Underground Coal Gasification From Fundamentals To Applications
Underground Coal Gasification From Fundamentals To Applications
Underground Coal Gasification From Fundamentals To Applications
Review
Department of Chemical Engineering, Dawood College of Engineering & Technology, Karachi, Pakistan
Process Systems Engineering Centre (PROSPECT), Chemical Engineering Department, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai 81310,
Johor Bahru (JB), Malaysia
c
Biomass Conversion Research Centre (BCRC), Department of Chemical Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 4 April 2012
Accepted 10 September 2012
Available online 22 October 2012
Underground coal gasication (UCG) is a promising option for the future use of un-worked coal. UCG
permits coal to be gasied in situ within the coal seam, via a matrix of wells. The coal is ignited and air is
injected underground to sustain a re, which is essentially used to mine the coal and produce
a combustible synthetic gas which can be used for industrial heating, power generation or the manufacture of hydrogen, synthetic natural gas or diesel fuel. As compared with conventional mining and
surface gasication, UCG promises lower capital/operating costs and also has other advantages, such as
no human labor underground. In addition, UCG has the potential to be linked with carbon capture and
sequestration. The increasing demand for energy, depletion of oil, and gas resources, and threat of global
climate change have lead to growing interest in UCG throughout the world. The potential for UCG to
access low grade, inaccessible coal resources and convert them commercially and competitively into
syngas is enormous, with potential applications in power, fuel, and chemical production. This article
reviews the literature on UCG and research contributions are reported UCG with main emphasis given to
the chemical and physical characteristic of feedstock, process chemistry, gasier designs, and operating
conditions. This is done to provide a general background and allow the reader to understand the
inuence of operating variables on UCG. Thermodynamic studies of UCG with emphasis on gasier
operation optimization based on thermodynamics, biomass gasication reaction engineering and
particularly recently developed kinetic models, advantages and the technical challenges for UCG, and
nally, the future prospects for UCG technology are also reviewed.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Underground coal gasication
UCG kinetics
Gasier operation
Post-burn coal processing
Coal drilling
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
Underground coal gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193
2.1.
UCG for synthetic fuel production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
2.2.
Process overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
2.2.1.
Chemical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
2.2.2.
Physical process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
2.2.3.
Effect of coal reactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
2.2.4.
Gasifying agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
2.2.5.
Effect of pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
2.2.6.
Effect of heat loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
2.2.7.
Effect of temperature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
2.2.8.
Cavity growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
2.2.9.
Gas diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
2.2.10.
Velocity of combustion front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
2.2.11.
Compositions of syngas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
2.2.12.
Optimization of UGC operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
190
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
1. Introduction
Coal, a fossil fuel created from the remains of plants that lived
and died about 100e400 million years ago when parts of the Earth
were covered with huge swampy forests is classied as a nonrenewable energy source because it takes millions of years to form.
Coal has been used as a source of energy for nearly 3000 years.
Although mined in Europe as early as the 13th century, it was not
a highly desirable fuel because of its toxic combustion products.
Coal did not become an important source of fuel until the beginning
of the Industrial Revolution about 300 years later.
The coal industrys largest environmental challenge is removing
organic sulfur, a substance that is chemically bound to coal.
Traditional methods of burning coal produce emissions that can
reduce air and water quality. Clean coal technologies remove sulfur
and nitrogen oxides before, during, and after coal is burned, or
convert coal to a gas or liquid fuel. Fluidized Bed Combustion is
a clean coal technology which keeps both sulfur and nitrogen
oxides in check. Coal Gasication is another clean coal technology
bypasses the conventional coal burning process altogether by
converting coal into a gas. This method removes sulfur, nitrogen
compounds and particulates, before the fuel is burned, making it as
clean as natural gas. Coal was rst used in gas production during
the late 18th century. Early production was used primarily for
lighting, but as gasication techniques improved, applications grew
wider. By the 19th century the conversion of coal to gas was a wellestablished commercial process.
Globally, coal will still remain an indispensable source of
chemical feedstock and energy for a long period of time. New and
improved processes for its efcient and environmentally acceptable
use will be a steady challenge for coming generations of coal
scientists and for society to support the research required [1].
World energy policy is gripped by a fallacy d the idea that coal
is destined to stay cheap for decades to come. This assumption
supports investment in clean-coal technology and trumps serious
efforts to increase energy conservation and develop alternative
energy sources. Underground coal gasication (UCG) is a promising
option for the future use of un-worked coal. UCG d may eventually
make marginal coal reserves accessible, but it will take time and
substantial investment to be commercialized on a large-scale [2].
Most current technologies of coal gasication such as entrained
ow, uidized bed, and moving bed use a surface reactor for gasication. The main differences between these technologies relate to
the gas ow conguration, coal particle size, ash handling, and
process conditions [3]. An alternative for surface gasier is an
underground coal gasier. UCG is a is a combination of mining,
exploitation and gasication that eliminates the need for mining
and can be used in deep or steeply dipping, unmineable coal seam
.UCG is an in situ technique to recover the fuel or feedstock value of
coal that is not economically available through conventional
recovery technologies. It has been regarded to be an important way
to utilize low-rank and unmineable coals. The international experiences in the modeling and the experimental tests of underground
coal gasication (UCG) show that UCG process offers an attractive
option of utilizing unmineable coal [4e21]. Probably the strongest
appeal of underground coal gasication at present is its potential
value in exploiting marginal coal reserves that otherwise would
remain unrecoverable [22].
Coal reserves signicantly exceed those of oil and gas. Worlds
coal distribution on land is shown in Fig. 1. When coal resource
totals is considered (including coal which it is uneconomic to
mine), it dominates the fossil fuel picture. Estimates of total world
coal resource (including unmineable coal) are usually stated in
trillions of tons rather than billions. Recent estimates of the total
remaining coal resource in the world quote a gure of 18 trillion
tons [23].
Today, less than one sixth of the worlds coal is economically
accessible. The chances of countries around the world choosing not
to use this coal resource are very low indeed but unless cleaner and
cheaper ways can be found to convert coal to gas or liquid fuels, coal
is unlikely to become an acceptable replacement for dwindling and
uncertain supplies of oil and natural gas. Underground coal gasication (UCG), taken on its own, offers the prospect of increasing the
worlds usable coal reserves by a factor of at least three. Fortunately,
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
191
Fig. 1. Worlds coal distribution black areas on land: Map excludes Antarctica, which contains large coal deposits but is not usable by international convention [24].
