I.
INTRODUCTION
Fig. 3. Potential development of UCG: Step 1: well drilling and link establishment. Step
2: coal seam ignition and commencement of gasification and step 3: site clean-up by
flushing cavity with steam and water to remove potential contaminants[3].
In the first step, from the surface to the coal seam and highly
permeable path within the coal seams are established between
these two well by drilling an injection and production well.
Prior to the gasification step a linkage path is created between
injector and producer. Several techniques can be used for
linking the wells, including the Reverse Combustion Linking
(RCL), Forward Combustion Linking (FCL), hydro-fracking,
electro-linking, explosive and in-seam linking. Other
techniques for the in situ gasification include CRIPs, long and
large tunnel gasification, and two-stage UCG [4-6].
The RCL is a method of linking which includes injection of
an oxidant into one well and ignition of coal in the other so
used to deviate the hole and drill along the coal seam until it
intersects the Production Well. This technique enables the
injection point (i.e. the end of the coiled tubing) to be retracted
back along the coal seam, which is of benefit because it allows
for fresh coal to be accessed each time the syngas quality
drops as a result of cavity maturation. Retraction of the
injection point along the coal seam is known as a CRIP
maneuver, and between 10 and 20 such maneuvers are
expected during the course of a modules lifetime. Directional
drilling is a proven technology in the oil and gas industry.
The in-seam drilling of coal seams has been part of coal
exploitation since at least the 1950s. Underground steering of
boreholes made its commercial entrance in the oil and gas
industry around 1990, when operators established the benefits
of lateral drilling for extending the life of wells and fixed
drilling platforms and for reaching inaccessible locations.
Nowadays directional drilling has become common for coal
bed methane (CBM) and enhanced CBM applications; there
are specialist drilling companies around who supply services
to CBM operators. The focus to-date has been on reducing
costs. UCG has a tighter requirement on accuracy. The ability
of directional drilling to meet these requirements at an
affordable cost is still under review [6]. The CRIP technique
produces higher quality gas, results in lower heat loss than the
two-vertical well configuration, and improves the overall
efficiency of the UCG process [9].
Two-stage UCG is a technique of supplying air and steam
cyclically [13,14]. In the first stage, air is supplied to make
the coal burn and store heat to produce air gas; in the second
stage, steam is supplied to produce water gas. Only if
sufficient heat is stored in the first stage can the
decomposition reactions in the second stage run smoothly and
the water gas with high heating value be ensured. Meanwhile,
the degree of the coal layer decomposition and the production
volume of the gas are totally determined by the temperature
distribution in the coal layers [15]. During in situ coal
gasification remote sensing technique may be used for
mapping underground fracture systems, locating tunnels or
water-bearing strata and mapping burn fronts [16].
B.
Chemical Process:
elucidated [20].
DHo298
Equation
(MJ/kmol)
number
C + O2/CO2
R1
393.8
(1)
C + CO2/2CO2
R2
-162.4
(2)
C + H2O/H2 + CO
R3
-131.4
(3)
C + 2H2/CH4
1
CO + 2O2/CO2
R4
74.9
285.1
(4)
(5)
1
H2 + 2 O2/H2O
R6
-0.242
(6)
CO + H2O/CO + H2
R7
-0.041
(7)
Reaction equation
Fig. 6. Division of gasification channel into three zones: oxidization zone, reduction
Passing through these three reaction zones, the gas with the
main combustible compositions of CO, H2 and CH4 is formed,
whose proportion of contents varies from one gasification
agent and air injection method to another. These three zones
move toward the outlet along the direction of the air flow,
which, in turn, ensures the continuous run of the gasification
reactions [18].
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate different chemical regions of
gasification of coal in situ. In the drying zone, surface water in
the wet coal is vaporized at temperatures above the saturation
temperature of seam water at a specified pressure, which
makes the coal more porous. The dried coal undergoes the
pyrolysis process upon more heating in the next phase. During
pyrolysis, coal loses about 40-50% of its dry weight as low
molecular weight gases, chemical water, light hydrocarbons
and heavy tars, and after evolving the volatile matters, a more
permeable solid substance called char will be combusted and
gasified by the injected oxidant agents and exhausted gases
from the previous steps [24, 25]. The rates of the gaseous
phase reactions are determined mostly by the temperature and
concentration of the particular gaseous compounds.
