Hydrogen-Oriented Underground Coal Gasification For Europe (HUGE)

Hydrogen-oriented underground coal
gasification for Europe (HUGE)

Interested in European research?
RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results,
programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy
or free subscription can be obtained from:
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation
Information and Communication Unit
European Commission
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGI
Fax +32 229-58220
E-mail: research@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo.html
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Research Fund for Coal and Steel Unit
Contact: RFCS publications
Address: European Commission, CDMA 0/178, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI
Fax +32 229-65987; e-mail: rtd-steel-coal@ec.europa.eu
European Commission
Research Fund for Coal and Steel
Hydrogen-oriented underground coal
gasification for Europe (HUGE)
K. Staczyk, J. widrowski, K. Kapusta, N. Howaniec, K. Cybulski, J. Rogut, A. Smoliski,
M. Wiatowski, A. Kotyrba, E. Krause, A. Tokarz, J. Grabowski, M. Ludwik-Pardaa (
1
),
J. Bruining, A. A. Eftekhari (
2
), A. Schuster (
3
), O. Solcova, K. Svoboda, K. Soukup (
4
),
P. Landuyt, D. Garot (
5
), T. piewak, M. Szarafiski (
6
), M. Niewiadomski, P. Budynek (
7
),
AJ. Bednarczyk, A. Marek, S. Rzepa, B. Rogosz (
8
), M. Green (
9
), J. Palarski, G. Strozik (
10
),
V. Falshtynky, R. Dychkowsky (
11
)
(
1
) Central Mining Institute (CMIPL) Pl. Gwarkw 1, 40-166 Katowice, POLAND
(
2
) Technische Universiteit Delft (TUDT) Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, NETHERLANDS
(
3
) Universitt Stuttgart (Ustutt) Keplerstrae 7, 70174 Stuttgart, GERMANY
(
4
) Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals AS (CSICPF) Rozvojova 135, 165 02 Prague 6, CZECH REPUBLIC
(
5
) Institut Scientifique de Service Public (ISSP) Rue du Chra 200, 4000 Lige, BELGIUM
(
6
) Kompania Wglowa S.A. (Kompweg) Pszczynska 37, 44-101 Gliwice, POLAND
(
7
) PGE Grnictwo i Energetyka S.A. (BOTGiE) Al. J. Pisudskiego 12, 90-051 d, POLAND
(
8
) Poltegor Instytut Instytut Grnictwa Odkrywkowego (HUGEPL) Parkowa 25, 51-616 Wrocaw, POLAND
(
9
) UCG Partnership Ltd (UCGP) Coronation House, Guildford Road, Woking, GU22 7QD, UNITED KINGDOM
(
10
) Politechnika lska (TUSIL) Akademicka Street 2A, 44-100 Gliwice, POLAND
(
11
) National Mining University (NMAUKRAINE) K. Marx Av. 19, 49027 Dnipropetrovsk, UKRAINE
Contract No RFCR-CT-2007-00006
1 July 2007 to 30 June 2010
Final report
2012 EUR 25044 EN
LEGAL NOTICE
Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission
is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.
It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-79-22151-4
doi:10.2777/9857
ISSN 1831-9424

European Union, 2012
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

Table of contents:
FINAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 5
I. WP0 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17
I.1 WORKPACKAGE WP0 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................. 17
I.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................. 17
I.2.1 Descriptions of works undertaken and main results.............................................................................. 17
I.2.1.1 Task 0.1 Project coordination.......................................................................................................................... 17
I.2.1.2 Task 0.2 Project management and control ....................................................................................................... 17
I.2.1.3 Task 0.3 Communication and dissemination................................................................................................... 17
I.3 ACTUAL EXPENDITURE VERSUS TOTAL BUDGET................................................................................ 18
I.4 PROGRAMME BAR CHART.......................................................................................................................... 20
II. WP1.................................................................................................................................................................... 23
II.1 WORKPACKAGE WP1 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................ 23
II.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................. 23
II.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results.............................................................................. 23
II.2.1.1 TASK 1.1 Literature survey........................................................................................................................... 23
II.2.1.2 TASK 1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys..................................................................... 24
II.2.1.3 TASK 1.3 The analysis of the generators insulation..................................................................................... 24
II.2.1.4 TASK 1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor ................................................................................. 25
II.2.1.5 TASK 1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator................................................................... 27
II.2.1.6 TASK 1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator ................................................................ 28
II.2.1.7 TASK 1.7 Construction of the generator........................................................................................................ 31
II.2.1.8 TASK 1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator............................................................................................. 33
II.2.1.9 TASK 1.9 Technical approval of the installation ........................................................................................... 34
III. WP2................................................................................................................................................................... 35
III.1 WORKPACKAGE WP2 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 35
III.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................ 35
III.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results ............................................................................ 35
III.2.1.1. Task 2.1 Analysis of various options of coal gasification technologies with different gasification medi,
process parameters (pressure, temperature) and coal types......................................................................................... 35
III.2.1.2. Task 2.2 Mathematical and thermodynamic modeling of the UCG process ................................................ 35
III.2.1.3. Task 2.3 Simulation studies based assessment of the correlation between gasification process and rock mass
mechanics ................................................................................................................................................................... 42
III.2.1.4. Task 2.4 Computer simulation of CO
2
sequestration in beds (main process parameters prognosis including
hazard assessment....................................................................................................................................................... 44
IV. WP3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 47
IV.1 WORKPACKAGE WP3 OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 47
IV.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 47
IV.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results............................................................................. 47
IV.2.1.1 Task 3.1.a Construction of the chromatographic unit ................................................................................... 47
IV.2.1.2 Task 3.1 b Construction of the tubular reactor.............................................................................................. 48
IV.2.1.3 Task 3.1 c Construction of the pressurized reactor ....................................................................................... 49
IV.2.1.4 Task 3.1 d Preparation of the stand for water migration study ..................................................................... 51
IV.2.1.5 Task 3.1 e Preparation of the stand for strata samples study......................................................................... 52
IV.2.1.6 Task 3.2 Preparation of coal blocks from various coal seams ...................................................................... 52
IV.2.1.7 Task 3.3 Tests carried out ............................................................................................................................. 55
IV.2.1.7.1 Evaluation of texture properties and mass transport parameters through the coal and strata..................... 55
IV.2.1.7.2 Experiments in the ex-situ UCG reactor .................................................................................................... 56
IV.2.1.7.3 Tests in the pressurized reactor.................................................................................................................. 74
IV.2.1.7.4 Water migration study ............................................................................................................................... 79
IV.2.1.7.5 Tests on strata behavior ............................................................................................................................. 83
IV.2.1.8 Task 3.4 Evaluation of the process background on the basis of experimental results................................... 89
V. WP4.................................................................................................................................................................... 93
V.1 WORKPACKAGE WP4 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 93
V.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................. 93
V.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results .............................................................................. 93
V.2.1.1. Task 4.1 Double swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production.................................. 93
V.2.1.2. Task 4.2 CO
2
capture method ..................................................................................................................... 101
3

V.2.1.3. Task 4.3 Monitoring of the process parameters, process gasses concentrations and rock mass changes .... 110
VI. WP5 ................................................................................................................................................................ 117
VI.1 WORKPACKAGE WP5 OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 117
VI.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 117
VI.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results........................................................................... 117
VI.2.1.1. Task 5.1 UCG process impact on the natural environment........................................................................ 117
VI.2.1.2. Task 5.2 UCG process impact on life standards ........................................................................................ 125
VII. WP6............................................................................................................................................................... 129
VII.1 WORKPACKAGE WP6 OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................... 129
VII.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................ 129
VII.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results ......................................................................... 129
VII.2.1.1. Task 6.1 Technical criteria ....................................................................................................................... 129
VII.2.1.2. Task 6.2 Technological criteria ................................................................................................................ 133
VII.2.1.3 Task 6.3 Environmental criteria ................................................................................................................ 137
VII.2.1.4 Task 6.4 Safety criteria.............................................................................................................................. 139
VII.2.1.5 Task 6.5 Economic criteria........................................................................................................................ 144
VIII. WP7.............................................................................................................................................................. 149
VIII.1 WORKPACKAGE WP7 OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................... 149
VIII.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................... 149
VIII.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results ........................................................................ 149
VIII.2.1.1. Task 7.1 Project website development .................................................................................................... 149
VIII.2.1.2. Task 7.2 International conferences, meetings and seminars.................................................................... 149
VIII.2.1.3 Task 7.3 Workshop .................................................................................................................................. 150
VIII.2.1.4 Task 7.4 Articles and press releases......................................................................................................... 151
IX. EXPLOITATION AND IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH RESULTS ........................................................... 153
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................... 155
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................................ 157
LIST OF REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 158
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................. 159
ANNEX A WORKSHOP PROGRAM.............................................................................................................. 160

4

FINAL SUMMARY

Introduction

The aim of the research was verification in real conditions of new technological concepts for in situ
production of hydrogen-rich gas applying underground coal gasification process.
The aim was achieved through an integrated series of laboratory experiments and process development
unit trial in experimental mine as well as by modeling the carried out UCG process within the work
packages presented below.

Work Package 0: Project management, reporting
T0.1 Project co-ordination
T0.2 Project management and control
T0.3 Communication and dissemination
The progress of works was continuously monitored and coordinated. Seven Consortium Meetings were
organized and several (about ten) working meetings targeted on particular technical aspects of the
realization of the project took place as well.

Work Package 1: In situ test facility concept, design and construction of the facility to be used for
testing of various options of Underground Coal Gasification
T1.1 Literature survey
Objective
Literature survey based on various available resources on technical solutions for the construction and
operation of the UCG systems.
Results and application
Due to the broad range of scientific, engineering and technological aspects of the UCG, the literature
survey was carried out on two levels of the project matter: a detailed level, performed separately by
individual consortium members in the areas of their major competences, and on a full technology level,
made by the Coordinator in order to keep the analysis focused on the final targets of the project.
Conclusions
The thorough literature survey, particularly patent descriptions, was found to be a fairly rich source of
information on the subject and significantly helped in preparation of the PDU georeactor concept.

T1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys
Objective
Selection of the potential locations for the PDU generator.
In accordance with the design basis of the PDU-scale underground coal gasification reactor, the
generator was localized in the Experimental Mine Barbara in Mikolw. The required studies in terms of
geological and mining conditions as well as surface conditions for the site specifications were done.
Conclusions
The location of the georeactor and coal opening seam were performed according to the selection criteria
and preceded by geological and tectonic tests.

T1.3 The analysis of the generator insulation
Objective
Analyses of the selected generator location tightness and gas and water migration.
According to the location conditions specified in T1.2, the PDU-scale generator was to be located in the
coal seam no. 310 at the depth of about 20 m underground in the EM Barbara in Mikow. Based on
the analysis of the hydro-geological and geological documentation, it was stated that the coal seam was
surrounded by highly permeable formations. The filtration coefficients of the quaternary overburden
were at the level of 110
-2
110
-3
m/min. The generator was located in a coal seam isolated within a
vertical and tight concrete gallery. The fire hole was drilled in the lower part of the 1.5 m thick coal
5

seam. The experiment was performed under pressure similar to the hydrostatic pressure in the generator
location site.
Conclusions
Analyses of the selected location generator tightness, gas and water migration enabled the prediction of
the influence of the process on the surrounding space.

1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor
Objective
Development of the concept of the PDU-scale test facility.
On the basis of the location conditions presented in Task 1.2 and the construction requirements
resulting from the planned experiment, the final concept of the insitu underground coal gasification
reactor in the process development unit scale was elaborated. Series of tests performed before the
gasification process experiment included seismic measurements (refraction method and surface wave
method). Also a blind test of gas concentration was conducted. The measurements included the
concentrations of CH
4
, CO
2
, CO, O
2
and a sum of hydrocarbons as well as a barometric pressure. The
presence of CH
4
, CO and hydrocarbons was not detected in any of the measurement points. Taking into
account the safety aspects related to the experiment as well as the specific local conditions a Safety
Manual - document based on the previous ISSPs experience - was elaborated. The broad expertise of
National Mining Academy from Ukraine gained during their own research activities on the UCG were
used in the development of the concept and in the construction of the PDU-scale reactor.
Conclusions
Technological basis for the technical design was done. The work performed in Task 1.4 enabled to
specify the basic data for equipment and piping selection to be used at the stage of the installation
design.

1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator
Objective
Designing the process of the PDU scale experiment.
The required studies in terms of geological and mining conditions as well as surface conditions for the
site specifications were conducted. The process design of the PDU scale generator was based on the
results of laboratory scale gasification tests of coal samples from the EM Barbara and literature data.
Coal samples were collected in the area selected for the PDU scale reactor location at the EM Barbara
and, for comparison, from coal blocks provided by coal mines Piast and Bielszowice for ex-situ tests.
Coal chars reactivity tests in the process of steam gasification were carried out under an atmospheric
pressure in a laboratory scale installation. The calculations were done in order to assess the relation
between temperature, pressure and amount of carbon reacted. The amount of gasified coal and gasifying
medium (oxygen, air, steam) was defined. All detailed process assumptions for the technical design of
the PDU scale generator were done.
Conclusions
The results of laboratory scale gasification tests on coal samples from the EM Barbara as well as ex-
situ tests constituted the basis for the process design of the PDU-scale generator.