Fig. 2. Current world-wide status of UCG technology: Map shows underground coal gasication (UCG) sites worldwide, including planned sites and prior pilot test sites, current
international UCG activities overlaying CO2 storage potential areas. Gray areas show potential areas for geological carbon storage [23,31,32].
192
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
Fig. 3. Potential development of UCG: Step 1: well drilling and link establishment. Step
2: coal seam ignition and commencement of gasication and step 3: site clean-up by
ushing cavity with steam and water to remove potential contaminants [19].
work safety, no surface disposal of ash, low dust, and noise pollution. It can be operated at high pressure to increase the reaction
intensity and improve the efciency of the process. UCG is particularly advantageous for deep coal deposits and steeply dipping coal
seams since at these conditions less gas leakages to the surroundings and high pressures favor methane formation The successful
application of such a process would provide a low to medium BTU
gas (100e300BTU/SCF), depending on whether air or an oxygene
steam mixture is used [26]. Composition and heating value of the
product gas depends on the thermodynamic conditions of the
operation as well as on the composition and temperature of the
gasifying agent employed.
In order to avoid potential environmental concerns, the reactor
cavity is operated at less than hydrostatic pressure, which brings
water into the gasication reactor in situ. As such, successful UCG
operation relies on the natural permeability of the coal seam to
transmit gases to and from the combustion zone, or on enhanced
permeability created through reversed combustion, an in-seam
channel, or hydro-fracturing [27].
The rst recorded proposal for UCG was by Siemens. Sir William
Siemens, a German scientist, was credited with rst suggesting
underground coal gasication in 1868 [28], followed by
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
193
Table 1
History of the UCG [30].
Test site
Country
Year
Coal type
Dipa (degrees)
Syngas cv (mj/m3)
Lisichansk
Lisichansk
Gorlovka
Podmoskova
Bois-la-Dame
Newman Spinney
Yuzhno-Abinsk
Angren
Hanna 1
Hanna 2
Hoe Creek 1
Hanna 3
Hoe Creek 2A
Hoe Creek 2B
Hanna 4
Hoe Creek 3A
Hoe Creek 3B
Pricetown
Rawlins 1A
Rawlins 1B
Rawlins 2
Brauy-en-Artois
Thulin
Centralia Tono A
Centralia Tono B
Haute-Duele
Thulin
Rocky Mountain 1A
Rocky Mountain 1B
El Tremedal
Russia
Ukraine
Russia
Russia
Belgium
UK
Russia
Uzbekistan
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
France
Belgium
USA
USA
France
Belgium
USA
USA
Spain
1934e36
1943e63
1935e41
1940e62
1948
1949e59
1955e89
1965enow
73e74
75e76
1976
1977
1977
1977
77e79
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1979
1981
1982e84
84e85
84e85
1985e86
1986e87
87e88
87e88
1997
Bit
Bit
N/A
SBB
A
SBB
Bit
SBB
HVC
HVC
HVC
HVC
HVC
HVC
HVC
HVC
HVC
Bit
SBB
SBB
SBB
A
SA
SBB
SBB
A
SA
SBB
SBB
SBB
0.75
0.4
1.9
2
1
1
2-Sep
4
9.1
9.1
7.5
9.1
7.5
7.5
9.1
7.5
7.5
1.8
18
18
18
1200
860
6
6
2
6
7
7
2
24
400
40
40
N/A
75
138
110
120
84
100
84
100
100
100
100
100
270
105
105
130e180
N/A
N/A
75
75
880
860
110
110
600
N/A
0
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
60
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
63
63
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
180
2 mt
Over 10 mt
3130
7580
112
2370
1820
60
4700
290
3190
350
1330
169
7760
3e4
3.2
6e10
6 with O2
N/A
2.6
9e12.1
3.6
5.3
3.6
4.1
3.4
9.0
4.1
3.9
6.9
6.1
5.6
8.1
11.8
14
14
190
390
9.7
8.4
0
0
157
11200
4440
9.5
8.8
HVC High Vol Bit, Bit Bituminous, SBB Sub Bituminous, SA Semi-anthracite, A Anthracite.
a
Dip is the maximum angle between the inclined plane and the horizontal plane. Dip is always perpendicular to strike, and has both a compass direction and an angle.
Inclinometer is used to measure the amount of dip in degrees (a plane lying at along the horizontal as zero dip).
194
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
production well are drilled from the surface to the coal seam and
highly permeable path within the coal seams are established
between these two well. Prior to the gasication 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 gasication include CRIPs, long and large tunnel
gasication, and two-stage UCG [35e37].
The RCL is a method of linking which includes injection of an
oxidant into one well and ignition of coal in the other so that
combustion propagates toward the source of oxidant as shown in
Fig. 4(a).
In the course of the FCL coal is ignited in the injection well, and
the re propagates toward the production well as shown in
Fig. 4(b). During forward gasication, the ame working face
gradually moves to the outlet, making the dry distillation zone
shorter and shorter. At the time when forward gasication is nearly
complete, the reduction zone also becomes shorter [38].
Flow of oxidant into the injection well is maintained until the
re reaches the bottom of the injection well in the RCL or that of the
production well in the FCL. This outcome is accompanied by
a signicant drop in the injection pressure indicating creation of
a low hydraulic resistance link between the wells, which establishes a low hydraulic resistance path between the two wells.
CRIP technique is suitable for thin, deep coal seams, replaces the
vertical injector by a horizontal injector [39]. During the gasication process, the burning zone grows in the upstream direction, in
contrast to the gas ow in the horizontal direction. This occurs by
cutting off or perforating the injection linear at successive new
upstream locations. The CRIP technique produces higher quality
gas, results in lower heat loss than the two-vertical well conguration, and improves the overall efciency of the UCG process [40].