Development of these reactions is frequently supported by the
catalytic influence of some chemical compounds, e.g. iron
oxides.
Fig. 7. Thermal wave propagation through coal seam during in situ gasification which
demonstrates the different regions[26].
C. Physical Process:
In the process of underground coal gasification (UCG), the
gas movement not only influences the concentration
distribution and movement of fluid in the burning zone
directly, but also restricts the diffusion of the gasification
agent in the whole gasifier Therefore; it eventually determines
the rate of chemical reaction between gas and solid, and the
process of burning and gasification. Evidently, Lanhe 2003
[27] suggested the study of moving patterns of fluid in the
gasifier should precede the study of the process of chemical
reaction, the moving patterns of agents, and the distribution
D. Operating conditions:
The investigation by Perkins and Sahajwalla [33] has found
that the operating conditions that have the greatest impact on
cavity growth rate are temperature, water influx, pressure,
Characteristics/remarks
Coal type
Any
Physicochemical properties of coal Recommended: high content of volatile
matter, low agglomerating capacity
or its lack, ash content < 50% by weight
Occurrence depth
Profitability criterion
Bed thickness
More than 1 m
Angle of inclination of coal bed
Any
Type and tightness of rock mass
Recommended: firmness and tightness
of rock mass, thickness and lithology
of rock massDoverburden in slightly
permeable layers (clays, silts, shale clays)
Hydrogeological conditions
Recommended: lack of fissures, faults,
aquiferous layers, water reservoirs causing
water inflow
Deposit tectonics
Recommended homogeneity of deposit
(lack of fissure, faults)
Quantity of resources
Profitability criterion
Methane presence in the bed
Causes gas hazard
Conditions of infrastructure
Recommended lack of building development
dynamic model, in which cavity growth and heat loss are estimated as functions of time, simultaneously.
J. Effect of Temperature:
The process of UCG is virtually one of a self-heat balance.
The heat produced by coal combustion contributes to the
establishment for ideal temperature field in the underground
gasifier and also leads to the occurrence of gasification
reactions and, eventually, the generation of gas.
Temperature is a key factor in determining the continuous and
stable production in the process of underground coal
gasification. The patterns of variation for temperature field in
the gasifier are closely related to the nature of the gasification
agent, gasification modes, and the changes of cavity [21,40].
Under the pure oxygen gasification condition, the average
rising rate for the temperature of the gasified coal seams is
about 4.15 oC/h; in the oxygen-steam forward gasification
phase the high temperature field mainly concentrates around
loosening zones arising from the thermal explosions, and the
highest temperature in the oxidation zone approaches 1300 oC
[43]. Compared with forward gasification, the average
temperature in the gasifier for backward gasification is lowers
[40]. The drop of temperature results in a decrease in CO
content while H2, CH4 and CO2 contents increases [22].
In thermal-explosion gasification method, under the pure
oxygen gasification condition, the average rising rate for the
temperature of the gasified coal seams is about 4.15 oC/h; in
the oxygen-steam forward gasification phase, temperature
field mainly concentrates around loosening zones arising from
the thermal explosions, and the highest temperature in the
oxidation zone approaches 1300 0C. Test data showed that the
forward oxygen-steam gasification with moving points can
obviously improve the temperature conditions in the gasifier.
During the backward oxygen-steam gasification, with the
passage of time, the temperature of the gasification coal seams
continuously increases, approaches stable little by little, and
was basically the same with that of the forward gasification.
Therefore, backward gasification can form new temperature
conditions and improve the gasification efficiency of the coal
seams.
In the process of coal gasification, the changes of the
temperature in the coal seam are due mainly to the heat
transfer medium of the flame working face, which corresponds
to a source of heat [28]. In the process of underground coal
gasification, the temperature of coal seams around the
gasification channel rises along with the conducted heat.