1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator
Objective
Designing the required appliances and equipment for the UCG generator.
The basic elements of the technical design of the PDU scale generator were developed. The
specification of required apparatus and equipment was prepared. The arrangement of the installation
elements was determined. For safety reasons most of the equipment was planned to be located on the
surface, which minimized the number of people in the underground heading during the experiment. The
schematic of the boreholes spacing and the layout of the elements in the underground part of the
installation were drawn. The process monitoring system was also prepared.
6

Conclusions
The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator was crucial stage before the georeactor
construction, taking into account also the monitoring system of the installation.

1.7 Construction of the generator
Objective
To construct the generator and its infrastructure.
The construction of the generator and its infrastructure was done. The following works were
accomplished: system for gaseous media supply to the georeactor, system for coal bed ignition,
condensate collection system for process products, gaseous products collection system, fire channel and
its inlet and outlet insulation and explosion-proof dams.
Conclusions
The reactor was constructed according to the concept and the developed technical design. The designed
infrastructure enabled to safely perform the experiment.

1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator
Objective
To start-up the reactor and obtain the official permission for starting the trial.
The preliminary start-up of the reactor was performed as well as the official permission for starting the
trial was obtained. The startup included: tests of pipelines flowability, degreasing and defeating of
oxygen pipe, system tightness test - with air under the pressure of 3 atm and measurements of
ventilation air propagation in generator zone with the main fan switched on and off, respectively.
Conclusions
The start up of the installation proceeded properly without any serious problems. All required official
permissions were obtained.

1.9 Technical approval of the installation
Objective
Plant commissioning in terms of the requirements and regulations.
The State Mining Authority stated that the underground gasification experiments in the EM Barbara
do not require permission for generation of open fire in headings, as the test was a scientific-research
experiment and the EM Barbara comes under mining and geological regulations regarding
underground works applying mining techniques and focused on scientific and research or experimental
targets.
Conclusions
All formal requirements and regulations were fulfilled before the UCG plant start up.

Work Package 2: Mathematical and thermodynamic modelling of the proposed technological solutions
2.1 Analysis of various options of coal gasification technologies with different gasification media,
process parameters (pressure, temperature), coal types.
Objective
To analyze various coal gasification technology options.
The work was focused on the confirmation and evaluation of the role of reactive sorbents to enrich the
product gas in hydrogen, either by passing up the process equilibrium of water gas shift reaction to the
hydrogen side, or by removing carbon dioxide from the product gas. The process required locating
substantial amounts of sorbent solids (CaO, MgO, Ca(OH)
2
) in situ and mixing them thoroughly with
reactive coal there before the gasification starts. The direct utilization of the underground empty space
of coal mines as geo-reactor vessels with shafts and communication ways playing the role of large scale
pipelines for reagent and product transport of underground gasification installation was analyzed.
7

The underground coal gasification process with CaO injection was investigated from the
thermodynamic point of view. The major problems were identified and added to the thermodynamic
model as two inequalities, and the model was solved using Matlab code. The optimum conditions for
the georeactor were found. Also an exergy analysis of the system was performed.
Conclusions
Thermodynamic analysis of various coal gasification technology options (steam/water injection, CaO
injection) revealed that the heat produced by injection of CaO is not enough to rise the temperature in
the cavity and vaporize the injected liquid water. The second problem identified is the volume of the
produced CaCO
3
, which is greater than the volume of the carbon consumed in the underground cavity.

2.2 Mathematical and thermodynamic modeling of the UCG process
Objective
Development of mathematical and thermodynamic model of the UCG process.
The compilation of constitutive equations related to the intensity of mass flux to mass flux driving
forces for an appropriate model of gas/solid system corresponding to the complicated nature of the
porous medium (strata, coal) was designed. Applying the equations, the length of the time period for
attaining the diffusion/permeation steady-state both transport processes were approximately described.
Calculation of the temperature in the gas phase, rubble zone, roof, and the coal surface in order to find
the amount of heat which can be stored in each zone was done. Calculation of possible conversion of
roof and bottom carbonate rocks to calcium oxide and the chemical heat storage was also performed.
The process limiting-steps (rate of reaction, mass transfer from bulk to coal surface, or mass transfer
from coal surface to the coal layer) were analyzed.
Conclusions
Mathematical and thermodynamic model of the UCG process was developed enabling calculation of the
temperature, conversion rate and process limiting steps. The applied programs Matlab and Comsol used
for solving the model numerically became apparently suitable for the task.

2.3 Simulation studies based assessment of the correlation between gasification process and rock
mass mechanics
Objective
Finding the correlation between gasification process and rock mass mechanics.
The constitutive equations related to the intensity of mass flux to mass flux driving forces for an
appropriate model of gas/solid system corresponding to the complicated nature of the porous medium
(strata, coal) was designed. Based on the equations the correlation between the gasification process and
the rock mass mechanics was evaluated. For reagents and products of coal gasification and hydro-
gasification the concentration profiles as well as the retention profiles were determined.
Conclusions
Finding the correlation between gasification process and rock mass mechanics is a very important issue
helping in proper understanding of the behaviour of the strata surrounding the georeactor. It was found
that the pressure increase influences the speed of the gas front movement more significantly than the
temperature increase, which is almost negligible.

2.4 Computer simulation of CO
2
sequestration in beds (main process parameters prognosis
including hazard assessment)
Objective
Simulation of CO
2
sequestration in beds.
Mathematical model of CO
2
adsorption in packed beds was developed enabling to calculate
concentration profile of CO
2
in a 2-meter bed as a function of time. A Matlab code was written using
Gear's multi-value method to solve the system of ODEs.The exergy analysis of the application of pure
CaO for CO
2
sequestration in beds during coal gasification was performed.
8

Conclusions
The results proved the usefulness of the developed mathematical model. The exergy analysis revealed
the process of the application of pure CaO for CO
2
sequestration in beds to be unfeasible.

Work Package 3: Ex situ laboratory testing of concepts
3.1 Construction of the ex-situ experimental units
Objective
Construction of special testing units for examining different aspects of the UCG process in a laboratory
scale.
Various laboratory scale experimental units, useful for critical evaluation of the literature data and for
the preparation of the demonstration scale ex situ and next in situ works were developed to the
operational stage.
a) Construction of the chromatographic unit for testing mass transfer parameters in coal and strata
samples (measurement of diffusion and permeation rates of gases through coals and strata using
the inverse gas chromatography technique and dynamic Wicke-Kallenbach cell method).
b) Construction of the ex-situ reactor where the real underground conditions were to be simulated
both in respect to the coal seams and the surrounding rocks layers. The ex-situ unit enabled to
perform gasification tests using the gasifying mediums like air, oxygen, steam or their mixture
in different ratios. In order to control the temperature profiles of the gasification process, 25
thermocouples was built in along the reactor in various zones of the simulated coal seam and
the rocks layers. Gasification products were directed to the cleaning system and afterwards the
gas composition was analyzed on-line with the gas chromatography (GC).
c) Pressurized, large scale (80 liters), high temperature reactor (5.0 MPa, <1200
o
C) equipped
with GC for gasification experiments was re-designed and re-constructed according to the
project aims.
d) Building the stand for water migration study (measurements of organics and metal migration
rates through the depository strata).
e) Building the stand for strata samples study.
Conclusions
All five special testing units constructed for examining different aspects of the UCG process in a
laboratory scale were properly designed and were very useful for the work performed in larger scale.

3.2. Preparation of coal blocks from various coal seams
Objective
Preparation of coal blocks from various coal seams for the ex-situ experiments.
Taking into account the requirements in terms of compactness and bedding related to the expected
dimensions of coal samples, the face of the inclined drift 510 was selected for coal sampling. Coal
samples from coal mine Bielszowice of the external dimensions of 3.2 x 0.7 x 0.6m and 1.8 x 0.6 x
0.5m were taken as well as coal samples from coal mine Piast of the external dimensions of 3.5 x 1.3 x
0.55 m, 1.8 x 0.8 x 0.8 m and 1.55 x 0.8 x 0.8 m. Also the lignite samples were prepared and
transported to the EM Barbara for the ex-situ experiments.
Conclusions
It was proved that the preparation of coal blocks was a good idea for the simulation of a coal seam and
enabled to perform several ex-situ experiments testing different technical aspects of the coal
gasification process.

3.3 Tests carried out in ex-situ units
Objective
The aim of the tests carried out in ex-situ units was to collect data necessary for the in-situ experiment.
Within that task several different activities were done.
High temperature uniaxial compressive strength tests were performed in a servo-controlled hydraulic
press with gradually applied load to a sample. The results of the tests describe the influence of the
9

temperature on rock behavior. The assessment of real risk related to the rock behavior during and after
in-situ experiments was performed for sandstone and mudstone.
Tests of heavy metals migration in samples (brown coal, silt) before and after brown coal gasification
were performed to assess the behavior of metals and their migration to water during gasification.
Evaluation of texture properties and mass transport parameters through the coal, strata and coal samples
in virgin and after-gasification state performed in designed chromatographic unit based on the single-
pellet string arrangement.
After the laboratory scale tests had been realized, the ex-situ reactor was constructed in which the real
underground conditions were simulated both in respect to the coal seams and the surrounding rock
layers. The reactor was equipped with apparatus which enabled to analyze the temperature profiles and
gas composition. Very large blocks of coal (proper for coal seam simulation) were prepared for the
reactor by the industrial partner of the project. In the ex-situ reactor 6 experiments were performed on
coal blocks. The main aim of these experiments was enabling to perform simulations of the basic
experimental elements planned to be carried out in the PDU-scale generator within Tasks 4.1 and 4.2.
These experiments demonstrated the feasibility of coal gasification in hard coal block and lignite, and
tested the methodology of the experiment (like burning of coal, media dosing, temperature
measurement). The investigation of the gasification process development (cavern development) by geo-
radar method was advanced. The tests with smaller coal blocks were also performed in pressurized
reactor adapted to the purpose of the project, during which the influence of high pressure on the
products concentration was tested.
Conclusions
All experiments performed on different testing units (for examining different aspects of the UCG
process in a laboratory scale) were very useful and prepared the proper background for the trial in
Process Development Unit. The experiments were also helpful in the development of the
thermodynamic model of the process.

3.4 Evaluation of the process background on the basis of the experimental results
Objective
Comprehensive analysis of the experiments, based on the product analyses and data monitoring.
Based on the results obtained from the series of simulations of lignite and hard coal underground
gasification in the ex-situ conditions, indications and conclusions were drawn and used as the
background for hydrogen-oriented in-situ gasification tests. Based on the results the following elements
were determined:
The fire channel parameters and the place of the coal ignition
The velocity rate and ratio of gasification media
The ways of process controls
The ways of gas product cleaning and recovery.
The measurements of high temperatures strata resistance, gas permeability in the georeactor area as
well as the relation between gas yield and gas composition and coal firmness and pressure were used
for the development of the in-situ installation and the procedures for carrying out the experiment.
Conclusions
The results of experiments performed on testing units enabled to design the underground georeactor and
monitoring system in the EM Barbara.

Work Package 4: Testing of selected concepts of Underground Coal Gasification aimed on hydrogen
production
4.1 Double swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production
Objective
Testing of the technological options of the process, based on the results of the modelling studies: double
swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production.
After building the necessary infrastructure, the 16-days long underground trial was conducted in the in-
situ reactor in the EM Barbara. The underground experiment enabled identification of the potential
10

problems related to the UCG process operation. The most important issue identified in these terms was
the need for the application of an advanced monitoring system enabling to undertake actions adequate
to the changes in the composition of the explosive gas mixture generated in the georeactor. Future
works in the field could be focused on mastering the process operation by developing an advanced,
innovative monitoring and control system in order to ensure stability and controllability of the UCG
process. The security systems used for headings in the georeactor surroundings, existing ventilation
system of the mine, monitoring systems for ventilation air flow and for concentrations of hazardous
gasses in the headings of the georeactor surroundings provided data which were used in the
determination of secure zones, behind which the gas hazards is minimized.
Conclusions
The in-situ experiment performed in the EM Barbara proved the feasibility of combustible gas
production under real underground conditions. The UCG process can be successfully applied in
hydrogen-rich gas production and thereby generation of gas of high heating value. The underground
experiment enabled also to identify potential problems related to the UCG process operation. The most
important issue identified in these terms was the need for an application of an advanced monitoring
system enabling to undertake actions adequate to changes in composition of an explosive gases mixture
generated in the georeactor.

4.2 CO
2
capture method
Objective
Testing the influence of addition of CaO and Ca(OH)
2
sorbents to the georeactor space for
improvement temperature conditions of gasification and increasing of hydrogen content in the products.
It was confirmed that addition of stoichiometric amount of CaO and Ca(OH)
2
to the bed of coal
increased the hydrogen content from 50-60% to over 80%. However experiments carried out with coal
block did not confirm the increase in hydrogen concentration. In such large scale majority of heat
evolved during hydration and carbonation of CaO was consumed for dewatering and evaporation of
water contained in the coal bed. It was found that small amounts of CaO, Ca(OH)
2,
and CaCO
3
have
positive catalytic influence on the gasification performance by increasing the ratio of H
2
to CO (from
1.3 to 2), decreasing the amount of tars in the product and accelerating the hydrogen generating
reaction.
Conclusions
Addition of CaO is attractive option of coal gasification because offers the way for production of
hydrogen reach product. The experiments have shown that substantial increase of H
2
contentration
requires the very precise control of temperature inside the georeactor space. This could be done
effectively in microscale or in fluised bed but it was inpractical in ex-situ experiment.