Once a successful link has been established the second step is
ignited. The gasication step starts with ignition of the coal and the
injection of air or air enriched with oxygen. Both permeable bed
gasication and natural convection driven surface gasication will
Fig. 4. Schematic views of the reverse and forward combustion linking in UCG. (a)
Reverse combustion linking. (b) Forward combustion linking [36].
occur. When the gas quality deteriorates the injection well is burnt
to allow injection further upstream.
Gasication occurs when a mixture of air or oxygen and steam is
forced into the coal seam through injection well and react chemically with the coal, generating a synthesis gas, which is recovered
through product well. At the surface the raw product gas is cleaned
for industrial uses [20].
As gasication proceeds, an underground cavity is formed.
Water from the surrounding strata will enter the cavity and
participate in the gasication process leading to a drop in the local
water table. At some point, the coal in the vicinity of the injection
well will be exhausted and steps one and two will be repeated to
access fresh coal to sustain gas production. In the commercial
operations several underground gasiers will be operated simultaneously. Once the gasication operations in a section of coal seam
have nished, the third step is to return environment back to its
original state. This is achieved by ushing the cavities with steam
and/or water to remove pollutants from cal seams to prevent them
from diffusing into surrounding water aquifers. Over the time, the
water table will return to a level close to that existing prior to the
start of gasication [20]. The composition of the product gas from
UCG can very substantially depending on the injected oxidant used,
operating pressure and mass and energy balance of the underground reactor.
CRIP technique, is suitable for thin, deep coal seams, replaces the
vertical injector by a horizontal injector [39]. The CRIP method
requires two horizontal wells drilled along a coal seam. One is near
the top of the seam and the other near the bottom. The bottom
(injection) well is lined with metal pipe. The upper well is the
production well. As pyrolysis proceeds, the burn cavity moves
toward the base of the wells, progressively exposing more and
more of the injection pipe. At an appropriate time, the pipe is
melted or burned off and a new period of pyrolysis begins. In effect,
the old problems of well plugging are circumvented by simply
starting a new burn periodically along the horizontal wells [41]. The
CRIP method was rst tried successfully in early 1982 with a threeday trial, gasifying a 40-ton cavity. The injection pipe was then
burned off and a second 10-ton cavity started. The original cavity
cooled to 500 C, and the second achieved the typical operating
temperature of 1000 C. The average heating values of the product
gases were between 265 and 277 Btu per standard cubic foot.
Burning is started by pyrophoric silane and propane gases. The
silane ignites upon encountering the oxygen in the burn cavity and
burns long enough to subsequently ignite the propane, which is
injected into the well. The propane actually ignites the coal in the
cavity. At a suitable time, the propane is shut off and the pyrolysis
sustains itself. This method has proved reliable since its adoption.
Burning can also be started by passing LPG through the injection
well for a short period of time (3e5 min) to initiate the combustion.
An electric spark is generated for ignition of the liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) in the channel of the coal block near the mouth of
the injection well. Once coal is ignited, the LPG supply is stopped
and oxygen is continuously passed through the channel created in
the coal block until the completion of the experiment [42].
CRIP technique uses a combination of conventional and directional drilling to drill the process wells. First, the vertically-drilled
Production Well is drilled until it intersects the coal seam. Then
the vertical section of the Injection Well is drilled to a predetermined depth, after which directional drilling is 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 benet 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.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
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 benets of lateral
drilling for extending the life of wells and xed 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 [37]. The CRIP
technique produces higher quality gas, results in lower heat loss
than the two-vertical well conguration, and improves the overall
efciency of the UCG process [40].
Two-stage UCG is a technique of supplying air and steam
cyclically [10,43]. In the rst 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 sufcient heat is stored in the
rst 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 [44].
During in situ coal gasication remote sensing technique
may be used for mapping underground fracture systems,
locating tunnels or water-bearing strata and mapping burn
fronts [45].
2.2.1. Chemical processes
The study considers the quasi-steady burning of a carbon
particle which undergoes gasication at its surface by chemical
reactions, followed by a homogeneous reaction in the gas phase.
The main chemical processes occurring during coal gasication are
drying, pyrolysis, combustion and gasication of the solid hydrocarbon. These processes occur in all methods of coal gasication,
whether conducted in surface gasiers or in situ. From the chemical
and thermodynamic point of view, the UCG process runs analogically to gasication in the surface reactors [46]. The most important
chemical reactions taking place during underground coal gasication are listed in Table 2.
Chemical reactions (1)e(4) take place on the wall plane of the
coal seams (heterogeneous reactions), while (6) and (7) reactions
occur at the gaseous stage (homogeneous reactions).
In addition to these listed, reactions involving nitrogen and
sulfur are also important. The nal product gas consists of
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane and
nitrogen. Composition and heating value of the product gas
depends on the thermodynamic conditions of the operation as well
as on the composition and temperature of the gasifying agent
employed [46].
During in situ combustion of coal different processes of vaporization (drying), pyrolysis, and combustion and gasication of char
take place collectively. The UCG process has a zonal character and
the main gasication reactions occur both in the solid and the
gaseous phases as well as on their boundaries. Qualitative
description of phenomena at the UCG cavity wall is explained
in Fig. 5.
In the solid phase mainly the pyrolysis and the drying processes
take place. Along with the migration of the gaseous product of the
thermal decomposition through the pores and slots of the solid
phase, various homo- and heterogenic reactions occur. The rates of
195
Table 2
Chemical reactions taking place during underground coal gasication.
Reaction equation
Reaction
rate (Ri)
DHo298
(MJ/kmol)
Equation
number
C O2 /CO2
R1
393.8
(1)
C CO2 /2CO2
R2
162.4
(2)
C H2 O/H2 CO
R3
131.4
(3)
C 2H2 /CH4
R4
74.9
(4)
1
O /CO2
2 2
1
H2 O2 /H2 O
2
CO H2 O/CO H2
R5
285.1
(5)
CO
R6
0.242
(6)
R7
0.041
(7)
196
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
The overall UCG process is strongly exothermic, and temperatures in the burn zone are likely to occasionally exceed 900 C. Even
after cooling (through conductive heat loss to surrounding strata
and convective heat loss to native groundwater), syngas typically
ows through production wells at temperatures between 200 C
and 400 C. Around the burn zone, the high buoyancy of hot syngas
relative to groundwater will tend to lead to large pores getting
invaded with bubbles of syngas, which will heat the groundwater
and turn it into steam. A dynamic interface between steam and hot
groundwater will develop around the UCG burn zone, in which
steam will mix with the syngas [23].
