Underground coal gasification

[hokie66]

Let me preface this question by saying that I am not familiar at all with coal gasification. There are several trial projects underway here in Queensland, Australia in which deep coal seams are ignited and the resulting gases are collected. Sounds good, but one of these projects is reported to have contaminated the ground water with benzene and toluene. Would be interested if anyone here has experience in this area, and if similar problems have been encountered.

 

[hokie66]

This is the method being trialed in Australia.

http://www.ergoexergy.com/eucg.htm

 

[micalbrch]

I think the problems you heard about occured in the US (Wyoming) years ago. See:

http://fossil.energy.gov/international/Publications/ucg_1106_llnl_burton.pdf

 

[hokie66]

Thanks for that, micalbrch. The report says it was 1978, and 2 of the 30 trial sites showed environmental contamination. Perhaps the process has better controls now, but then maybe not. Capture of the energy potential of these deep deposits is important, but not important enough to contaminate the water supply.

Does anyone know the current status of this technology in the US? I hope it is not a case of a risky scheme being foisted on ignorant farmers in the Antipodes.

 

[micalbrch]

I wasn't aware of any actual project till I googled a bit:

http://www.syngasrefiner.com/ucg/

 

[BigInch]

Essentially an underground refinery doing underground what many believe is of too high consequence to accomplish at the surface. Out of sight, out of mind.

I wonder, if once started, they could be extinguished if necessary. IMU, there are underground coal fires that are impossible to extinguish, which have raged on for years. Google "coal seam fires".

"The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying." Tony Hayward X-CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com

 

[Latent007]

There are many reasons it is beneficial to perform coal gasification underground, not least the huge cost of building a purpose build surface gasifier - somewhere in the order of $2B - and elimination of the need to first mine the coal via traditional methods.

There is confusion among public, investors, regulators, etc regarding UCG, which should not just be regarded as one UCG technology. There is no such thing as generic UCG technology. Even among the three listed players in QLD, there is significant difference between the type of UCG technology used. The company you mention above above provides technology to Cougar Energy. It also provided the technology for the successful Chinchilla trial from 1999 to 2003, which complied with strict environmental standards. My research concludes that this company has the most advanced UCG technology(eUCG) and the only technology that has been proven with many years of clean operating experience.

It is correct that 2 out of 30 trials in the US resulted in groundwater contamination. The contamination in these cases resulted from significant deviation from cardinal rules of safe operating practices. It is understood why the contamination occurred in these cases.

Finally, when operating a UCG plant, the operator has control of the supply of oxygen which can be shut off to extinguish the underground process. Natural underground coal fires are not easy to put out because no one has control of the oxygen supply.

Hope this answers some questions for you guys,

regards

 

[micalbrch]

Interesting background information. Thanks for that! It is understandable that the contaminations "resulted from significant deviation from cardinal rules of safe operating practices". But isn't that always the main problem? Didn't this happen with BP's platform, too? The technique is good and prove but people make mistakes or violate rules and standards. The question is: How serious are the consequences?

 

[Latent007]

I assume that you're an engineer. You should know that all of engineering is based on such an approach. Of course if you stray from the rules, bad things might happen. Thats why the rules were written! Just as in civil or mechanical engineering, what happens if designers stray from the code of standards or make mistakes? Things can fail.

The problem here is that there are people popping up all over the place, claiming that they will perform UCG. It is not that easy. This is the sort of attitude that will create environmental problems. Companies essentially experimenting with this process who dont actually know what they're doing. It is equivalent to some random person saying they will build a sky scraper when they have no knowledge or experience of civil engineering. I wouldn't go in the building!! In the case of UCG, however, there are no text books one can learn the science from as it is still essentially a new 'technology/s'

Regards,

 

[hokie66]

Latent,
If that is the case with UCG projects, I may become a greenie. The three trials here in Queensland, even if they are being conducted by the best of the current operators, are under a lot of pressure, as shown in the attached article. A big part of the problem is that the governments here, both state and federal, are not sophisticated enough to perform as a watchdog.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/30/2968952.htm?section=justin

 

[Latent007]

Hokie,

I've read all the press. The reporters don't have any clue what they are talking about. They are still confusing CSG and UCG in a lot of cases. They just want to release sensationalist press without regard for any scientific process or proof. Even after Cougar Energy proved they had not caused contamination, the press were still releasing sensationalist articles. The latest fiasco with Carbon Energy proves the point. The greenies, press farmers and pollies find any contamination and immediately they blame UCG. Mercury has nothing to do with UCG and is more likely to come from regular coal mining or the coal fired power stations in the area, which are constantly spewing out toxic chemicals.

Among all of this, no one has mentioned the devastating effects that farming has on the land. Clearing of trees, salinity, erosion, high nitrates not to mention the fact that pesticides are just as likely to pollute groundwater sources. Yes there is Benzene and Toluene in a range of farming products which are indiscriminately sprayed onto the land and end up in water sources.