4.3 Monitoring of the process parameters, process gasses concentrations and rock mass changmetes
Objective
Development of comprehensive monitoring system for the process.
The created comprehensive process monitoring system consisted of two parts, i.e.: monitoring of the
gasification parameters for the thermodynamic process controlling and monitoring of the UCG site
environment both on the surface and underground.
The following constructions in terms of the thermodynamic process controlling system were built:
- system for pressure and temperature measurements in the georeactor
- system for measurements of amount of gasifying media dosed
- system for measurements of the amounts of product gas and condensate
- system for measurements of process gas components concentrations for analyzing: H
2
, CO
2
,
CO, CH
4
, C
2
H
6
and N
2
.
The main aim of the monitoring of the UCG site surrounding was tracking the UCG cavity
development, detection of possible gas leakages and its migration to the surface as well as detection of
escapes of contaminants to the groundwater environment. For the purposes of monitoring of the UCG
cavity development, a number of geophysical techniques were applied, i.e.: geothermal method, vertical
electroresistance sounding, georadar method, gasometry, radon radiometry.
11

Georadar surveys, vertical electroresistance sounding as well as geothermal method proved their great
usefulness in the controlling of the process development, indicating probable special directions of the
process development and geometries of the underground cavities and channels. Underground water
quality monitoring, performed in 5 sampling points over the period of 6 months after process
termination indicated only small penetration of the UCG contaminants to the underground water with a
tendency of fast self-purification. No gas leakages to the surface were detected.
Conclusions
Applied monitoring system for monitoring of the gasification parameters and monitoring of the UCG
site environment both on the surface and underground was properly chosen and enabled to properly
control the process. Observation of underground water quality (flow rate an composition) and surface
ensured that the process was conducted in safely for the environment.

Work Package 5: HUGE process environmental and technical risk assessment
5.1 UCG process impact on the natural environment
Objective
The aim was the assessment and identification of potential hazards of the UCG process and its impact
on the natural environment.
The assessment of potential hazards and the UCG process impact on the natural environment was
presented. In particular the balance of water in the underground coal gasification with hydraulic filling
of voids was discussed. The technical solutions like a distribution of injection wells by remote filling of
voids were analyzed.
Conclusions
Geological deposits accompanying coal beds and forming walls of underground gasification reactor
may reduce migration of harmful contaminants. Application of sorption-bonding materials would be
recommended for this purpose. Filling of voids is recommended for surface protection by use of
suggested grout composition.

5.2 UCG process impact on life standards
Objective
The aim was the assessment and identification of potential social hazards of the UCG process and its
impact on life standards.
Within the task the following problems related to the UCG impact on life standards were discussed:
- impact of the UCG process on future generations, good health and social aspects,
- impact of the UCG process on economic aspects.
Furthermore, gasification process characteristics and hazards and general safety aspects like
inflammability and explosiveness concepts were discussed. In conclusions the threat of the UCG
method to the environment was described.
Conclusions
Elimination of mining disasters leading to fatal accidents or disability of miners, minimization of the
need for hard work underground, reducing occupational diseases leading to shorter life and of work in
potentially high-risk areas have significant economic and social benefits offered by the UCG
technology.

Work Package 6: Elaboration of the implementation criteria for the selected technological option
6.1 Technical criteria
Objective
Verification of the selected technical solutions essential for the implementation of tested gasification
technology concepts for shallow coal seams.
The analysis of methods of coal seams opening, methods of underground generator insulation and
technical solutions for feeding and product collecting systems was done. Any kind of underground
extraction of mineral beds results in a loss of stability that previously existed in the rockmass, which
12

leads to increase in stresses and strains in surrounding rocks. The scale of these changes, and finally
also the stability of voids, is influenced by several factors, which were determined and analyzed. The
proposal of measures aiming at neutralization of such influence was presented. Also technical solutions
for the feeding system supplying air, oxygen, steam and nitrogen (in emergency) to the georeactor
based on conventional systems of their generation were presented.
Conclusions
The literature survey, laboratory tests, the ex-situ experiments and the in-situ trial enabled to define
technical criteria of the UCG process covering: methods of opening up the coal seams, methods of the
underground generator insulation as well as technical solutions for feeding and product collecting
systems.

6.2 Technological criteria
Objective
Verification of the selected technological solutions essential for the implementation of tested
gasification technology concepts for shallow coal seams.
The technological criteria determining the results of the gasification process, that is product gas output,
composition and heating value and process efficiency include: coal characteristics (carbon, ash,
moisture content and permeability), coal seam parameters (thickness, inclination angle, depth),
parameters of the surroundings (kind of strata, water content), gasification process parameters
(temperature, pressure in the georeactor) and gasification agents (composition, flow rate).
The basic relations between gasification process results and above mentioned criteria, based on
literature and experimental data gained in the course of the project realization were presented. It should
be emphasized that there are multilateral relations between particular criteria and process results.
Conclusions
The literature survey, the ex-situ experiments and the in-situ trial enabled to establish technological
criteria of the UCG process. Analysis of the obtained experimental and technological data has allowed
determination of a quantitative relationship between the gas heating value, coal heating value, gas yield,
seam thickness, water inflow rate and coal gasification rate.

6.3 Environmental criteria
Objective
Determination and formulation of criteria essential for the implementation of tested gasification
technology concepts for shallow coal seams from environmental point of view.
The environmental criteria include mainly groundwater, air and surface protection. Fulfillment of the
criteria, including keeping the standards resulting from regulations in terms of environmental protection
is related mainly to the aspects of a georeactor tightness, described in details in Task 6.1. This part of
the research was aimed at application of solutions to potential environmental UCG-related problems on
the basis of the experience gained in the underground mining engineering. Analogical solutions can be
proposed with respect to the differences between underground mining and the UCG, resulting mainly
from the impact of high temperatures. The questions of rock subsidence, and the collapse of voids
created by the chemical processing of coal are frequently underestimated in most of the UCG
applications. The analysis of thermally induced changes in rocks surrounding coal beds, exposed
directly to high temperature was an important part of the research. Significant and differentiated
changes of mechanical properties of selected sediment rocks were identified. Mechanisms of roof
collapsing and development of subsidence, resulted from thermal influences of the UCG voids in a coal
seam were compared with traditional mining techniques. In contrary to classical mining approach,
where the phenomena of rocks collapse is considered mainly in the form of mine subsidence and
protection of ground surface requirements, collapses in the UCG are considered as potential routes of
gas escapes and contaminants migration. Also the isolation of highly toxic residues and by-products of
reactions being involved in the UCG seems to be thoroughly addressed in respect to protection of
ground waters.
13

Conclusions
The literature survey, the ex-situ experiments and the in-situ trial enabled to determine and formulate
criteria essential for the implementation of tested gasification technology concepts. The process
requires detailed monitoring at every stage of its realization (preceding the process, cooling down and
shut down of the georeactor) in relation to the environment, in particularly water contamination.

6.4 Safety criteria
Objective
Determination of essential safety problems in a form of criteria for the implementation of tested
gasification technology concepts for shallow coal seams.
The determined safety criteria covered the required scope of water, air and ground surface monitoring at
each stage of the generator construction, operation and after its shut down, in relation to a fire hazard,
hazards to human health, life and to surface infrastructure, required level of the generator insulation and
limits regarding carrying out others activities in the generator surroundings. Multilateral risk assessment
in relation to existing legislation is crucial in the UCG process. The risk assessment based on the
hydrological data and model testing enable to estimate the possible contamination in the georeactor area
and surface installation of gas cleaning and processing.
Conclusions
Essential safety problems of the UCG were determined by use of the best practices for risk
management.
The process requires detailed monitoring at each stage of its realization in relation to a fire hazard,
hazards to human health and life as well as to the surface infrastructure.

6.5 Economic criteria
Objective
Elaboration of the main economic data characterizing tested gasification technology concept in a form
of criteria.
The economic criteria covered evaluation of the commercial plant cost, the O&M costs and the
hydrogen RSP. The objective of the economic analysis was to make the first estimate of the likely
capital and operating costs of the UCG syngas production process based on the results of the HUGE
study, and to compare them with the previous results for the UCG. These results would then be
available for use in proprietary economic models to estimate the likely costs of syngas production from
the UCG and more sophisticated assessments, like internal rates of return. The HUGE study, above all
else is about de-carbonising the gasification process, and thereby generating a syngas which is rich in
hydrogen and/or methane and low in carbon gases, i.e. carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The
results show that capital costs for CO
2
separation process based on the HUGE method are estimated to
be 23% lower than conventional pre-combustion capture of CO
2
from the UCG syngas. On the same
basis, the operating costs are reduced by about 16%.
Conclusions
The project identified a method of the UCG operation which produces two gas streams, one rich in
hydrogen and the other rich in CO
2
. The separation takes place underground, by alternating the oxygen
(or air) and steam cycles, and the two streams come to the surface in their concentrated form without
expensive separation and capture stages.
It is concluded on the basis of this initial economic assessment, that the HUGE process of alternate
cycling of oxygen and steam, offers a significant improvement in capture costs from the UCG, and
further investigation to refine these costs are recommended.

Work Package 7: Dissemination of the results aimed on future participation in hydrogen, fuel cells
projects
7.1 Project Website
7.2 International conferences, meetings and seminars
7.3 Workshop
7.4 Articles and press releases
14

The prepared web-site; http://huge.gig.eu, served as the platform for exchange of research and
organizational information between Contractors (within the Extranet) and as a dissemination and
promotion tool of the project.
The results of the project were disseminated in 17 presentations during international conferences.
The workshop for about 60 participants was organized in the Central Mining Institute at the end of the
project duration on the 24
th
-25
th
of June 2010.
The results of the project were published in 15 articles in scientific journals. One patent application was
registered. The results were also disseminated by film made and distributed by Euronews TV on Sci-
Tec, Futuris series titled: A tale of underground alchemy.

15

I. WP0

WP Leader: CMIPL
WP Contractors: CMIPL

I.1 WORKPACKAGE WP0 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this work package is the general management of the project elements, in order
to assure the smooth progress of the project, the rational use of resources, and a successful completion.
Specific objectives are:
To formalize the joint research structures and prepare the Consortium Agreement
To co-ordinate the work of all the other participants to ensure that the project progresses as
scheduled.
To guarantee that fluent communication and collaboration is maintained among the partners.
To prepare and submit the reports, Technical and Financial, by the deadlines set by the Commission.

I.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES

I.2.1 Descriptions of works undertaken and main results

I.2.1.1 Task 0.1 Project coordination

The consortium meetings were organized every six months of project duration. The Minutes of
the Meeting reporting the agreed actions, terms and persons responsible were sent to Partners for
discussion and the final versions were made available through the project website.
The Amendment no 1 to the contract was signed by all consortium members (directly or by
giving the mandate to the coordinator).

I.2.1.2 TASK 0.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL

The progress of works was monitored and coordinated.

I.2.1.3 TASK 0.3 COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION

The communication by means of an electronic mail, phone calls and direct meetings was
realized on regular basis between the project partners.
An electronic platform for the exchange of research study reports and technical data available
in the area relevant to the project subject was used to share the information on the state-of-the-art
between the project partners.

17

I.3 Actual Expenditure Versus Total Budget

In table 01 and in figs.01-03 the financing data of the project are presented. Comparison of the
actual expenditure to the total budget (fig.1) shows that only 83% of resources allocated to the project
have been spent. That is mainly because of not eligible tax (VAT), acceptance by the Commission
lower hourly rate for CMIPL and much smaller, than previously was assumed, financial engagement of
BOTGiE and KOMPWEG.
The situation is different for different partners what is shown in table 01 and fig.02. Some of
partners allocated more than 100% of the project budget (like ISSP, UCGP and NMAUKRAINE) and
some less than 50% (BOTGiE).

Fig. 01. Comparison of the project expenditures to the total budget: a) in euros, b) in percents

Table 01. Project financing data.

Name of
contractor
Total budget
EC contribution
60%
Total
expenditure
In it EU 60%
Total
expenditure/
Total budget
1 CMIPL 1 543 278,00 925 967 1 150 886 690 532 75%
2 TUDT 222 004,00 133 202 180 023 108 014 81%
3 USTUTT 140 601,00 84 361 130 824 78 494 93%
4 CSICPF 200 000,00 120 000 200 173 120 000 100%
5 ISSP 451 000,00 270 600 492 159 270 600 109%
6 KOMPWEG 100 712,00 60 427 50 590 30 354 50%
7 BOTGiE 102 578,00 61 547 40 018 24 011 39%
8 HUGEPL 198 830,00 119 298 169 623 101 774 85%
9 UCGP 19 108,00 11 465 29 199 11 465 153%
10 TUSIL 110 735,00 66 441 105 128 63 077 95%
11 NMAUKRAINE 51 000,00 0 57 338 0 112%
3 139 846 1 853 308 2 605 962 1 498 320 83%

18

Fig.02. Comparison of the total budget of project partners to their expenditures

Fig.03 compares the EU planned budget to the EU actual support of the project.
Generally it may be stated that the expenditure in the project were properly spent. Due to the
reasons mentioned above the total engagement of EU planned for 1 853 308 was less by 354 988 euro.
The detailed information about the project expenditure is presented in the Financial Statement.