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 gasication agent and air
injection method to another. These three zones move toward the
outlet along the direction of the air ow, which, in turn, ensures the
continuous run of the gasication reactions [21].
Figs. 6 and 7 illustrate different chemical regions of gasication
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 specied 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 40e
50% of its dry weight as low molecular weight gases, chemical
Fig. 6. Division of gasication channel into three zones: oxidization zone, reduction
zone and dry distillation zone [21].
water, light hydrocarbons and heavy tars, and after evolving the
volatile matters, a more permeable solid substance called char will
be combusted and gasied by the injected oxidant agents and
exhausted gases from the previous steps [51,52]. 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
inuence of some chemical compounds, e.g. iron oxides.
2.2.2. Physical process
In the process of underground coal gasication (UCG), the gas
movement not only inuences the concentration distribution and
movement of uid in the burning zone directly, but also restricts
the diffusion of the gasication agent in the whole gasier.
Fig. 7. Thermal wave propagation through coal seam during in situ gasication which
demonstrates the different regions [3].
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
197
Table 3
Classication criteria for UCG.
Criterion
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
Protability criterion
Bed thickness
More than 1 m
Angle of inclination of coal bed
Any
Type and tightness of rock mass
Recommended: rmness and tightness
of rock mass, thickness and lithology
of rock massdoverburden in slightly
permeable layers (clays, silts, shale clays)
Hydrogeological conditions
Recommended: lack of ssures, faults,
aquiferous layers, water reservoirs causing
water inow
Deposit tectonics
Recommended homogeneity of deposit
(lack of ssure, faults)
Quantity of resources
Protability criterion
Methane presence in the bed
Causes gas hazard
Conditions of infrastructure
Recommended lack of building development
198
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
value of the syngas produced. When one uses air as the gasifying
agent, a syngas with low heating value is obtained. This is mainly
due to the syngas dilution by the nitrogen contained in air.
However, if one uses steam or a combination of steam and oxygen,
a syngas with a medium caloric value is produced. Adding steam
changes carbon-oxygen system balance to carbon-oxygen-steam
system balance in the combustion process. Oxygen-steam gasication not only utilizes the surplus heat to improve the energy
efciency of the process, but also increases the gas production
volume per ton of coal and lowers the oxygen consumption volume
per ton of coal. The changing relationships between gas compositions and steam/oxygen ratios are shown in Fig. 8 [60].
The experiment results show that pure-oxygen underground
coal gasication, the water in the coal seams, or the leaching water
on the roof can be used to produce water gas. However, because
water evaporation consumes heat, and it is impossible to control
steam volume, gas compositions often present the wide uctuations. Therefore, it is required to adjust the oxygen supplying
volume so as to keep the stable proceeding of gasication process.
From Fig. 8, it can be seen that with the rise in the steam/oxygen
ratio, the volume of steam increases, the H2 content in the coal gas
improves, the CO content drops, and the CH4 content is heightening
a little [60].
The syngas produced has a by UCG process has low caloric
value approximately one-eighth of natural gas if air injection is
used, and double this gure if oxygen injection is used. Oxygenenriched steam forward gasication has remarkable effects on gas
compositions. Under the testing environment, in pure oxygen
gasication, the average rising rate for the temperature of the
gasied coal seams is about 2.10 C/h; in the oxygen-enriched
steam forward gasication phase, the high temperature eld
mainly concentrates around gasication gallery, and the highest
temperature in oxidation zone reaches over 1200 C [61].
The air injected into a gasication channel is at a low speed, the
ame tends to propagate toward the injection point but, if the air
ow rate increases, the cavity tends to grow in the downstream
direction. It is also known that ame propagation is faster when
oxygen is used instead of air. This behavior is also expected since
oxygen-fed ames are hotter and have higher reaction rates [62].
Saulov et al. [62] considered the limit of high temperatures, high
activation energy and a strong air ow. Under these conditions the
surface of the channel has two zones, cold and hot. The temperature is insufciently high in the cold zone to initiate reactions,
while in the hot zone any oxygen on the surface reacts instantly.
Since the activation energy is high, these zones are separated only
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
199
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram dening forward length, backward length, height and width of the nal cavity [42].
200
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
201
coal, seam depth, steam: oxygen ration and oxygen injection rate
and other parameter discussed in Section 2. Compositions of
syngas from a variety of coals as reported in literature reveals
component fractions in the following ranges [8,18,26,79e81].
At constant steam/oxygen ratio gas compositions remained
stable [8].
H2:11e35%; CO: 2e16%; CH4: 1e8%; CO2: 12e28%; H2S:0.03e
3.5%.
2.2.12. Optimization of UGC operation
Underground gasication cannot be controlled to the same
extent as a surface process as the coal feed cannot be processed. The
UCG process can be operated with stability and exibility, as input
ow has been shown to have a direct relationship to production
ow, with little effect on product gas quality. The power output
from the gasier could be rapidly increased or reduced by
increasing or decreasing the O2 ow rate. Although elevated depth
and pressure are not pre-requisites for a high quality gas, the
benet is in higher mass ows and hence greater efciency of
energy transmission to the surface. The energy output of a UCG
system depends on the ow rate of gaseous products and the heat
value of the gas mixture. The volume ow of the product gas is
typically four times the injection ow so the limiting factor is the
dynamic resistance of the production well. The mass ow capability
of a well is proportional to input pressure. Increasing well depth
increases the product gas density and pressure. The mass ow gain
due to pressure increase exceeds the frictional loss due to increased
bore hole length. Increasing the diameter of production tubing also
raises the limiting ow rate. Increasing the diameter of production
tubing, or the number of production wells, also raises the limiting
ow rate [76]. Information on the process conditions must
be constantly monitored and updated as the gasication
process moves forward. The ideal temperatures of above ground
coal gasication are about 1000 C, however, it may or may not be
possible to achieve these temperatures in UCG, primarily because
of the lack of control on water inux and reactant gas ow
patterns [57].
Blinderman et al. [36,82] has used intrinsic disturbed ame
equations to determine the key parameters of the RCL process.
