpg of the older version (i.e. prior to June 3rd, 2012) would be great to illustrate the reason for the injection of steam to reduce the formation of black smoke.

The contrast between http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PTT_flame_1.jpg and the already present http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/da/Niger_Delta_Gas-Flares.jpg/250px-Niger_Delta_Gas-Flares.jpg would constitute a vivid illustration of the substantial effect of steam injection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.70.124 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words about my upgrade. As for your suggestion about illustrating the effect of steam injection, I will give it some thought as soon as I have some time ... but it won't be soon. mbeychok (talk)

Thanks for your upgrade! While I see the Nigeria one was freshly added, I propose the replacement of it an image uploaded this past April taken in the North Sea. My reasons are that it is a much larger image (allowing zooming in), and in my opinion a much much clearer illustration of the subject of a drilling flare and its mechanism (now if only some of the old dramatic ones from the late 20th century showing the boom flares were that clear!). I have taken the initiative of replacing it, leaving the code of the prior one in a comment you all think otherwise. Hope it helps. Morgan Riley (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For those interested, I just updated the commons gallery as well, if you are interested in additional photos, etc. (many of which weren't even in the category to begin with). There are now some detailed close-ups of lightly-flaring industrial towers, and though probably not very useful for the article, a rather dramatic close-up from the Deepwater Horizon spill teams. Morgan Riley (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed " ... constitutes a hazard to human health ... " from the lead as edited by mbeychok as this is unsourced and not mentioned anywhere in the body text. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 08:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The " ... constitutes a hazard to human health ... " language had found its way back in again, so I removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.146.11.121 (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate entries? (not really; likely to resolve itself automatically)

There seems to be a topic overlap between the following two entries:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_stack
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare

Shouldn't these two articles be merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.70.180 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Flare stack redirects to Gas flare. They are one and the same article. They are not two separate articles. mbeychok (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem appears to be a transient effect resulting from the changes mbeychok made to the article on June 3rd, 2012.

As of June 4th and 5th, 2012, when accessing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_stack:

• sometimes I get the version of the page prior to the June 3rd, 2012 changes to the article Gas flare
• other times though, I get the new version (i.e. post June 3rd, 2012) of the page Gas flare.

To eliminate the most obvious possible reason for such inconsistency, I cleared systematically my browser cache before each new attempt to access the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_stack.

On the other hand, access to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare always returned the new version (i.e. post June 3rd, 2012) of the page Gas flare (i.e. no problem with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare address).

This behaviour seems to point to an outdated cache of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flare_stack either in the Wikipedia server farm or somewhere down the internet cache chain between Wikipedia and my computer. Hopefully, the outdated cache will eventually expire and refresh itself with the updated content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.41.70.180 (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss. I use the latest version of Firefox as my browser and my operating system is Windows XP Pro ... and I do not incur the problem you have reported. I also clear my cache quite regularly. mbeychok (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of merging, my search for "flare gas" redirected me to Associated petroleum gas, I suggest these pages be merged. Dougmcdonell (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gas flare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131030062347/http://ener-core.com:80/associated-petroleum-gas/ to http://www.ener-core.com/associated-petroleum-gas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mathematically impossible legislative requirements?

"Flare specification usually demands that enclosed flares must operate at >1000 °C and <1000 °C"

Something has gone wrong here; something can't be both greater than 1000 and less than 1000.

Flaring emission and Wordbank Flaring Reduction Partnership

According to the article under the topic of "Environmental impacts" stated "An increasing number of governments and industries have pledged to eliminate flaring by 2030.", the link to reference https://www.iea.org/reports/tracking-fuel-supply-2019/flaring-emissions had died. Furthurmore, the statement is rather not clear on the rate and extent of "An increasing number of governments..." mentioned. I sugguest the link to this reference should be amended to a new page on iea.org website, for exmaple; https://www.iea.org/reports/flaring-emissionshttps://www.iea.org/reports/flaring-emissions . However, iea.org has many problems with data integrity e.g. for changes tracking, referencing to primary source of the evidence. The original project was initiated by The World Bank, named "Zero Routine Flaring by 2030 (ZRF) Initiative" in 2015, according to world bank presented data, number and name of endorsed organization divided into goverments and oil companies and can be tracked here https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/zero-routine-flaring-by-2030/endorsers.

Konrawit13 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Flare boom.

The article notes flare boom as an alternative name; it would be nice to see flare boom as a redirect to this article. 104.142.116.166 (talk) 15:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the suggestion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)