0
100 000
200 000
300 000
400 000
500 000
600 000
700 000
800 000
900 000
1 000 000
G
I
G
T
U
D
T
U
S
T
U
T
T
C
S
I
C
P
F
I
S
S
P
K
O
M
P
W
E
G
B
O
T
G
I
E
H
U
G
E
P
L
U
C
G
P
T
U
S
I
L
N
M
A
U
K
R
A
I
N
E
EU contribution 60%
EU actual

Fig. 03. Comparison of the EU planned budget to the actual expenditures

19

I
.
4

P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e

B
a
r

C
h
a
r
t

P
R
O
G
R
A
M
M
E

B
A
R

C
H
A
R
T

(
T
A
S
K
,

P
A
R
T
N
E
R
,

D
E
L
I
V
E
R
A
B
L
E
S
,

M
I
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
S

)

H
o
u
r
s

o
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
/

C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
(
s
)

1
s
t

y
e
a
r

2
n
d

y
e
a
r

3
r
d

y
e
a
r

W
o
r
k

p
a
c
k
a
g
e
s

W
o
r
k

p
a
c
k
a
g
e
s

t
i
t
l
e

D
e
l
i
v
e
r
a
b
l
e
s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1
0

1
1

I

I
I

I
I
I

I
V

I

I
I

I
I
I

I
V

I

I
I

I
I
I

I
V

W
P

0

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,

r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g

T
a
s
k

0
.
1

D
.
0
.
1

5
7
0

T
a
s
k

0
.
2

D
.
0
.
2

5
7
0

T
a
s
k

0
.
3

D
.
0
.
3

5
7
0

W
P

1

I
n

s
i
t
u

t
e
s
t

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
,

d
e
s
i
g
n

a
n
d

c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y

t
o

b
e

u
s
e
d

f
o
r

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

v
a
r
i
o
u
s

o
p
t
i
o
n
s

o
f

U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

C
o
a
l

G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

T
a
s
k

1
.
1

D
.
1
.
1

3
0
0

3
4
3
6
1
5
0
1
5
0
1
5
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
2

6
0
0

8
0
9

T
a
s
k

1
.
3

D
.
1
.
3

8
0
0

1
0
0
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
4

D
.
1
.
2

5
0
0

3
5
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
5

4
0
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
6

D
1
.
4

1
5
0
0

1
5
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
7

D
1
.
5

3
0
0
0

1
4
5
0
1
5
0
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
8

1
7
0
0

T
a
s
k

1
.
9

D
1
.
6

1
5
0

W
P

2

M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
a
l

a
n
d

t
h
e
r
m
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c

m
o
d
e
l
l
i
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s

T
a
s
k

2
.
1

4
0
0

5
4
9
4
0
0

T
a
s
k

2
.
2

D
.
2
.
1

1
0
2
5

2
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
2
0
0

T
a
s
k

2
.
3

4
0
0

T
a
s
k

2
.
4

D
.
2
.
2

1
0
0
0

W
P

3

E
x

s
i
t
u

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

t
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s

T
a
s
k

3
.
1

D
.
3
.
1

4
0
0
0

5
0
0
7
0
0
6
0
0
3
0
0

20

T
a
s
k

3
.
2

3
7
1
3
8
4

T
a
s
k

3
.
3

3
0
5
0

3
0
0
0
1
5
0
8
1
3
5
9
3
0
0

T
a
s
k

3
.
4

1
5
0
0

2
2
8
1
4
1
0
0

W
P

4

T
e
s
t
i
n
g

o
f

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s

o
f

U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d

C
o
a
l

G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
i
m
e
d

o
n

h
y
d
r
o
g
e
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

T
a
s
k

4
.
1

2
0
0
0

6
5
3
7
6
8

T
a
s
k

4
.
2

D
.
4
.
1

2
0
0
0

6
5
3
7
6
8

T
a
s
k

4
.
3

1
1
3
0

6
0
0
6
0
0

W
P

5

H
U
G
E

p
r
o
c
e
s
s

e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l

r
i
s
k

a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t

T
a
s
k

5
.
1

1
9
5
9
9
0
0

T
a
s
k

5
.
2

D
.
5
.
1

8
5
5

2
2
0
8

W
P

6

E
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n

c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a

f
o
r

t
h
e

s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l

o
p
t
i
o
n

T
a
s
k

6
.
1

1
8
5
1
9
2
1
5
0

T
a
s
k

6
.
2

4
2
5

7
6
0

T
a
s
k

6
.
3

6
0
0

8
5
3
1
5
0

T
a
s
k

6
.
4

D
.
6
.
1

4
0
0

2
7
6

T
a
s
k
.

6
.
5

1
6
7

W
P

7

D
i
s
s
e
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

a
i
m
e
d

o
n

f
u
t
u
r
e

p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n

i
n

h
y
d
r
o
g
e
n
,

f
u
e
l

c
e
l
l
s

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

T
a
s
k

7
.
1

D
.
7
.
1

3
0
0

T
a
s
k

7
.
2

D
.
7
.
2

1
8
5

4
0
0
5
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0

T
a
s
k

7
.
3

D
.
7
.
3

1
8
5

1
5
0

T
a
s
k

7
.
4

1
8
5

3
6
5
5
5
4
2
8
8
6
9
2
1
4
6

T
o
t
a
l

H
o
u
r
s

o
n

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

2
8
5
0
0

5
0
7
4

2
5
3
6

9
5
0
0

5
5
2
0

3
5
3
2

3
8
4
0

6
7
3
0

1
5
4

2
9
5
6

2
1
0
0

-

p
o
s
t
p
o
n
e
d

o
r

p
r
o
l
o
n
g
e
d

21

II. WP1

WP Leader: CMIPL
WP Contractors:
T 1.1 Literature survey; CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE, HUGEPL, TUSIL, KOMPWEG, BOTGiE
T 1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys; CMIPL, HUGEPL
T 1.3 The analysis of the generator insulation; CMIPL, HUGEPL
T 1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor; CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE
T 1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator; NMAUKRAINE
T 1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator; CMIPL, TUSIL
T 1.7 Construction of the generator; CMIPL, KOMPWEG, BOTGiE
T 1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator; CMIPL
T 1.9 Technical approval of the installation;CMIPL

II.1 WORKPACKAGE WP1 OBJECTIVES

The aim of the WP-1 was the development of a concept and, subsequently, a design of the UCG
process PDU-scale facility for mining of shallowly buried coal layers in mining areas of coal mines, in
which the production using underground mining method was ceased for either economic or technical
reasons. The available operating data of similar installations, especially Chinese and Post-Soviet States
(NMA, Russia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan) expertise as well as the expertise of UE countries, USA and
Australia especially in scope of environmental aspects were employed to work out the concept and the
design. In particularly, local technical conditions of CMIPLs Experimental Coal Mine Barbara (EM
Barbara) in Mikolow were taken into account.
At further stage the construction of the PDU-scale UCG generator was performed. The
generator was used for testing of selected process concepts in conditions enabling use of the results in a
pilot or a demonstration scale. The assumed programme target: a development of the UCG process, to
be used in gasification of coal deposited in specific conditions (in shallow coal seams - the remains of
the underground mining areas) required solving problems, which are not common for deep and unmined
seams. This related in particularly to the environmental protection and safety aspects.

II.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES

II.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results

II.2.1.1 TASK 1.1 Literature survey
Due to the broad scientific, engineering and technology aspects of UCG, the literature survey was
carried out on two levels of the project matter:
the detail level performed separately by the individual consortium members in the areas of
their major competences, and on
the full technology level made by the Coordinator in order to keep the analysis focused on the
project final targets.
Large volume of information was compiled and for the purpose of clarity, the results of the
survey were analyzed only to the extent of their key issues, which means the recommendations for
further works. However, the full results of literature analysis were attached as Appendix 1A to the first
Six Monthly Report. The survey was further investigated in the light of own experimental data
aquired to verify the sometimes contradictory conclusions of various authors. Due to the fact that the
numerous papers, reports and reviews were not available in academic languages (Polish, Russian,
Czech) the important part of the work of survey required the focused analysis translation of the
original texts into English. The results of these works were made available to the consortium members
in the restricted part of the Project Web Site.
The literature review and analysis of classic character were enriched by the construction of an
electronic data base which constituted an active electronic document, allowing loading the full text of
the cited documents from the Web when licensed to the Partner. The aim of this activity was to keep the
Partners updated with the merit of any new work on the subject. The electronic document was attached
to the first Six Monthly Report as a hard copy (Appendix 1B) and also in an electronic version. The
23

literature survey was assumed to be fairly complete because the various types of documents were
reviewed and analyzed. These documents included:
Unpublished reports available in the archives of CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE, ISSP, HUGEPL,
BOT GiE and KOMPWEG, JRC, www.cordis.eu;
Grey literature sources available in the internet through: US DOE Information Bridge, USGS,
US EPA, DTI and Fraunhoffer Web sites;
Full texts of Master, PhD and Habilitation level Theses downloadable through various
dissertation networks (www.scirus.org, ADT, NDTL);
Peer review papers available through ACS, Elsevier, Springer and Wiley networks. In order to
comply with intellectual property rights, the connection to the full text papers from those
sources was restricted only to the Partners having licenses to those sites;
The European, US and World patent databases (for example: www.freepatentsonline.org ) to
remain updated with commercial research in the UCG area.

Special attention was paid to the intellectual property issues related to the UCG technologies.
Firstly, due to the very recent high popularity of and recurring interest in the subject; secondly, in order
to find a niche for Europe in this emerging area of energy research; and thirdly, because UCG is of
special interest in the corporate research of oil and energy giants, which can be illustrated by the fact
that in the last five years Royal Dutch Shell has obtained more than 60 US Patents on its coal
gasification technology solutions directly or indirectly related to UCG. Moreover, the patent
descriptions was found to be a fairly rich source of information on the subject as some of the patents
descriptions go into great detail covering more than 300 pages.

II.2.1.2 TASK 1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys
In accordance with the project assumption of the PDU-scale underground coal gasification
reactor the generator was localized in Experimental Mine Barbara in Mikolow. The required studies
in terms of geological and mining conditions as well as surface conditions for the site specifications
were done.
The main selection criteria for the detailed location selection were as follows:
the level of recognition of geological and hydrogeological conditions
the accessibility from the gallery of wide cross-section enabling to perform preparatory works
the proximity of technical infrastructure (power, compressed air) for research purposes
location against air-headings for safety reasons
the possibility of isolation of part of the coal seam in form of a separate generator for safety
reasons.
As the generator was localized in the coal seam 310 at the depth of 20-30 m under the ground
level the surface land management was an important issue. It was assumed that the generator can not be
located under residential housing, roads and EM Barbara buildings. In that localization morphology,
topography, geology and hydrogeology servey was performed. Besides geological and tectonic tests
before, during and after the completion of UCG trial were done. The series of tests performed before the
gasification process experiment included seismic measurements (refraction method and surface wave
method). Application of these methods aimed at analyzing near surface strata, depths of Carboniferous
deposits and aquiferous layers.
Coal seam opening
Three openings in the concrete housing of the galleries surrounding the generator enabled to
report the following:
the thickness of the coal seam was 1.5-2.0 m
the coal seam gradient was about 10-12%
the exposed part of the overburden and coal seam were slates and clays with sandstone
inclusions.

II.2.1.3 TASK 1.3 The analysis of the generators insulation
Based on the analysis of the hydrogeological and geological documentation available it was
stated that the coal seam 310 was surrounded by highly permeable formations. The filtration
coefficients of the quaternary overburden were on the level of 110
-2
110
-3
m/min.
The generator was located in the part of the coal seam isolated with the vertical, tight, concrete
gallerys lining. The hole was drilled in the lower part of the coal seam of the thickness of 1.5 m. The
24

experiment was performed under the pressure similar to the hydrostatic pressure in the generator
location site.

The influence of the temperature on changes of geological structures accompanying brown coal strata.
Progressive warming of roof and floor rocks surrounding coal bed accompany the process of
the underground coal gasification. These rocks are natural walls for the reactor and they determine its
leakproofness. Tightness of the reactor of the underground coal gasification is especially important
because it decides about the efficiency of the process (losses of gas connected with the uncontrolled
escape through surrounding geological structures), and about possible spread of pollutions resulting
from the influence of underground water on formation of waste materials of slag and ash, as a result of
the reaction.
Research consisting in the defining of the coefficient of filtration of raw materials accompanying
coal deposits (silt, clays, and clay sand) was undertaken. Structures were combusted at 450, 650 and
850C in order to define changes which may take place in geological structures surrounding the UCG
reactor.
Results clearly indicated that the coefficient of filtration increased. Obtained values were 35
units higher for the temperature of 850
0
C than for row materials. It indicated the considerable cracking
of tested materials and an increase in its permeability for liquids and gases.