Wang et al. [83] performed eld trial with various operational
maneuvers, such as implementing controlled moving injection
points, O2-enriched operation and variation of operational pressure to ensure the gas ow comparatively controllable and hence
improve efciency of heat and quality of the production syngas.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is evaluating
commercial computational uid dynamics (CFD) code to model
cavity gas ow and combustion in two and three dimensions.
Fig. 11 [84] show a typical cavity conguration at a mid-to-late
stage of a linked vertical well module. Nitao et al. [84] has
provided the details of models and simulators. It will be more
useful to couple the UCG process models with full scale process
simulator so that the entire process can be modeled at once, rather
than sequentially.
3. Thermodynamics of UCG
The gasication performance is controlled by both of kinetic and
thermodynamic factors. The thermodynamic properties are, by
denition, point functions of the gasication process, indicating the
conditions of a system at equilibrium, regardless of the reaction
path followed in attaining equilibrium or the time required. On the
other hand, the kinetics of a reacting system denes a particular
sequence of reaction paths, as well as the rates at which the
chemical changes take place.
202
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
Fig. 11. A typical cavity conguration is shown at a mid-to-late stage of a linked vertical well module. UCG involves several distinct multiphysical/chemical-process domains,
including the cavity, the wall zone containing coal, the wall zone containing rock, and the rubble zone.
dS 0 at constantp; H
(8)
dG dSg
(9)
dG 0 at constantp; H
(10)
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
hcg
nH2 LHVH2 nCO LHVCO nCH4 LHVCH4 LHVcoal 100
(11)
Where
LHV lower heating value
n Number of moles.
hcg is mainly a function of the O2/C ratio, while the H2/CO ratio is
a more determined by the H2O/C ratio. 0.5 is the stoichiometric
203
Fig. 13. Equilibrium gas compositions of the carbon-oxygen-steam system at adiabatic conditions [86,87].
204
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
Ei
RTt
ki koi exp
(13)
Where
koi is the pre-exponential or frequency factor in sec1,
Ei is the apparent activation energy for constituent i in J/mol,
R is the ideal gas constant in (J/mol kelvins) and
T(t) is the absolute temperature of the coal particle in Kelvins.
Values of koi, Ei, and Vi*are estimated from matching with
experimental data.
dV=dt ki V * V
Fig. 14. Fractional composition of CO and CO2 in equilibrium with b graphite at 1 atm
as a function of temperature.
dVi
ki Vi* Vi
dt
(12)
(14)
E
k k0 exp
RT
(15)
According to Howard [92], the most serious problem of Equations (14) and (15) in the SFOR model is the apparently asymptotic
yield of volatiles that is observed after some time at the nal
temperature. As a result, the apparent value of V* as a function of
nal temperature is mechanistically inconsistent with the equations and is mathematically unmineable [92].
4.2. Distributed activation energy model (DAEM)
The DAEM is one of the multi-reaction models used widely to
clarify the thermal decomposition processes of coal pyrolysis. This
model was originally developed by Pitt [91] and later adapted by
Anthony [90].
Pitt [91] assumed that the evolution of a certain substance
involves an innite number of independent chemical reactions by
considering a continuous distribution of reactants. That is, many
irreversible rst-order parallel reactions that have different rate
parameters occur simultaneously. In the DAEM model, the dependence on i is replaced by a continuous dependence on activation
energy E so the values of koi, Ei and Vi* cannot be predicted earlier
and must be estimated from the experimental data.
DAEM has been applied to represent the change in overall
conversion and the change in the yield of a given component
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
dV * V * f EdE
(16)
ZN
f EdE
(17)
V* V
V*
Zt
k0 Eexp
E
du f EdE
RTu
(18)
V
1 *
V
Zt
E
k0 Eexp
du f EdE
RTu
(19)
ko aebE
(20)
T T0 at
(21)
ln
a
T2
ln
ko R
E
0:6:75
E
RT
(22)
205
V
1
V*
Zf
ZES
f EdE
ES
f EdE
(23)
dV
ko
E
ko RT 2
E
Vo e
exp
m
m E
dT
RT
RT
(24)
Table 4
The rate constants of MPRM based on individual volatile constituents.
Species
ka
Eo [kcal/mol]
Reference
CO2
CO
H2O
HCN
C2H6
CH4
H2
NH3
H2S
Tar
6.5 1016
2.2 1018
1.4 1018
1.7 1013
8.4 1014
7.5 1013
1.0 1014
1.2 1012
2.91 109
4.3 1014
8.6 1014
67.0
60.0
79.0
59.6
59.1
59.0
80.0
13.7
36.89
54.6
27.5
[99,100]
[99,100]
[99,100]
[99,100]
[99,100]
[99,100]
[99e101]
[99e101]
[90,102]
[99]
[100]
a
These constants are taken from DAEM with the standard deviations, si, are set
zeroes.
206
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
Where
k3
CO
CO #
0
g
dV
dV1
dVn
E1 ; k0;1 ; V0;1
En ; k0;n ; V0;n
dT
dT
dT
(25)
CO2 # CO2
(26)
CO2 C/CO
(27)
k2
(28)
k3
kf sc pCO2
1 f0 pCO b pCO2
(29)
k0
k1 k2 0
k
a 3 , b0 10 and sc is the active surface area
k01
k3
k1
available for reaction per unit weight of carbon.
Von Fredersdorff [86] proposed a similar mechanism for the Ce
H2O reaction
Where kf
k1
H2 O # H2 O
(30)
H2 O CO/H2
(31)
k2
k3
H2
H2 #
0
(32)
k3
g
kf sc pH2 O
1 f0 pH2 b pH2 O
(33)
k0 0
k1 k2 0
k
,a 3 ; b 10 and sc is the active surface area
0
k1
k3
k1
available for reaction per unit weight of carbon. In the literature the
Von Fredersdorff rate equation, is generally known as a Langmuire
Hinshelwood rate expression expressed as under.
Where kf
g
kbpCO2
1 fpCO bpCO2
(34)
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
(concentration of steam, CO2, CO, and H2); (e) the mineral content
of the char; and (f) the particle size if the reactions are diffusion
controlled.