The government don't necessarily need to act as watchdogs, even though that is supposed to be the roll of DERM. Maybe they could regulate who is entering the industry based on proven experience. Regardless, there are many ways to skin cat. The fact is that UCG offers the safest and cleanest form of coal extraction, when done correctly. The greenies want reduced CO2 emmissions. UCG is the key to achieving that. Any that say they only want renewable energies are kidding themselves. Coal will be here for a long time to come.

Regards,

PS: Being an engineer and a Greenie don't really fit well together. I note you are a structural engineer. Iron ore mining is possibly one of the most polluting industries but where would you be without it?

 

[hokie66]

Latent,
Sounds like you may have a vested interest. I don't.

 

[Latent007]

I dont have a vested interest other than i have worked in the industry and i know a lot more about what is going on than the press do, so if you're interested in learning.....

 

[hokie66]

I am interested in learning...thus my query. But I don't think the press are doing a disservice by reporting what they are told. The point is, agriculture in the area where these projects exist will be much more important to Australia in the long term than the gas extraction. If they can coexist, fine, but if not, agriculture should take precedence.

 

[BigInch]

Whoh. We're justifying UG Coal Gasification by comparing it to he devastating effects of farming; kind of like justifying Macondo by the comparison to the depletion of fish stocks by the fishing industry. I could easily do without coal gasification being added to the list. I mean, isn't it a bit like searching for a cure for cancer at the local gun shop.

"The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying." Tony Hayward X-CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com

 

[micalbrch]

Let's calm down. I think we are closer together than we might think. Engineering progress and new technologies always bear risks and sometimes the risks are environmental risks. But the question for me is how serious are these risks? And if something happens, will there be a chance to get things under control again? Look at the BP disaster. It is really a disaster and the consequences for the environment and the people at the coast are severe. It will take years to overcome the impact. But one day it will. (I know that I take an extreme example). That's why I'm not generally against offshore drilling rigs. But ground water contamination with with benzene and toluene? I don't know. Is this a reversible consequence?

Latent007: To answer your question. Yes, of course I'm an engineer. This is an engineer forum. And I'm not a rookie in my job. I finished university 20 years ago.

 

[Latent007]

Hi guys, yes lets calm down but continue the healthy debate. We're all engineers and I think we can all learn something from each other here.

I wasn't justifying UCG by comparison to farming. I was just pointing out that these farmers, who are the ones complaining over something that hasn't happened, shouldn't thrown rocks in a glass house. I understand your concerns but believe they are bred by lack of detailed understanding on the subject. I was merely trying to give an educated opinion as an engineer with experience in the industry.

As per usual, as engineers we should apply a risk based approach which means we look at the consequences AND the liklihood. Yes the consequences can be high but the chance of failure occurring can be managed and reduced to an acceptable level (i.e.: Pretty much completely).

I'm interested to hear your opinions on Nuclear Energy, which pretty much suffers from the same affliction - High consequence/low liklihood. Should we just completely negate nuclear energy based on the consequence of failure?

Micalbrch, i certainly wasn't implying that you were a rookie. I was trying to appeal to your engineering intelligence to get my point across ;-)

Hope you're all having a good weekend....

 

[BigInch]

I'd much rather consider coal gasification inside a reactor vessel, where you can see it, monitor it, double contain it, pipe all the crap off of it and treat it, and know its shut down when you think it's shut down.

2 failures out of 30 tries certainly isn't ready for prime time IMO. Keep it in the DOE lab where it belongs for apparently some time yet.

"The top of the organisation doesn't listen sufficiently to what the bottom is saying." Tony Hayward X-CEO BP
"Being GREEN isn't easy." Kermit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpiIWMWWVco

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com

 

[hokie66]

I am very much in favour of nuclear power plants when and where they are appropriate economically. But like BigInch, I see a lot of difference in the encapsulated environment of a nuclear plant as compared to what is happening far below the ground.

Farming certainly does a lot of harm to the land in some areas, but not all. There are many farmers who look after the soil and water and improve it. Australian farmers are naturally very protective of their water, as this is the dryest continent. We can't live without water and agriculture, while we can live without the products derived from burning coal deep within the earth. Maybe this technology is completely safe, but so far we have been given the mushroom treatment.

 

[micalbrch]

Interesting that you bring up nuclear energy, Latent007. When writing my last post I was thinking about nuclear power plants as another example. But I didn't bring this up because my attitude towards nuclear energy is conflicting. I know it is much safer than most of the people think and a nuclear power plant is an engineering masterstroke. But I don't want to live close to it. It is not a distrusst in this technique, it is the human factor that scares me. If technique fails, it will most likely be because somebody made a mistake. And fortunately we all are no robots. But that is exactly the point. So, if a must make a decision concerning my attitude towards nuclear power plants, it will be a NO.