II.2.1.4 TASK 1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor
The concept of the PDU-scale georeactor, constituting basis for the design and construction of
the installation, was developed taking into account the existing conditions, influencing the assumed
technical and technological solutions.
1. The georeactor was to be located in a part of the coal seam separated by the existing concrete
galleries. Shape: the dimensions of the separated part of the coal seam implied construction of the
georeactor with one fire channel. Such a solution enabled realization of the gasification process
in a central part of the coal block and protection of the concrete galleries walls against the high
temperature.
2. The fire channel was to be developed with a use of a drilling method taking into account the
presence of the existing headings. Gasification agents supply system was to be placed at the front
of the channel and product gas collection system at the end of the channel.
3. The fire channel was drilled horizontally in a distance of about 30 cm from the floor. This
location ensured the appropriate development of the georeactor and location of the channel in a
coal block.
4. Taking into account high permeability of the overburden of low thickness over the georeactor the
process was assumed to be realized under the pressure of the value close to the atmospheric
pressure. The pressure in the georeactor was assumed to be controlled with the pressure of
gasification agents and the rate of product gas collection by the suction fan.
5. The infrastructure of the gasification agents supply and product gas collection systems was to be
located on the surface for the safety reasons. Only the system of a preliminary gas demethanation
was to be located underground.
The basic data for equipment and piping selection to be used at the stage of the installation design
are presented in table 1.
25

T
a
b
l
e

1
.

P
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s

o
f

t
h
e

m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l

b
a
l
a
n
c
e

f
o
r

t
h
e

U
C
G

g
e
o
r
e
a
c
t
o
r

a
t

t
h
e

E
M

B
a
r
b
a
r
a
.

S
u
p
p
l
y

r
a
t
e

P
r
o
d
u
c
t

g
a
s

G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
g
e
n
t

m
3
/
t

m
3
/
h

H
2

C
H
4

C
O

N
2

H
2
S

C
O
2

O
2

F
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

m
3
/
h

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

%

H
e
a
t

o
f

c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n

M
J
/
m
3

M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

g
/
m
3

W
a
t
e
r

i
n
f
l
o
w

k
g
/
k
g

o
f

c
o
a
l

1
4
.
8

5
.
0
5

1
2
.
4
8

5
1
.
4
8

0
.
6
0

1
3
.
4
9

1
.
8

5
3
.
4

4
.
2
0
6

2
0
5

0
.
5

1
6
.
2

6
.
2

1
1
.
7

4
9
.
1
0

0
.
7
1

1
4
.
0
3

2
.
0

5
4
.
9

4
.
5
7
6

2
8
6

0
.
7
5

1
5
.
6

5
.
1

1
0
.
6
3

5
1
.
4
2

0
.
7
5

1
4
.
5
0

2
.
0

5
2
.
7

4
.
0
8
3

3
3
4

1
.
0

A
i
r

2
0
5
3

2
8
7
.
4

1
7
.
3

3
.
1

8
.
0
5

5
5
.
3
0

0
.
7
7

1
3
.
3
0

2
.
2

5
8
9
.
4

5
0
.
8

3
.
7
5
4

3
6
9

1
.
2
5

1
8
.
6
4

5
.
6
3

1
4
.
2
5

3
1
.
4
5

0
.
8
9

2
6
.
4
8

2
.
6
6

5
4
.
7

4
.
6
3
0

2
2
9

0
.
5

2
0
.
5
0

6
.
5
0

1
5
.
0
8

2
7
.
4
2

1
.
0
3

2
5
.
8
0

2
.
7
2

5
6
.
6

5
.
2
9
6

2
9
8

0
.
7
5

2
1
.
6
0

5
.
3
4

1
2
.
2
0

2
8
.
3
0

1
.
0
8

2
8
.
6
3

2
.
8
5

5
3
.
8

4
.
4
3
1

3
5
3

1
.
0

A
i
r
+
s
t
e
a
m

1
9
3
5

2
7
0
.
9

5
6
.
8
9

1
3
4
.
9
1

7
9
.
1
1

2
2
.
0
4

4
.
0
3

1
0
.
0
4

2
9
.
0
4

1
.
1
0

3
0
.
7
9

2
.
9
6

5
6
1
.
6

5
1
.
2

3
.
8
2
3

4
0
5

1
.
2
5

3
2
.
3
1

6
.
1
8

5
.
4

2
0
.
1
5

1
.
0
5

3
1
.
4
0

2
.
9
7

6
0
.
1

7
.
2
3
0

2
4
5

0
.
5

2
7
.
4

1
2
.
4
8

7
.
1
6

2
0
.
8
1

1
.
1
5

2
7
.
3
6

3
.
6
3

6
1
.
7

7
.
7
0
6

2
9
6

0
.
7
5

3
3
.
1

5
.
3
8

2
.
1
2

2
4
.
0
7

1
.
1
8

2
9
.
8
5

4
.
2
6

5
9
.
4

7
.
3
4
3

3
5
1

1
.
0

A
i
r
+
o
x
y
g
e
n
+
s
t
e
a
m

1
7
2
1

2
4
1
.
0

1
3
0
.
9
4

3
0
.
0
6

8
0
.
0

3
4
.
0
8

3
.
4
2

2
.
1

2
3
.
5
7

1
.
2
5

3
1
.
0
5

4
.
5
3

6
9
0
.
3

5
7
.
6

7
.
0
4
5

4
0
2

1
.
2
5

2
4
.
1
2

1
2
.
9
2

2
3
.
4
3

2
5
.
1
0

0
.
6
3

1
0
.
6

3
.
2
0

6
8
.
1

9
.
9
6
4

1
8
7

0
.
5

2
8
.
5
4

1
0
.
9
1

2
1
.
1

2
5
.
0
2

0
.
6
9

1
0
.
3
4

3
.
4
0

6
9
.
3

1
0
.
1
1
5

2
0
1

0
.
7
5

2
9
.
4
1

1
0
.
4

2
0
.
0

2
4
.
1
5

0
.
7

1
1
.
7
8

3
.
5
6

6
6
.
4

9
.
6
8
0

2
3
9

1
.
0

A
i
r
+
o
x
y
g
e
n

1
8
8
6

2
6
4
.
1
6

1
5
3
.
2
1

1
1
0
.
9
5

2
9
.
9
8

9
.
3
2

1
9
.
7
5

2
5
.
2

0
.
7
3

1
1
.
4
2

3
.
6
0

7
4
2
.
3

6
5
.
7

9
.
1
8
8

2
6
2

1
.
2
5

26

II.2.1.5 TASK 1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator
The technical design of the generator based on the concept and process design (T1.4 and T1.5)
contained the detailed technical solutions of the test facility for testing technological options,
constituting the task subject. The design took into account the schedule of the studies, that is the stages
of the generator construction and its adaptation to the requirements of the tests undertaken successively.
In particular, the design included the construction and fitting up of the boreholes as well as the
environmental aspects (monitoring of gaseous contamination, water and soil contamination and
preventing actions).
The UCG reactor was designed in the EM Barbara. The expected environmental impact of
reactor was assessed. Simulations of product gas composition related to the type of oxidant were
conducted in order to select the best available option. Calculations of the expected product gas
composition were done.
In the course of the study calculations were made in order to assess:
The composition of product gas related to the composition of oxidants,
The temperature of the process.
The basic assumption for the design and construction of the PDU installation constituted the
underground experiment applying the borehole method in a horizontal gasification channel using
oxygen and air mixture.
Following elements were taken into account in the process design:
the characteristics of the raw materials
the presumed amounts and the composition of products
the flow rate of the gasifying medium
the locations of the main appliances.
The process design of the PDU-scale generator was based on the results of laboratory scale
gasification tests on coal samples from EM Barbara and the literature data. Coal samples were
collected in the area selected for the PDU-scale reactor location at EM Barbara and, for comparison,
from coal blocks provided by the coal mines Piast and Bielszowice for the ex-situ tests.
The block diagram including basic equipment required for the process is presented in fig.1.
Steam
generator
Oxygen
container
Air
compressor
Nitrogen
bottles
F
F
F
F
Water
envelope
Strata
P,T
Coal
P,T Cooler
and
condenser
gas
purification
and GC
flare
fan

Fig. 1. The block diagram including basic equipment required for the process

Taking into account the prototypical characteristics of the installation, the basic elements of the
process design, which were required for the development of the technical design, were developed
within the task. Both the process and technical design were verified in the course of the realization of
other tasks, in particularly those based on the experience resulting from the tests in the ex-situ reactor at
EM Barbara (WP3).
27

II.2.1.6 TASK 1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator
The basic elements of the technical design of the PDU scale generator were developed, in
particularly:
the specification of the equipment of the appliances,
the location of the appliance and equipment
the scheme of the generator boreholes
the process monitoring system.
Taking into account the prototypical characteristics of the installation it has been decided that the
detailed solutions of its respective elements would be designed in the course of the construction. This,
in relation to the following elements:
the feeding method and the sealing of the outlet system,
the system for product cooling, separation and purification,
the detailed process monitoring system.
The main information source here was the results generated during the ex-situ experiments.

The specification of the appliances and the equipment
The basic gasification agent for feeding the system elements:
mobile oxygen tank with evaporator
o amount: 15 000 kg of liquid oxygen,
o max pressure: 24 bar; max gaseous oxygenflow: 80 Nm
3
/h.
The air used in the trials of the system tightness and in the generator ignition phase was supplied using
air compressor with the following parameters:
pressure: up to 0.6 MPa
capacity: up to 1 m
3
/min.
Nitrogen used for the safety reasons was supplied using the system made of liquid nitrogen tank,
evaporator and pressure regulators.
The design of the feeding system (similar to the ex-situ reactor system) is presented in fig.2.

Fig. 2. Design of the feeding system

Liquid (excess water, wastewater, tars) and gaseous products which have been directed to the
condensation and cleaning system, according to present assumptions, consisted of:
liquid separator
flame breaker
fan
flare with the pilot burner fed with propane/butane gas.

The arrangement of the installation elements.
The arrangement of the installation elements is presented in fig.3. For safety reasons, most of
the equipment was to be located on the surface, which minimized the number of people required in the
underground heading during the experiment.

The design of the boreholes
The boreholes of 140 150 mm diameter have been drilled in a coal block limited by concrete
walls of the existing mine galleries. For the drilling the mining technique has been applied. They were
drilled from the chamber located about 30 m from the main ventilation gallery.
The layout of the elements in the underground part of the installation is given in fig.4.

28

Oxygen
container

Fig. 3. System layout

dam
~ 16 m
generator no 1
ventilation
ventilation
steam
generator
gaseous
product
pipeline
cooling and
condensation
Supply:
water, oxygen, air,
nitrogen, power

Fig. 4. System layout Generator 1

The gas generator construction is shown in fig.5.
a)

b)

29

c)

d)

Fig. 5.The gas generator construction
a) at the beginning of experiment, b) in the middle of experiment- without directional delivery pipe, c) in
the middle of experiment- with directional delivery pipe, d) directional delivery pipe(1 - supply of
gasification media, 2 - inlet pipe, 3 - collar-screw pipe connection, 4 - igniter, 5 - seam ignition system, 6
- coal seam, 7 - gasification channel, 8 - gas flow direction, 9 - outlet pipe, 10 - pipeline elbow, 11 -
condenser water separator, 12 - gas production pipeline, 13, 14 - underground gallery, 15 - front sealing
wall, 16 - rear sealing wall, 17, 18 pressure and temperature gauge, 19 - bottom strata, 20 - roof strata,
21 -ignition point, 24 - H2, CO detectors, 26 - gasification media supply chamber, 27 - product gas
collection chamber)

The feeding media (power, water, air, nitrogen, oxygen) were supplied using the existing
system of galleries from the side of the shaft access.
The gaseous products were directed to the flare via the pipeline in the ventilation gallery and
the ventilation shaft. The exhaust fan of 300-400 m
3
/h effiecency was applied.

The process monitoring system
Seismic analyses were performed between the surface and headings in the coal bed no. 310 at
the 2
nd
level (below the coal bed no. 310) applying seismic tomography method. The geophones were
arranged in the form of a regular square grid with 10 m side length. The points of induction of the
seismic waves (applying explosive materials) were located in the underground headings in the coal bed
no.310 at the 2
nd
level, under the coal bed no. 310. The probes for testing the surface area of the
experimental field were arranged in the grid with the dimensions of 30 x 70 m.
The measurements of the concentration of CO
2
, CO and CH
4
in the soil and air were conduced
on the area of 40 x 40 m located above the generator in the grid of 10 x 10 m. Additional measurement
points (for safety of CO, H
2
, CH
4
, CO
2
, air velocity) were located in the following places underground
(fig.6):
in the feeding system of the generator chamber
in the ventilation gallery
in the area close to the georeactor.
The analysis of the gaseous products was performed on-line with two-channel gas
chromatograph Agillent 3000A. The concentrations of the following components were analyzed: H
2
,
CO
2
, CO, CH
4
, C
2
H
6
, O
2
and N
2
.
The flow rates of the gasification agents and the gaseous products were measured with standard
flow meters. The pressure was measured on the inlet and outlet of the generator applying pressure
gauges.
The structure of the temperature measurement system was developed at the stage of borehole
driling applying the experience gained during the ex-situ experiments. The infrared mapping method
was a supplementary method used for controlling the temperature distribution in the reaction zone.