It is apparent from a large number of studies that the carbon
gasication reactions are chemically controlled below a temperature of about 1100 C for the particle sizes normally used for gasication. Above this temperature level the diffusion effects become
important [105e108].
DE5
PCO
R5 Ac e RT
(41)
DE6
PH2
R6 Ac e RT
(42)
K1 1=2 1=2
pH2 K2 K3 PH2 PCO2 K2 K3 PH2 O PCO
K1
K2 PCO K3 PH2
R7
(43)
Here;
K1 a1 T b1 e
K3 a3 e
K1
(35)
DE1
PO2
R1 Ac e RT
:
R2 Ac e T
R3 Ac e
bT
DE1
RT
(36)
PH2 O
RT
DE2
(44)
RT
K3 a3 e
(45)
(46)
(47)
DE2
RT
DE3
(48)
RT
(49)
Where;
Kj The equilibrium constant of chemical reaction j,
Kf The equilibrium constant expressed in terms of the partial
fugacity of every composition;
Ej The activation energy of chemical reaction j,
R universal gas constant;
G The free enthalpy of standard formation
T Temperature
Pi partial pressure of composition i in the mixed gas.
Key aspects of kinetic assessment of UGC are summarized in
Table 5.
5. Challenges for UCG
PCO2
RT
DE
a
DE3
K Ac e RT :
DE1
a1
T
K2 a2 e
K2 a2 T b2 e
207
(37)
1
PCO PH2
kf
!
(38)
Where
DG
kf e RT
(39)
R4 Ac e
DE4
RT
2
PH
2O
1
P
kf CH4
!
(40)
208
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
Table 5
Key aspects of kinetic assessment of UGC.
Parameters
Expression/Model
Key aspects
Z t
V
E
du f EdE
k0 Eexp
1 *
RTu
V
0
E
ko RT 2
E
exp
dV
ko
RT
RT
m
E
Vo e
dT
m
dV
dV1
dVn
E ; k ; V
En ; k0;n ; V0;n
dT
dT 1 0;1 0;1
dT
DE
K Ac e RT
quantity and quality of coal available. In the UK for the UCG site the
following selection criteria are used by DTI [115]: (i) Coal seam
4.2 m thick, (ii) depth between 600 and 1200 m, (iii) the availability
of good density and bore hole data, (iv) standoff 4.500 m from
abandoned mine working license areas and (v) greater than 100 m
vertical separation from major aquifers. A good knowledge of the
adjacent strata is required to ensure well bore and environmental
integrity. The explorations present no exceptional technical problems for the UCG process though there is always a chance that the
site may get rejected as the study proceeds, due to the presence of
a surrounding good quality water aquifer, low strength overburden
or discontinuous coal seam layers. The cost of exploratory drilling
and 3D seismic survey is high but is necessary for successful UCG
operation [73].
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
209
210
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
Table 6
UGC challenge and solutions.
Parameter
Challenges
Potential solutions
Site Selection
Evaluation of potentially
productive sites
CO2 Emissions
Uncontrolled ingress of oxygen
from the surface
Groundwater Contamination
Surface Subsidence
6.5. Economics
The product gas can serve different purposes such as being used
as fuel gas or as feedstock for liquid fuels and chemicals [33]. The
raw product gas from UCG is similar to that produced by surface
gasiers for which gas cleaning technologies have already been
developed. Additionally, the product gas can be processed to
remove its CO2 content before it is passed to the end users; the
captured CO2 can then be stored in the underground cavity, thereby
contributing to climate change mitigation [26]. The post-burn, rawgas processing is tailored to the impurities present and the
requirements for the nal product gas. When the product gas
reaches the surface it contains energy not only in its chemical
composition but also in its high temperature, pressure and velocity.
The gas treatment system must accept product gas at elevated
temperatures and high pressures (5.3 MPa) from the production
wellhead clean and dry this stream and route it to the end use while
maximizing the potential for energy conversion.
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
211
Table 7
Advantages and limitations of UGC.
Advantages of UGC
Limitations
It can be used to recover the energy content of low rank coals that are not economically
or technically feasible to recover by conventional technologies because of their seam thickness,
depth, high ash and/or excessive moisture content, large dip angle, or undesirable
overburden properties.
Coals that are unmineable (too deep, low grade, thin seams) are exploitable by UCG,
thereby greatly increasing resource availability.
Lignite and sub bituminous coal are ideal for gasication, as is bituminous coal provided
no signicant swelling characteristics exist.
CVs in the range of 12e14 MJ/m3 are recorded when using oxygen feed and this may be
slightly increased as the process develops at a greater depth.
Deeper coals offer the opportunity to have much higher pressures in the reactor resulting
in higher methane content and resultant higher heat value gas.
The UCG process has a higher thermal efciency than surface gasication processes.
The CRIP concept has led to the highest gasication efciency in terms of oxygen usage
and will allow subsidence to be minimized or possible eliminated, by using wider
barrier pillars between panels.
UCG also lowers the capital investment by eliminating the need for specialized coal mining,
processing (transporting and stocking) and gasication reactors, reducing operating costs,
surface damage and eliminating mine safety issues such as mine collapse and asphyxiation.
UGC uses lesswater than surface gasication processes which must maintain a high
steam-to-air ratio to avoid slagging. Furthermore. It does not use high quality surface
water, but utilizes the water within the coal seam itself.
Most of the ash in the coal stays underground, thereby avoiding the need for excessive
gas clean-up, and the environmental issues associated with y ash waste stored at the surface.
Reclamation of the land is not a serious problem since the surface disturbance is minimal.
There is no production of some criteria pollutants (e.g., SOx, NOx) and many other pollutants
(mercury, particulates, sulfur species) are greatly reduced in volume and easier to handle.
UCG eliminates much of the energy waste associated with moving waste as well as usable
product from the ground to the surface;
UCG, compared to conventional mining combined with surface combustion, produces less
greenhouse gas and has advantages for geologic carbon storage.
The well infrastructure for UCG can be used subsequently for geologic CO2 sequestration
operations. It may be possible to store CO2 in the reactor zone underground as well in
adjacent strata.
UCG research and development have been conducted in several countries, including
long-term commercial operation of several UCG plants in the former Soviet Union.
Table 8
Economic and environmental benets of UCG.