When the coal surface is heated by the hot gas or the
neighboring incandescent coal, its temperature distribution
expands toward the coal grains or the interior of the coal seam,
which inevitably results in the thermal effects of absorption,
desorption, and seepage movement of dry distillation gas
stored in the coal seam [21, 28]. King and Ertekin [44] study
shows that under non-isothermal conditions, either the
absorption-desorption process or the permeation-expansion
process is linked to the temperature.
According to the gasification theory, the temperature above
1000 oC indicates a high-speed diffusion of the water
decomposition reaction constituting the fundamental process
for the production of a hydrogen rich gas in the course of the
UCG steam stage. On the other hand, the temperature drop
below 700 0C slowed down the reaction speed considerably.
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram defining forward length, backward length, height and width of
the final cavity[12].
Coal is the single largest energy source for India with total
estimated reserves of about 293 billion tones i.e. roughly 8% of
worlds total coal reserves [54]. It accounts for 55% of total
primary commercial energy production. 75% of produced coal
in India is consumed in the power sector. In addition other
industries like steel cement fertilizer chemicals and other small
scale industries account for the usage of rest of it. The total
recoverable coal reserves have been estimated to be only about
15.6% (43 billion tones) leaving about 250 billion tones
unminable. If India wants to be energy secure it is of extreme
importance to utilize our prime energy source to the fullest.
India, the third largest economy in terms of Purchase Power
Parity (PPP) with a net Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 6776
Billion USD is growing at an average rate of 7.5 % since the
last 15 years [55]. The current total energy demand of India is
approximately 700 million tons of oil equivalents (MMTOE)
making it fourth largest consumer of energy of the world after
United States, China and Russia. About 65% of this energy
requirement is met indigenously which makes India one of the
largest energy importers of the world [56]. Thus the Indian
Govt. faces formidable challenge of coping with substantial
energy crisis and supply of affordable energy to the masses.
And Underground Coal gasification is the answer to Indias
energy problems as it has many advantages over conventional
mining. The relevance of this technology to Indian perspective
can be understood by comparing Indian coal to that already
used in test/plot plants globally.
A. Indian Coals:
India has a huge coal reserve but most of it is non-coking coal
comprising semi-bituminous and ignites (a brown variety of
tertiary Indian coal that has relatively less energy/heating vale).
Coal which when heated in the absence of air forms coherent
beads, free from volatiles, with a strong and porous mass called
coke, is called coking coal. Coals which do not have coking
properties, are non-coking coals. Moreover most of the minable
coal of India is concentrated in small patch of Eastern India
(Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal).
B. Coal Depth and Thickness:
The coal occurrence at various depth levels in India is
categorized in Table 9.
Table 9
Indian coal reserves at various depths (in million tonnes) [57]
Depth (m)
Proved
Indicate
d
Inferred
reserve
reserve
reserve
Total
reserve
%
Total
Reserv
e
35
Chinchilla
Sasti-Rajura
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Ash
VM
Moisture
FC
ADVANTAGES OF UCG
C. Collateral Benefits:
1.
B. Economical Benefits:
V.
1.
2.
[4] Biezen ENJ, Bruining J. An integrated 3D model for underground coal gasi-fication.
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22E25 October 1995; Dallas, Texas:
Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1995.
[5] Blinderman MS, Saulov DN, Klimenko AY. Forward and reverse combustion linking
in underground coal gasification. Energy 2008;33(3):446E54.
[6] Roddy DJ, Younger PL. Underground coal gasification with CCS: a pathway to
decarbonising industry. Energy & Environmental Science 2010;3(4):400E7
[7] Yang L, Zhang X, Liu S, Yu L, Zhang W. Field test of large-scale hydrogen
manufacturing from underground coal gasification (UCG). International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(4):1275E85.
[8] Hill RW, Shannon MJ. The controlled retracting injection point (CRIP) system: a
modified stream method for in situ coal gasification. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (LLNL) Report; 1981. Contract No.: UCRL-85852
[9] Thorsness CB, Hill RW, Britten JA. Execution and performance of the CRIP process
during the rocky mountain I UCG field test. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (LLNL) Report; 1988. Contract No.: UCRL-98641.