30

C
E
E
E
C
A
D B
B
A
camera
CO, CO
2
, CH
4
, H
2
detector
air velocity measurement
O2 detector
GC-gases measurement
dam
fire channel
A
C
B
E
D

Fig. 6 Monitoring measurement points.

II.2.1.7 TASK 1.7 Construction of the generator
The construction of the generator involved several organizational and technical activities, in particular:
1. The arrangement of the underground pathways near the gas generator
2. The documentation and the allowance for the oxygen and air delivery pipes as well as the pipe
for exhaust gases through the mine and ventilation shaft were prepared
3. The construction of the fire hole
The measurements of the inclination angle of the coal bed were performed at the location site
planned for the generator. The fire hole of 140 mm diameter and the length of about 15 m was
drilled at the level of 500 mm above the floor.
4. The construction of the pipelines
Following the approved mining plan annex, the preparation works preceding the assembly of the
pipelines in the Barbara shaft, the ventilation shaft and the underground galleries were started.
The following steel pipelines with flange connections were assembled at the site of the in-situ
experiment:
Air pipeline: pressure 1-2 atm., diameter 100 mm
Nitrogen: up to 6 atm., diameter 50 mm
Water: up to 4 atm., diameter 100 mm
Oxygen: up to 1-2 atm., diameter 50 mm.
The total length of the pipeline system was about 800 m. The pipelines ran from the surface to
the pit shaft of the EM Barbara and then in concrete lining through galleries to the distance of
about 10 m away from the front of the generator, where the special design collecting pipe
(developed based on the ex-situ experiments) was placed. The pipelines equipped with valves
were led to the inlet of the georeactor. On the water pipeline rectifier was assembled. The
rectifier was controlled from the surface and enabled precise water dosing.
Flowmeters were assembled on oxygen and air pipelines in the building on the top of the shaft.
A gaseous products steel pipeline of 200 mm diameter and length of about 150 m was led from
the end of the generator through the air-heading and the ventilation shaft. A water trap was
installed on the pipeline in distance of about 15 m from the outlet of the gaseous products.
5. The construction of explosion-proof facilities
31

The in-situ UCG experiment was performed in the location area of the headings of the former
explosive storehouse which are next to the coal mine air-heading.
In the light of the mining regulations in force, the conducted UCG experiment was defined as
underground fire. Thus the experimental site had to be equipped with the following safety
measures:
Proper ventilation of the headings in the generator area both during normal operation and
with the main fan in the air-heading switched off,
The necessity for the changes in the ventilation at the georeactor site for the safety reasons
during the relisation and the completion of the experiment,
Securing the experimental site by means of the possibility to quickly separate thegenerator
zone from the remaining headings.
Basing on the design developed by the specialists from the EM Barbara the Central Mine
Rescue Station (Centralna Stacja Ratownictwa Grniczego, CSRG), Bytom started to construct
the explosion-proof dams, which enabled the control of air propagation and, if required, to
insulate the respective underground headings:
an explosion-proof lock T-1 on the air inlet into the explosives storehouse equipped with
two connector pipes of 200 mm diameter with plugs
brick dam T-2 separating air-headings located in burden
insulating dams T-3 and T-4 separating headings directly adjoining the generator at air-
heading site.
control dam TR-1 in an air-heading on fresh air inflow into the generator zone.
The dams were constructed based on the construction design developed by CSRG.
6. The system for collecting the condensates from process products
The design of the system developed based on the calculations of resistance of gas flow in the
pipeline is presented in fig.7.

LI
gas
product
Scheme 2. Condensate water collection system
2
3
1
Dewaterer
1
2
Closed tank
Open tank
3
LI
gas
product
Scheme 2. Condensate water collection system
2
3
1
Dewaterer
1
2
Closed tank
Open tank
3

Fig. 7. Scheme of the condensate collection system

The system constructed based on the above scheme was composed of the following main
elements:
dewaterer of 200 mm diameter and volume of about 10 l assembled in the lowest point of
the gaseous products pipeline, directing the products through the air-heading and the
ventilation shaft to the surface,
closed tank of around 0.5 m
3
volume connected to the gas pipeline on the gas-pendulum
principle and equipped with a liquid level meter,
open tank (water storage tank) of around 0.5 m
3
volume.
All elements were connected by flexible pipes and located in the air-heading.
7. The system for collection of gaseous products
The exhaust fan was specified and ordered from the Venture Industries Company based on the
results of the calculation of pressure drop in the gaseous products collection system. The fan
characteristic was as follows: capacity 500 m
3
/h, underpressure 8000 Pa.
The construction details of the system presented in fig.8 were also developed.
32

air-shaft
3
PI LI
chimney
GC
blower
fuse igneous
propane-
butane
pilot burner
Scheme 1. System of gas collection
4
2
4
5
3
2
1
5
1
valve
air-shaft
3
PI LI
chimney
GC
blower
fuse igneous
propane-
butane
pilot burner
Scheme 1. System of gas collection
4
2
4
5
3
2
1
5
1
valve

Fig. 8. Scheme of the gaseous products collection system

The main elements of the system were:
flame breaker
fan
chimney equipped with two pilot burners fed with propane-butane gas and with
electronically controlled electric igniters.
8. Oxygen supply unit
The offers for the construction of oxygen feed installation and oxygen supply were provided by:
Linde Gas, Air Products, and Messer Polska sp. z o.o. The main element of the installation was
the tank of liquid oxygen, of around 15 ton volume, equipped with evaporating dish and
measurement unit for controlling the oxygen flow into the generator. The tank was located next
to the shaft of the EM Barbara, directly after the completion of pipeline assembly in the shaft
and in the underground galleries.
9. Coal bed ignition system
The detailed construction design was developed for the burner supplied with propane-butane gas
based on the experience gained during the ex-situ tests. The burner made of heat-proof materials
was ordered from a specialist company.

II.2.1.8 TASK 1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator
The following start-up works were performed:
degreasing of the oxygen pipeline
pressure tests of the air, nitrogen and water pipelines with compressed air under the pressure of 3
atm.
The operation manual for the UCG experiment was developed, taking into account:
1. The action sequence in the installation start-up phase
2. Rules for controlling the gasification process
3. Detailed organizational scheme and detailed responsibility principles for process development
and safety during start-up, tests performance and shut-down of the installation
4. Emergency rules identified based on the analysis of potential hazards for humans and
environment.

33

II.2.1.9 TASK 1.9 Technical approval of the installation
Based on the application submitted by the CMIPL, the State Mining Authority stated that the
underground gasification experiments in EM Barbara do not require permission for generation of
open fire in headings, as the test was a scientific-research experiment and the EM Barbara comes
under mining and geological regulations regarding underground works applying mining techniques and
focused on scientific and research or experimental targets.

34

III. WP2

WP Leader: TUDT
WP Contractors:
T 2.1 Analysis of various options of coal gasification technologies with different gasification media,
process parameters (pressure, temperature) and coal types; CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE, TUDT
T 2.2 Mathematical and thermodynamic modelling of the UCG process; CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE,
TUDT, CSICPF
T 2.3 Simulation studies based assessment of the correlation between gasification process and rock
mass mechanics; CSICPF
T 2.4 Computer simulation of CO
2
sequestration in beds (main process parameters prognosis including
hazard assessment; TUDT

III.1 WORKPACKAGE WP2 OBJECTIVES

The simulation studies of gasification process are to be conducted for technological parameters
optimization. The ANSYS CFD software has been selected for underground coal gasification
technological parameters analysis. Participants of the work are: CMIPL, TUDT, CSICPF and
NMAUKRAINE. The ISSP and UCGP are also actively involved in the discussions of modeling issues.

III.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES

III.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results

III.2.1.1. Task 2.1 Analysis of various options of coal gasification technologies with different
gasification medi, process parameters (pressure, temperature) and coal types
a) Main results [1]: A thermodynamic model with an extended exergy analysis has been
accomplished. This aspect was given the main attention, because it is a powerful method to
analyze the possibilities of gasification to hydrogen, minimizing the greenhouse gas impact.
i) There are three methods for performing an useful energy (exergy) balance. The idea is that the
output exergy should exceed to input exergy to obtain a viable process. () The ideal analysis
that disregards efficiency factors and shows that in theory the process is energetically favorable.
() The process that incorporates the efficiency factors shows that the process is energetically
favorable in practice only if the exergy demand to deal with the sequestration of CO
2
is excluded.
() An analysis that involved recycling of CaO CaCO
3
to sequester CO
2
, both in-situ and
ex-situ is not exergetically favourable with the current state of the art. Ex-situ storage using
CaSiO
3
(Wollastonite) is in principle possible but many practical issues still need to be resolved.
ii) For the case shown in fig.10 a), in principle injection of solids can be considered. Volume
constraints and temperature constraints limit the adsorption of CO
2
.
iii) Use of different coals and injection conditions do not qualitatively alter these observations.

III.2.1.2. Task 2.2 Mathematical and thermodynamic modeling of the UCG process
1) Modelling of the reaction zone geometry and its evolution: Model formulation was completed. The
possibility of solving the model equations with the software COMSOL was analysed. Main results:
a) The deterministic level set method is well suitable to model cavity growth of coal cavities
b) The results are very similar to the results obtained with the probabilistic method
2) Analysis of the gasification reaction kinetic impact factors (gasification media types, the amounts of
fissures and porosity level of coal seams and spontaneous coal pulverization processes);
a) Reaction kinetic aspects have been analysed (see subsection Dynamic mass and heat balance
model below). The fissure density determines the size of coal particles that are exposed to the
reactants diffusing in the coal seam. The efficiency factor in terms of the coal particles in
between the fractures has been derived. The porosity drops out of the equation.
3) Dynamic mass and heat balances description taking into account flow hydraulics of reactive gases.
Main results:
a) The previous model was extended to incorporate heat storage and heat recuperation effects.
Details of the model can be found in the subsection Dynamic mass and heat balance model.
35

b) It is possible by alternately injecting high oxygen/water ratios and low oxygen/water ratios to
produce gas with high H
2
and CO content and gas with high CH
4
content that can be used. An
optimized process produces alternately a high temperature low chemical energy stream and a
low temparture high chemical energy stream. Similar results are also obtained experimentally
with tasks 4-1 to 4-3 and can be seen as the main positive result of this programme. An
improved theoretical model also considers reaction rates.
4) Analysis of geo-mechanical factors impact on the process. Based on laboratory studies also
performed at the Dietz lab of the TU-Delft, it was shown that chips of rock (see fig.10) occur after
exposure of the coal to heat. This results in an effective spalling rate that is input in the model.
Main results:
a) Depending on the spalling rate the gasification can occur in the three ways indicated in fig.11.
These possibilities have been postulated, but are also found theoretically in the models.
5) Analysis of random factors impact on the gasification process and their incorporation in the model:
Main results
a) A Comparison of the level set method with the probabilistic method gives the possibility to
evaluate the influence of random factors, mainly the spalling rate of rock and coal on the coal
gasification process, but also ash, coal and rock permeabilities and different effective reaction
schemes.

Mathematical adsorption model for CO
2
in packed beds with Ca-based natural minerals [2].
Experimental results on moistened samples of CaSiO
3
combine the advantages of the catalytica effect
of water and the high diffusion coefficients in a gas phase. The reasons to choose CaSiO
3
is that it
shows the highest reaction rates. It is possible to store 0.17 kg CO
2
/ kg CaSiO
3
(see fig.9).

Fig. 9. Formation of passivating layer of silicium oxide shielding the wollastonite from reaction with carbon
dioxide. It is one of the obstacles in obtaining practical conversion rates.

Depending on the spalling rate one of the sistuations shown in the three panels representing
vertical X-sections of the cavity can occur (see fig.10); (i) for low spalling rates the cavity remains
open (top panel). Injected oxygen will contact the coal surface and efficiencies are expected to be low.
Such a situation occurred in Newman Spinney. (ii) For high spalling rates the coal layers is secluded
from the cavity (middle panel). This is the worst possible situation for UCG because the reactant gases
will mainly bypass the coal. Such a situation happened in the field test in Teruel (Spain). (iii) for
intermediate spalling rates the middle of the cavity is filled with debris, but the coal faces remain
exposed to the gases flowing in the cavity. Oxygen will react with the gases and the gasification will
occur with the reactant gases. This is the most favourable situation that occurred in prices town (see
also subsection Dynamicmass and heat balances).