Aspects relevant to the commercial viability of UCG
212
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
The economic case for UCG syngas displacing natural gas or coal
for power generation is relatively straightforward. Alternative uses,
such as conversion of syngas into liquid fuels, chemical intermediates or hydrogen, are more difcult because, whilst the added
value is well known (and much higher than for power generation),
there is a tighter requirement for syngas clean-up. Technologies for
cleaning up UCG syngas to chemical feedstock standard are still
under development and so the costs are less well known [121].
The size of the coal resource is a major commercial factor for the
development of the underground coal gasication process. In
general, the requisite resource properties include availability of at
least 50 million tons of coal in place in a coal seam at least 15 feet
thick. The seam depth should be no more than 1200 feet for horizontal seams and no more than 1500 feet for steeply dipping
beds [22].
The market for the product gas is the second major factor for
commercial development of UCG. If the markets for utilizing the
gases are located near the gasication site then gas can be
economically transported. Key economic and environmental
benets of UCG are listed in Table 8.
The investigation shows that underground coal gasication will
inevitably cause a potential environmental problem, viz. degrading
the groundwater quality in the vicinity of the gasication panel. As
time progresses, the situation will become more serious. So, as
clean energy is developed, it may result in secondary pollution or
even destroy the ecological safety at the same time [7].
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[1] van Heek KH. Progress of coal science in the 20th century. Fuel 2000;79(1):
1e26.
[2] Heinberg R, Fridley D. The end of cheap coal. Nature 2010;468(7322):367e9.
[3] Sei M, Chen Z, Abedi J. Numerical simulation of underground coal gasication using the CRIP method. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering
2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cjce.20496.
[4] Stanczyk K, Howaniec N, Smolinski A, Swiadrowski J, Kapusta K,
Wiatowski M, et al. Gasication of lignite and hard coal with air and oxygen
enriched air in a pilot scale ex situ reactor for underground gasication. Fuel
[31]
[32]
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
[33] Sharovich E, Varma A. Underground coal gasication: a brief review of
current status. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 2009;48(17):
7865e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ie801569r.
[34] Shackley S, Mander S, Reiche A. Public perceptions of underground coal
gasication in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 2006;34(18):3423e33.
[35] Biezen ENJ, Bruining J. An integrated 3D model for underground coal gasication. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, 22e25 October
1995; Dallas, Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1995.
[36] Blinderman MS, Saulov DN, Klimenko AY. Forward and reverse combustion
linking in underground coal gasication. Energy 2008;33(3):446e54.
[37] Roddy DJ, Younger PL. Underground coal gasication with CCS: a pathway to
decarbonising industry. Energy & Environmental Science 2010;3(4):400e7.
[38] Yang L, Zhang X, Liu S, Yu L, Zhang W. Field test of large-scale hydrogen
manufacturing from underground coal gasication (UCG). International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2008;33(4):1275e85.
[39] Hill RW, Shannon MJ. The controlled retracting injection point (CRIP)
system: a modied stream method for in situ coal gasication. Berkeley, CA:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Report; 1981. Contract No.:
UCRL-85852.
[40] Thorsness CB, Hill RW, Britten JA. Execution and performance of the CRIP
process during the rocky mountain I UCG eld test. Berkeley, CA: Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Report; 1988. Contract No.: UCRL-98641.
[41] Haggin J. Key tests set for underground coal gasication. Chemical & Engineering News 1983;61(29):15e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cen-v061n029.
p015.
[42] 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 gasication. Energy 2010;35(6):2374e86.
[43] Yang LH, Yu L, Liang J. In: The coal gasication in the discarded mines and
comprehensive use of its product gas, vol. 16. Min World; 1995. p. 20.
[44] Guo C. In: Review of mathematical simulation study on the underground
coal gasication, vol. 15. Mining World; 1994. p. 3e5.
[45] Daily W, Lytle J. Geophysical tomography. Journal of Geomagnetism and
Geoelectricity 1983;35(11e12):423e42.
drowski J, Smolin
czyk K, Kapusta K, Wiatowski M, Swia
ski A, Rogut J,
[46] Stan
et al. Experimental simulation of hard coal underground gasication for
hydrogen production. Fuel 2012;91(1):40e50.
[47] Wu RY. Coal gasication. Xuzhou: China University of Mining and Technology Press; 1988. p. 68e73.
[48] 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.
[49] Yang LH, Song DY. Study on the method of seepage combustion in underground coal gasication. Xuzhou, China: China University of Mining and
Technology Press; 2001.
[50] Yang LH. A review of the factors inuencing the physicochemical characteristics of underground coal gasication. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization, and Environmental Effects 2008;30(11):1038e49. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15567030601082803.
[51] Campbell JH. Pyrolysis of subbituminous coal as it relates to in situ gasication. Part 1. Gas evolution. [383 to 1273/sup 0/K in argon]. NTISLLNL; 1976.
UCRL-52035(Pt.1) United StatesThu Mar 24 09:14:52 EDT 2011Dep, ERA-01018449; EDB-76-051202English.
[52] Merrick D. Mathematical models of the thermal decomposition of coal: 1.
The evolution of volatile matter. Fuel 1983;62(5):534e9.
[53] Yang L. Model and calculation of dry distillation gas movement in the
process of underground coal gasication. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B:
Fundamentals 2003;43(6):587e604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713836314.
[54] Huang T. Study on the coupling effect of seepage-stress-temperature of
the cracked rock. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering
2002;21:77.
[55] Guo KL, Kong XQ, Chen CN. Calculation heat transfer. Hefei: China University
of Science and Technology Press; 1988. p. 84.
[56] Zheng SH, Zhu WS. Theoretical analysis of the coupling effect of seepage
damages of the cracked rock. Chinese Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering 2001;20:156.
[57] Burton E, Friedmann J, Upadhye R. Best practices in underground coal
gasication. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; 2006.
Contract W-7405-Eng-48 Contract No.: Contract W-7405-Eng-48.
[58] Eliot MA. Coal utilization chemistry. Beijing Chemical Industry Press; 1991. p. 283.
[59] Yang LH, Song QY, Li YJ. Project of UCG. Xuzhou: China University of Mining
and Technology Press; 2001. p. 116e23.