[10] Perkins G. Mathematical modelling of underground coal gasification. The
University of New South Wales; 2005
[11] Haggin J. Key tests set for underground coal gasification. Chemical & Engi-neering
News 1983;61(29):15E9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cen-v061n029. p015
[12] Daggupati S, Mandapati RN, Mahajani SM, Ganesh A, Mathur DK, Sharma RK, et
al. Laboratory studies on combustion cavity growth in lignite coal blocks in the context
of underground coal gasification. Energy 2010;35(6):2374E86
[13] Yang LH, Yu L, Liang J. In: The coal gasification in the discarded mines and
comprehensive use of its product gas, vol. 16. Min World; 1995. p. 20.
[14] Yang L. The dynamic temperature field of two-stage underground coal gasification
(UCG). Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects
2006;28(7):667E80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 009083190951438.
VI.
REFERENCES
[15] Guo C. In: Review of mathematical simulation study on the underground coal
gasification, vol. 15. Mining World; 1994. p. 3E5
[16] Daily W, Lytle J. Geophysical tomography. Journal of Geomagnetism and
Geoelectricity 1983;35(11E12):423E42
[17] Stanczyk K, Kapusta K, Wiatowski M, Swiadrowski J, Smolinski A, Rogut J, et al.
Experimental simulation of hard coal underground gasification for hydrogen production.
Fuel 2012;91(1):40E50.
[18] Yang L, Liang J, Yu L. Clean coal technologyDstudy on the pilot project experiment
of underground coal gasification. Energy 2003;28(14):1445E60.
[19] Wu RY. Coal gasification. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Tech-nology
Press; 1988. p. 68E73.
[20] Wang H, Dlugogorski BZ, Kennedy EM. Coal oxidation at low temperatures:
oxygen consumption, oxidation products, reaction mechanism and kinetic modelling.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2003;29(6):487E513.
[21] Yang LH, Song DY. Study on the method of seepage combustion in under-ground
coal gasification. Xuzhou, China: China University of Mining and Technology Press;
2001.
[22] Yang LH. A review of the factors influencing the physicochemical charac-teristics of
underground coal gasification. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects 2008;30(11):1038E49. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15567030601082803.
[23] Couch G. Underground coal gasification. London, United Kingdom: IEA Clean Coal
Centre; 2009. 01/07/2009. Report No.: Contract No.: CCC/151.
[24] Campbell JH. Pyrolysis of subbituminous coal as it relates to in situ gasifi-cation.
Part 1. Gas evolution. [383 to 1273/sup 0/K in argon]. NTISLLNL; 1976. UCRL52035(Pt.1) United StatesThu Mar 24 09:14:52 EDT 2011Dep, ERA-01-018449; EDB76-051202English
[25] Merrick D. Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of coal: 1. The
evolution of volatile matter. Fuel 1983;62(5):534E9
[26] Seifi M, Chen Z, Abedi J. Numerical simulation of underground coal gasifi-cation
using the CRIP method. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20496.
[27] Lanhe Y. Numerical simulation on three-dimensional nonlinear and unstable
seepage of fluid in underground coal gasification. Fuel Processing Technology
2003;84(1E3):79E93.
[28] Yang L. Model and calculation of dry distillation gas movement in the process of
underground coal gasification. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals
2003;43(6):587E604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713836314.
[3] Perkins G, Sahajwalla V. A mathematical model for the chemical reaction of a semiinfinite block of coal in underground coal gasification. Energy & Fuels
2005;19(4):1679E92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef0496808.
[32] Zheng SH, Zhu WS. Theoretical analysis of the coupling effect of seepage
damages of the cracked rock. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engi-neering
2001;20:156
[33] Perkins G, Sahajwalla V. A numerical study of the effects of operating conditions
and coal properties on cavity growth in underground coal gasi-fication. Energy & Fuels
2006;20(2):596E608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ ef050242q.
[34] Perkins G, Sahajwalla V. Steady-State model for estimating gas production from
underground
coal
gasification.
Energy
&
Fuels
2008;22(6):3902E14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef8001444.
[35] Lanhe Y. Study on the model experiment and numerical simulation for
underground coal gasification. Fuel 2004;83(4E5):573E84.