36

Fig. 10. Panels representing vertical X-sections of the cavity Fig. 11. Chips or spalls obtained from a
heated and stressed rock sample. These
spalls constitute the rubble zone (from
MSc thesis of Piet A. Bakker (1992) [3]

Dynamic mass and heat balance model
Fig.12 shows coal, roof, rubble, and cavity zones in the underground channel where the
gasification happens. The huge amount of heat generated during the combustion of coal or combustible
gases diffuses in the solid zones or decomposes carbonate rocks based on the following endothermic
reactions:

2 3
CO CaO CaCO +

2 3
CO MgO MgCO +

These reactions store the heat of combustion and release CO
2
that reacts with water and coal at
high temperature and generates hydrogen. After or during the operation, CO
2
is separated from the final
gas product and injected to the channel to react with CaO/MgO at lower temperature.

Fig. 12 Different zones in the coal gasification
channel

Fig. 13 Net component fluxes from different zones
37

Model assumptions:
1- The process is semi-steady sate.
2- Mass transfer from the bulk gas to the coal surface is the rate-controlling step
4
.
3- At the coal surface, the gas composition is calculated by the chemical equilibrium equations.
4- Injected O
2
immediately reacts with combustible gases.
Unknowns:
Composition on the coal surface (5):
c
i
x where i = H
2
O, CO
2
, CO, H
2
, CH
4

Net flux from the coal surface (5):
c
i
N where i = H
2
O, CO
2
, CO, H
2
, CH
4

Equations:
Chemical equilibrium (3)
( )
j
i
o
i j i
i
v
i
K
RT
G v
a
j i
,
exp
,
(1)
o
i
o
i j i
G G v
,
(2)
o
G K RT = ln (3)
where
i
a - activity of component i in the mixture, v
i,j
- stoichiometric coefficient of component i in
reaction j,
o
i
G - free Gibbs energy of formation of component i, K
j
equilibrium constant of reaction j,
which is a function of temperature and may be calculated using equation (3), G
0
change of free
Gibbs energy of reaction, T - temperature.
Calculation of
o
G [4]
o
G must be calculated at standard state. Lets start with Eq. 4.
o o o
S T H G = (4)

+ =
T
T
o
P o o
dT
R
C
R H H
0
0
(5)
where
o
H ,
o
S - enthalpy and entropy of reaction, respectively, R gas constant (0.314 J/molK), C
p

heat capacity. In equation (5),
o
H
0
and
o
P
C could be defined with equations (6) and (7) for every
reaction. Consider that
o
H
0
should be calculated at standard pressure (P=1 bar) and T
0
(298 K).
o
i
o
i j i
H H v
0 0 ,

(6)
o
P
i
o
P j i
C C v
i

,
(7)
where
o
i
H
0
- enthalpy of formation of component i at standard pressure,
o
P
i
C - heat cpacity of
component i.
For calculation of
o
S , a good starting point is equation (8).
T
dT
C S
o
P
o
i
i
= (8)
where
o
i
S - entropy of formation of component i.
By integration of equation (8) from T
0
to T,
o
S can be evaluated.
T
dT
R
C
R S S
T
T
o
P o o

+ =
0
0
(9)
0
0 0
0
T
G H
S
o o
o

= (10)
By substitution of equations (6)-(10) in equation (5), the following relation will be derived for
calculation of
o
G .
38

+

=
T
T
o
P
T
T
o
P
o o o o
dT
RT
C
dT
R
C
T RT
H
RT
H G
RT
G
0 0
1
0
0
0 0
(11)
The values of
o
G
0
,
o
H
0
- free Gibbs energy and enthalpy at standard pressure, respectively and
o
P
i
C are needed for calculation of
o
G and can be found in the handbooks or other thermodynamic
references.

Chemical reactions:
The following reactions occur on the char surface. Here we assume that volatile matters
evaporates from the coal surface and the gas species react with char. CH
a
O
b
represents char in the
following equations.
O H
a
CO
a
b CO
a
b O CH
b a 2 2
2 2
2
2
1 + |
\
|
+ |
\
|
+ +

( )
2 2
2
1 1 H
a
b CO O H b O CH
b a
|
\
|
+ + +
O bH CH H
a
b O CH
b a 2 4 2
2
2 + |
\
|
+ +

Chemical equilibrium equations
The chemical equilibrium relations have been explained extensively in the previous reports.
j
v
o
i
v
i i
K
P
P
y
j
j i
\
|
=
,
)
( (12)
=
i
j i j
v v
,
(13)

Mass (Atom) balance (2)
In the following equations which is based on the overall reaction between coal and gas
components, a and b shows the number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen in original coal, i.e.,
a b
CH O .
( )
2 2 4
2
1
c c c
H O CO CH
c
CO
N b N bN
N
b
+ +
=
(14)
( )
2 4 2 2 4
2
2
c c c c c c
H CO CH CO H O CH
a
N N N N N N = + + (15)

Stefan-Maxwell (5)
Net flux from the boundary layer with the thickness of
( ) ( )
, 0
i j j i
i c
j
ij
x z N x z N
dx RT
z
dz P D

(16)
( ) ,
dx
f z x
dz
=
39

Boundary condition:
At the coal surface z=0, chemical equilibrium specifies the composition of component i, x
i
= x
i
c
. Eqs.
(16) are integrated using the Runge-Kutta 4
th
order method where f is the right hand side of Eq. (16).

( )
( )
( )
0 1 2 3 4
1 0
2 0 1
3 0 2
4 0 3
1
2 2
6
0,
1 1
,
2 2
1 1
,
2 2
,
c
z z
c
z
c
z
c
z
c
z
x x k k k k
k f z x x
k f z x x k
k f z x x k
k f z x x k

= =
=
=
=
=
= + + + +
= = =
| |
= = = +
|
\
| |
= = = +
|
\
= = = +

Other required equations:
At z= , x = x
i
b
or composition is equal to the summation of flux for each component divided by the
summation of flux for all components.

i
bulk
i
j
j
N
x
N
(17)
where = rub, c, roof and i = N
2
, CO
2
, H
2
O, CO, H
2
, CH
4
.
All of the fluxes except c are known.

Data for the calculation of
o
G of coal
Coal has a complicated molecular structure and its physical properties need to be estimated using the
empirical correlations. To estimate the specific heat, enthalpy and entropy of formation of coal and char
that are essential ingredients in the formulation of chemical equilibrium and energy balance, the
following methods are used.

Specific heat
To calculate the Gibbs free energy of formation and the enthalpy of formation of coal, the following
correlations are used:

63
0.404 28.9 3.46 1 1
o
V
H O
W
C C C
| | | |
| |
= +
| | |
\
\ \

1 0.2555
267.4
273.15
V
T
W
= +
where
o
V
W is the mass percent of volatiles in original dry ash-free coal and C , H and O are the dry
ash-free basis weight percent of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen in coal. T
1
is the devolatilization
temperature.
The specific heat of coal is calculated by

1 2
1 2 p F V V
C FC V C V C = + +
where F is the dry, ash-free basis mass fraction of fixed carbon and is equal to 1
o
V
W , V
1
and V
2
are
the primary and secondary volatile matter mass fraction. If
o
V
W is less than 10%, V
1
= 0.0 and V
2
=
o
V
W
otherwise V
1
=
o
V
W - 10% and V
2
= 10%.
C
F
is the specific heat of fixed carbon (kJ/kg/K) and can be estimated by

3 6 2
0.218 3.807 10 1.758 10
F
C T T

= + .
40

1
2
3
3
0.728 3.391 10
2.273 2.554 10
V
V
C T
C T
= +
= +

The equations used for the estimation of coal specific heat can also be used in the calculation of specific
heat of char by changing the mass fraction of elements.

Enthalpy of formation

2 2 2 2
o c o o o
coal coal c CO s SO H H O
H H x H x H x H = + + +
where
c
coal
H is the coal heat of combustion (kJ/mole) and x
i
is the mole fraction of species i.

Entropy of formation

1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
exp
37.1653
31.4767
0.564682
20.1145
54.3111
44.6712
o
coal
H O N S
S a a a a a a
C N C N C N C N
a
a
a
a
a
a
| | | | | | | |
= + + + +
| | | |
+ + + +
\ \ \ \
=
=
=
=
=
=

where C, H, N, O, S are the number of atoms of each element in coal. S
o
is the standard entropy of coal
in kJ/kmole Carbon/K.

Coal Formula based on the ultimate analysis of Barbara coal
Coal is not a molecule. Its a superstructure like a polymer. We define its chemical formula based on 1
mole of carbon. The calculation has been done for the EM Barbara coal and results in the following
formula:
EM Barbara coal:
0.6694 0.1265 0.0030 0.0166
CH O S N

Calculation of diffusivity coefficient
The values for diffusivity of binary mixture D
ij
is calculated using the following equation [5]:
( ) ( ) ( )
1/ 3 5/12
1/ 2
1/ 1/
A B
A B A B
b
AB
c c
c c c c A B
PD T
a
T T
P P T T M M
| |
| =
|
+
\
(18)
Where D
AB
is the diffusivity (cm
2
/s), P is the system pressure (atm), M is the molecular weight (g/mol),
T
c
is the critical temperature (K), P
c
is the critical pressure (atm), and a , b are dimensionless constants.
For non-polar gases, a = 2.74510
-4
and b = 1.823. If one of the pair is water then a = 3.64010
-4
and b
= 2.334.

Energy balance
As the temperature is very high in the cavity, the dominating mechanism of heat transfer is
radiation. Here we modify the van Batenburgs approach and add the conduction heat transfer equations
to the solid boundaries.

41

Numerical solution
The final model includes nonlinear algebraic equations (chemical equilibrium), linear ordinary
differential equations (Maxwell-Stefan), and partial differential equations (conduction heat transfer)
which should be solved simultaneously. To make the final programming simpler, we eliminate 5
unknowns by algebraic operations and solve the final system of equation in two steps. First we guess
the temperature to solve the mass balance and boundary layer equations. Then having the net fluxes, the
heat balance equations can be solved to adjust the temperature. Matlab and Comsol are used to solve the
model numerically.

Temperature profile

The temperature profile and amount of heat storage in the
main channel in the reaction zone of the ex-situ reactor were
found in study carried out by CMIPL. Finding those values is
important in the calculation of engineering process, in particularly
in the injection of oxygen/steam or air/steam. The energy to the
reduction zone is produced in the oxidation area. The whole
amount of energy from the oxidation has to be enough to begin
the reduction processes.

Fig. 14 Temperature profile of a cross-section of the cavity shows the
heat diffusion into the roof rock (upper inclined section) and the coal
layer (lower horizontal section)

III.2.1.3. Task 2.3 Simulation studies based assessment of the correlation between gasification process
and rock mass mechanics
Generally, both diffusion and permeation can play significant role in gas transport through the
porous stratum as well as coal under the UCG conditions. The mean transport-pore model (MTPM) was
applied for the characterization of stratum and coal pore structure. This model assumes that the decisive
part of the transported gas takes place through cylindrical transport-pores with the integral mean value
of radius <r>. For permeation the integral mean value of squared radii, <r
2
>, is utilized. The third model
parameter, , represents the ratio of transport-pore porosity, , and tortuosity, q, i.e. = /q. Based on
the designed constitutive equations related to the intensity of mass flux to mass flux driving forces
corresponding to the complicated nature of the porous medium (surrounding strata and coal) the
correlation between gasification process and rock mass mechanics was evaluated.
For formulation of corresponding constitutive equations the updated an MTPM was applied.
The steady-state isothermal diffusion transport in multicomponent gas mixtures is described by the
modified Maxwell-Stefan equation:

d d
d n
j i i j
i i
k m
j 1
i ij
j i
y N y N
N dy
c i=1,..., n
dx D D
=
+ =
,
where the molar diffusion flux density of component i caused by diffusion is denoted
d
i
N , c is the total
molar concentration of the gas mixture and x is the length coordinate in the transport direction, dy
i
/dx is
the driving force of the diffusion process, y
i
the mole fraction of component i,
m
ij
D is the effective
diffusion coefficient of the pair ij in the bulk diffusion region and finally,
k
i
D , is the effective Knudsen
diffusion coefficient of component i.
In MTPM the permeation molar flux density of gas mixture component i, N
p
i
, in porous solids
described by the Darcys equation:
p
i i i
dc
N B y i=1,..., n
dx
| |
=
|
\
(19)
where coefficient B
i i
2
i
i i
i
r p Kn
B r K i=1,.., n
1 Kn 8
+
=< > +
+
(20)
42

and means the effective permeability coefficient of mixture component i, (which includes the MTPM
transport parameters, , <r>, <r
2
>. where include into description and evaluation of combined
steady-state and unsteady- state gas transport through porous strata.
d p
i i i
N N N = +
.
For evaluation the length of the time period the diffusion/permeation steady-state both transport
processes were described with the use of Ficks and Darcy laws. For more detailed analysis and
numerical solution backgrounds, see [6].
In the framework of preliminary modeling study, calculations of the CO
2
gas transport were
performed to compare the intensity and significance of diffusion and permeation mechanism for overall
transport process. Fig.15 a) shows CO
2
diffusion profiles of relative CO
2
concentration for transport
parameters <r> = 0.021 m and = 0.024. The effective diffusivity of the pair CO
2
Air is D
CO2-
Air
(100
o
C,10 bar)= 0.000568 cm
2
/s. At the same time D
k
CO2
(100
o
C) = 0.0529 cm
2
/s and D
m
CO2-Air
(100
o
C,10 bar) = 0.000574 cm
2
/s. Fig.15 b) shows the total CO
2
molar concentration ratio profile for
( )
2
o
B p 0 B 0.0083 cm / s = =
obtained with transport parameters <r> = 0.021 m and <r
2
> = 0.011
m
2
.