[60] Yang LH, Zhang X, Liu S. Underground coal gasication using oxygen
and steam. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and
Environmental Effects 2009;31(20):1883e92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15567030802462531.
[61] Yang LH, Zhang X, Liu S. Characteristics of temperature eld during the
oxygen-enriched underground coal gasication in steep seams. Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects 2009;32(4):
384e93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15567030802611897.
[62] Saulov DN, Plumb OA, Klimenko AY. Flame propagation in a gasication
channel. Energy 2010;35(3):1264e73.
[63] 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 gasication. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2002;28(5):405e33.
213
214
A.W. Bhutto et al. / Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 39 (2013) 189e214
[90] Anthony DB, Howard JB, Hottel HC, Meissner HP. Rapid devolatilization and
hydrogasication of bituminous coal. Fuel 1976;55(2):121e8.
[91] Pitt GJ. The kinetics of the evolution of volatile products from coal. Fuel 1962;
41:267.
[92] Howard JB. In: Elliott MA, editor. Chemistry of coal utilization second
supplementary volume. New York: Wiley and Sons; 1981. 2395.
[93] Solomon PR, Hamblen DG, Carangelo RM. Coal pyrolysis. AIChE Symposium
on Coal Pyrolysis 1981.
[94 Miura KA. New and simple method to estimate f(E) and k0(E) in the
distributed activation energy model from three sets of experimental data.
Energy & Fuels 1995;9(2):302e7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef00050a014.
[95] Vand V. A theory of the irreversible electrical resistance changes of metallic
lms evaporated in vacuum. Proceedings of the Physical Society 1943;55:222.
[96] Hashimoto K, Miura K, Watanabe T. Kinetics of thermal regeneration reaction of activated carbons used in waste water treatment. AIChE Journal 1982;
28(5):737e46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.690280506.
[97] Sonobe T, Worasuwannarak N. Kinetic analyses of biomass pyrolysis using
the distributed activation energy model. Fuel 2008;87(3):414e21.
[98] Miura K, Maki T. A Simple method for estimating f(E) and k0(E) in the
distributed activation energy model. Energy & Fuels 1998;12(5):864e9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef970212q.
[99] Serio MA, Hamblen DG, Markham JR, Solomon PR. Kinetics of volatile
product evolution in coal pyrolysis: experiment and theory. Energy & Fuels
1987;1(2):138e52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ef00002a002.
[100] Solomon PR, Serio MA, Suuberg EM. Coal pyrolysis: experiments, kinetic
rates and mechanisms. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 1992;
18(2):133e220.
[101] Solomon PR, Hamblen DG, Carangelo RM, Serio MA, Deshpande GV. General
model of coal devolatilization. Energy & Fuels 1988;2(4):405e22. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1021/ef00010a006.
[102] Anthony DB, Howard JB, Hottel HC, Meissner HP, editors. Rapid devolatilization of pulverized coal. Inst., PA: The Combust; 1974. 15th Symp (Int) on
Combust.
[103] Paea S. Coal pyrolysis distribution. Wellington: Victoria University of
Wellington; 2008.
[104] Porada S. The reactions of formation of selected gas products during coal
pyrolysis. Fuel 2004;83(9):1191e6.
[105] Katta S, Keairns DL. Study of kinetics of carbon gasication reactions.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals 1981;20(1):6e13. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/i100001a002.
[106 Fredersdorff CG. Inst Gas Technol 1955;19:75.
[107] Turkdogan ET, Vinters JV. Effect of carbon monoxide on the rate of oxidation
of charcoal, graphite and coke in carbon dioxide. Carbon 1970;8(1):39e53.
[108] Rao Y, Jalan B. A study of the rates of carbon-carbon dioxide reaction in the
temperature range 839 to 1050 C. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B
1972;3(9):2465e77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02647051.
[109] Mayers MA. Trans Am Inst Mining Met Engrs 1936;119:301e1936.
[110] Riley HL. Transactions of the Faraday Society 1938;34:1011e6.
[111] Fischer J, Young JE, Johnson JE, Jonke AA. Laboratory support for in situ
gasication-reaction kinetics. Illinois 60439: ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY; 1979. ANL/CEN/FE-79e1 Contract No.: ANL/CEN/FE-79-1.
[112] Guo C. Study on long-tunnel large-section two-stage underground coal
gasication (Dissertation): China University of Mining & Technology;
1993.
[113] Yang L. Numerical study on the underground coal gasication for inclined
seams. AIChE Journal 2005;51(11):3059e71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aic.
10554.
[114] Walker LK. Commercial development of underground coal gasication.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)-Energy 2007;160(4):
175e80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ener.2007.160.4.175.
[115] DTI. Cleaner technology programmedprogress report. DTI/Pub; 2001.
Contract No.: URN 01/937.
[116] DTI. Review of the feasibility of underground coal gasication in the UK;
2004.
czyk K. Pollution of water during underground coal gasi[117] Kapusta K, Stan
cation of hard coal and lignite. Fuel 2011;90(5):1927e34.
[118] Liu S-Q, Li J-G, Mei M, Dong D-l. Groundwater pollution from underground
coal gasication. Journal of China University of Mining and Technology 2007;
17(4):467e72.
[119] Humenick MJ, Mattox CF. Groundwater pollutants from underground coal
gasication. Water Research 1978;12(7):463e9.
[120] Liu S, Wang Y, Yu L, Oakey J. Volatilization of mercury, arsenic
and selenium during underground coal gasication. Fuel 2006;85(10e11):
1550e8.
[121] Roddy D, Gonzalez G. Chapter 4 underground coal gasication (UCG) with
carbon capture and storage (CCS). In: Hester RE, Harrison RM, editors.
Carbon capture: sequestration and storage: the royal society of chemistry;
2009. p. 102e25.
[122] Kempka T, Fernandez-Steeger Ts, Li D-Y, Schulten M, Schlter R, Krooss BM.
Carbon dioxide sorption capacities of coal gasication residues. Environmental Science & Technology 2011;45(4):1719e23. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1021/es102839x.
[123] Koornneef J, Ramrez A, Turkenburg W, Faaij A. The environmental impact
and risk assessment of CO2 capture, transport and storage e an evaluation of
the knowledge base. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 2012;
38(1):62e86.