[36] Burton E, Friedmann J, Upadhye R. Best practices in underground coal
gasification. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 2006. Contract
W-7405-Eng-48 Contract No.: Contract W-7405-Eng-48.
[37] EliotMA. Coalutilizationchemistry. BeijingChemicalIndustry Press; 1991. p. 283.
[38] Yang LH, Song QY, Li YJ. Project of UCG. Xuzhou: China University of Mining
and Technology Press; 2001. p. 116E23.
[39] Yang LH, Zhang X, Liu S. Underground coal gasification using oxygen and steam.
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects
2009;31(20):1883E92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 15567030802462531.
[40] Yang LH, Zhang X, Liu S. Characteristics of temperature field during the oxygenenriched underground coal gasification in steep seams. Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 2009;32(4): 384E93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030802611897.
[41] Saulov DN, Plumb OA, Klimenko AY. Flame propagation in a gasification channel.
Energy 2010;35(3):1264E73.
[42] Wall TF, Liu G-S, Wu H-W, Roberts DG, Benfell KE, Gupta S, et al. The effects of
pressure on coal reactions during pulverised coal combustion and gasifi-cation.
Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2002;28(5):405E33.
[43] Yang LH, Zhang X, Liu SQ. The temperature features of the thermal-explosion
oxygen-steam underground coal gasification in approximately horizontal coal seams.
Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects
2011;33(16):1483E92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030903397933.
[44] King GR, Ertekin TM. Review of methane-related mathematical models (part one):
experiment and the model on balanced absorption. Coal Layer Gas 2000;25:13.
[45] Chen L, Hou C, Chen J, Xu J. A back analysis of the temperature field in the
combustion volume space during underground coal gasification. Mining Science and
Technology (China) 2011;21(4):581E5
[46] Yang L. Three-Dimensional unstable non-linear numerical analysis of the
underground coal gasification with free channel. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization,
and
Environmental
Effects
2006;28(16):1519E31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/009083190929785.
[47] Creedy DP, Garner K, Holloway S, Jones N, Ren TX. Review of underground coal
gasification technological advancements. UK DTI Cleaner Coal Tech-nology Transfer
Programme; 2001. COAL R211/Pub URN 01/1041 Contract
No.: COAL R211/Pub URN 01/1041
[48] Lanhe Y. Three-dimensional non-linear numerical analysis on the oxygen
concentration field in underground coal gasification. Fuel Processing Tech-nology
2004;85(15):1605E22.
[49] Solcov O, Soukup K, Rogut J, Stanczyk K, Schneider P. Gas transport through
porous strata from underground reaction source; the influence of the gas kind,
temperature
and
transport-pore
size.
Fuel
Processing
Technology
2009;90(12):1495E501
[50] Gunn RD, Krantz WB. Underground coal gasification: development of theory,
laboratory experimentation, interpretation, & correlation with the hanna field tests.
Wvoming 82071. University of Wyammg; 1987. DE$AS20E 80LC10442
[51] Yang L. Coal properties and system operating parameters for underground coal
gasification. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects
2008;30(6):516E28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030600817142.
[52] Wang GX, Wang ZT, Feng B, Rudolph V, Jiao JL. Semi-industrial tests on
enhanced underground coal gasification at Zhong-Liang-Shan coal mine. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Chemical Engineering 2009;4(5):771E9. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/apj.337.
[53] Nitao JJ, Camp DW, Buscheck TA, White JA, Burton GC, Wagoner JL, et al.
Progress on a new integrated 3-D UCG simulator and its Initial Application.
International Pittsburgh Coal Conference; Pittsburgh, PA, United States; 2011.
[54] U.S. Energy Administration Report-India.2013.
[55] IMF: International Monetary Fund. 2013.
[56] IEA: International Energy Agency, Mckinsey Analysis Report, 2013
[57] Acharyya SK. Coal and lignite resources of Indiaan overview. Geological Society of
India, 2000.
[59] Conference paper. Underground coal gasification and underground coal mining for bright
and secure future. In: National seminar, New Delhi, 3031 January, 2006
[60] NTPC (National Thermal Power Corporation). Economics of power generation with UCG.