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0
10
20
c
C
O
2
d
/
C
C
O
2
o

(
-
)
t

(
y
e
a
r
s
)
x (m
)
(A)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
1
2
3
4
0
200
400
600
p
/
p
o

(
-
)
t

(
y
e
a
r
s
)
x (m
)
(B)

Fig. 15 a) CO
2
diffusion, profiles of relative CO
2
concentration, b) CO
2
permeation, profiles of relative pressure

The key transport mechanism can be easily judged from comparison of relative concentrations
profile for diffusion and relative pressure profile for permeation depicted. It can be clearly seen that the
CO
2
diffusion front moves very slowly in comparison with CO
2
permeationfor the distance 10 m
from the source even after approximately 3 month the CO
2
relative concentration is still zero. Even at
lower pressure at the gas source, p
o
, permeation is still far more rapid than diffusion; however, the CO
2

front is still zero after 5 years in the distance of approximately 600 m from the CO
2
source.
This preliminary conclusion makes easier the task of studying the influence of UCG process
parameters on the gas transport in porous strata since only gas permeation can be taken into account.
The influence of the kind of the transported gases, temperature, pressure and transport-pore size on
transport-rates of the UCG interesting gases has been analyzed. The transport modeled is based on the
knowledge of the real structure characteristics of stratum samples in order to evaluate the significance
of the individual processes and their possible consequences.
Influence of source pressure
The calculation of the CO
2
permeation pressure profiles according to the Darcy's law proves that
the higher is the pressure source, the higher the rate of CO
2
transport. This fact is easily seen for p
o
= 10
and 50 bar, where the movement of the gas transport front in time significantly grows with increased
pressure. Nevertheless, even for the highest evaluated pressure CO
2
appears at the distance of few
hundred meters only after some years.
Influence of source temperature
The calculation of the relation between temperatures and the CO2 relative concentration as well
as relative flux densities shows that the temperature increase profiles do not change significantly. This
is caused by the compensation of the indirect proportionality of viscosity on temperature and direct
proportionality of molar concentration on temperature.
43

Influence of the transported gases kind
The calculation of the permeation and relative concentrations for hydrogen, ammonia, methane,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide at the same temperature level (100
o
C) and the
source pressure (10 bar) proves that the higher the gas viscosity is the lower the gas transports rates.
This is in agreement with the expression for the effective permeability coefficient, valid when the
Knudsen transport can be neglected. It is obvious that the movement of hydrogen front will be the
quickest and nearly twice faster than the movement of CO
2
front. Owing this fact, H
2
front appears at
the distance smaller than one kilometer for the highest evaluated pressure after some years.
Influence of transport parameters (pore sizes)
The influence the transport parameters have was assessed by relating the pore size effect and
the CO
2
permeation. The observed trend corresponds to the direct proportionality of effective
permeability coefficient, B, to the effective squared mean pore radius <r
2
>. Note that the three applied
squared pore sizes differ by a factor 100, i.e. pore radii, <r>, differ by a factor of 10.

III.2.1.4. Task 2.4 Computer simulation of CO
2
sequestration in beds (main process parameters
prognosis including hazard assessment
A 1-D dynamic mathematical model for the adsorption of CO
2
on two types of naturally
abundant CaO-contained minerals in a packed bed has been written. The model is capable of
considering the effect of different process parameters, e.g., CO
2
concentration and pressure on the
performance of the adsorption system. Mathematical details of this model and a typical simulation
result are reported in subsection Mathematical model of CO
2
adsorption in packed beds and results
below.
Mathematical model of CO
2
adsorption in packed beds and results
A pseudo-homogeneous mathematical model for the adsorption of CO
2
on the CaO-rich
minerals was written based on the concept shown in fig.16 and result in the following partial differential
equations.
Fig. 16. Main idea of the dynamic axial pseudo-homogeneous model for a packed bed

The kinetic equations for a reaction-rate limited process for two types of naturally abundant
minerals, Strassburg limestone and Arctic dolomite, were used in the model.

2 2
2
CO CO
s
CO
C C
u
R
t x

=

CaO
CaO
C
R
t
( )
2 2
,
(1 )
n
CaO s CO CO eq
dX
R M k P P S
X dt
= =
(21)

(22)

(23)
44

where:
R = specific reaction rate (1/s)
M
CaO
= molecular weight of CaO, i.e., 56 gr/mol
X = CaO conversion (-)
k
s
= rate constant (mol m
-2
s
-1
kPa
-n
)
P
CO2
= partial pressure of CO
2
(kPa)
P
CO2,eq
= equilibrium partial pressure of CO
2
(kPa)
n = order of reaction
S = specific surface area (m
2
/g).

The equilibrium partial pressure of CO
2
can be calculated based on the chemical equilibrium
calculations in the following relation.
where: P is in kPa and T is in Kelvin.

To solve the system of partial differential equations, the packed bed (x direction) divided into N
sections. It converts the two coupled PDEs, i.e., for CO
2
and CaO to 2N coupled stiff ODEs. A Matlab
code was written using Gear's multi-value method to solve the system of ODEs. A typical output of the
code has been shown in fig.17.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Time (hr)
O
u
t
p
u
t

C
O
2

C
o
n
s
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
o
l
e
/
m
3
)

Fig. 17. Concentration profile of CO
2
in a 2-meter bed as function of time. Each color shows a position in the bed
(blue is 0.4 m and brown is the output). The practical operation time for the adsoption cycle is about 2 hours per
meter depth of fresh sorbent (mineral) in this figure. (One hour is equal to 1800 pore volume of gas)

2
( 8308/ 9.079)
,
10
T
CO eq
P
+
= (24)
45

IV. WP3

WP Leader: CMIPL
WP Contractors:
T 3.1 Construction of the ex-situ experimental units; CMIPL, CSICPF, ISSP, HUGEPL, TUSIL
T 3.2 Preparation of the coal blocks from the various coal seams; KOMPWEG, BOTGiE
T 3.3 Tests carried out; CMIPL, CSICPF, ISSP, HUGEPL, TUSIL
T3.4 Evaluation of the process background on the basis of the experimental results; CMIPL, CSICPF,
USTUTT

IV.1 WORKPACKAGE WP3 OBJECTIVES

1. Basic type research mass and heat transfer in coal - strata-composite grains.
The objectives of the tests carried out at the special constructed testing unit were as follows:
1. Evaluation of permeability for reagents and products of coal gasification and hydro-gasification
(O
2
, N
2
, H
2
, CO, CO
2
, H
2
O, CH
4
, NH
3
, NO
x
, SO
x
) through the samples of different virgin and
exploited coal, surrounding strata samples and coal concrete in extended range of temperatures.
2. Evaluation of the heat transfer parameters through the coal, strata and coal concrete samples in
virgin and in the after gasification state
3. Elaboration of models of coal gasification and hydro-gasification for reactive coal-sorbent
grains and tablets for the different coal samples, strata samples and the different gas-reagent
compositions.
2. PSA/TSA gasification tests at ambient and high pressures.
3. Sorption enhanced coal gasification tests at ambient and high pressures.
4. Chemical looping enhanced coal gasification tests at ambient and high pressures.
5. Evaluations and modeling of water permeability through coal and strata samples under conditions
relevant for in-situ gasification.
6. Exploration of engineering backgrounds of water and gas migration control in geo-reactor space.
7. Elaboration of methods and tools for intensification mass and heat transfer phenomena in geo-
reactor space.

IV.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES
IV.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results

IV.2.1.1 Task 3.1.a Construction of the chromatographic unit
The chromatographic setup with the single pellet string column arrangement (SPSC) together
with software solution were designed and constructed for obtaining transport characteristics (both
effective diffusion coefficients and transport parameters) needed in mathematical modelling as well as
preliminary simulation studies of the UCG process. The chromatographic measurements were
performed for coal samples, strata and actual coal samples in virgin state and in the after gasification
process.
Chromatographic system consisted of a chromatographic column, a thermal conductivity detector
(Micro-TCD 10-955, Gow-Mac Instruments Co., USA), calibrated mass flow-meters/controllers
(Brooks 5850S, Brooks Instruments, the Netherlands), six port sampling valve (250 l) with electric
actuator (Valco Instruments Co. Inc., USA) and gas cylinders. Two columns with different lengths of
100 cm and 50 cm and identical inner diameter (0.67 cm) were packed with tested samples. All
chromatographic measurements were performed at laboratory temperature and pressure. The scheme of
the chromatographic apparatus is depicted in fig.18. Analysis of outlet peaks was based on Kubn-
Kuera model which includes all the transport processes inside column (convection, axial dispersion of
the tracer, transport of tracer through a laminar film around particles, diffusion inside the pore structure
and adsorption). The effects of processes upstream and downstream of the column (extra column
effects) that the Kubn-Kuera model does not consider, can be included into time-domain response
peak matching via the application of the convolution theorem (for more details, see [7]).
47

Fig. 18. Chromatographic setup : (1) tracer gas source, (2) carrier gas source, (3) sampling valve, (4)
chromatographic column, (5) thermal conductivity detector (TCD), (6) digital data logger, (7) computer, (F)
calibrated mass flow-meter/controllers

Transport characteristics (effective diffusion coefficients and transport parameters) of coal, and
strata grains were evaluated by fitting column response signals in the time-domain. The obtained
transport characteristics represent key material constants for calculation of the mass transport
coefficients for any gas mixture compositions as well as temperature and pressure which are of interest
for simulation studies of the UCG process.

IV.2.1.2 Task 3.1 b Construction of the tubular reactor
A special experimental installation was designed and constructed in order to perform
simulations of the UCG process on surface (ex-situ), in an artificially created coal seam. The schematic
view of the installation is presented in fig.19.

N2
O2 Air
Steam
I-3
I-4
p
T
I-6
I-5
T
p
Vent
GC
Separator
Filter
Dehumidifier
Heat exchanger
Separator
Overburden strata
Underlying strata
Coal seam
Gasification channel
Supply system
Gas collection and purification
Water sampling
3.0 m
1
.
5

m

Fig. 19 Schematic view of the installation for the ex-situ tests of the UCG process

In the reactor the real underground conditions were simulated both in respect to the coal seams
and the surrounding rocks layers. The gasifier has a rectangular shape and possesses the following
external dimensions: 3.0 m (length) x 1.4 m (width) x 1.5 m (height). Since the reactor wall thickness is
0.2 m, the internal working space is 2.6 x 1.0 x 1.1 m accordingly.
UCG simulations in the experimental unit can be carried out under near ambient pressures and
at temperatures up to 1600 C using gasifying media like air, oxygen, and steam supplied individually,
as well as in their mixtures of different volumetric ratios.
Gaseous oxygen is supplied from a liquid oxygen tank (capacity 950 kg liquid oxygen) after
evaporation in an atmospheric evaporator unit with maximum efficiency 20 Nm
3
/h. Gasification steam
is produced by an electric steam generator type Certuss E-82 of the max. steam production capacity 97
48

kg/h. Compressed air is produced by air compressor. The designed feeding system is additionally
equipped with a nitrogen valve. Nitrogen serves as safety agent.
The product gas is subjected to purification in the separation module (fig.19). Partial gas stream
is directed to the chemical analysis line, where after dehumidification and filtering, the main syngas
components (H
2
, CO, CO
2
, CH
4
) are determined using Gas Chromatography technique (GC).
Volumetric gas production rate is measured by anemometric device.
The temperature profile data in the reacting systems is sampled by 25 thermocouples installed
in various zones of the simulated coal seam and surrounding strata. The thermocouples denoted as 1-15
are of type S (Pt10Rh-Pt) and are located in the coal seam (thermocouples Nos. 1-5 are used for
temperature control in the gasification channel). The thermocouples Nos. 1625 are of K type (NiCr-
Ni) and they are usually located inside the surrounding roof stratum. In some gasification experiments
the thermocouples Nos. 16-20 are located in the upper part of the coal seam and the Nos. 21-25 in the
roof stratum.

IV.2.1.3 Task 3.1 c Construction of the pressurized reactor
The general flowsheet of the semi-batch pilot scale plant is shown in fig.20. The experimental
vertical gasifier is composed of a steel enclosure (external diameter
e
= 560 mm) lined with a thick
layer of heat-insulating material and able to operate at pressures in the range {1 P

45 bars}; a
cylindrical reactor in refractory stainless steel (external diameter
e
= 200 mm; useful reaction length
L
u
= 1.6 m) makes up its internal part.
A regulation system ensures the control of the differential pressure between internal and external
parts of the reactor. This experimental device configuration prevents any part from being submitted to
simultaneous influence of pressure and temperature; the internal reactor resisting to very high
temperatures is not submitted to any pressure gradient, while the external enclosure designed for high
pressure operation has an equilibrium temperature of around 50C.
The process input gases stored in high pressure containers (excluding air and steam) enter the
reactor through pressure and flow controllers. Compressed air and high pressure steam are produced
from an air compressor and a steam generator. Carbon dioxide stored in supercritical state is vaporized
and overheated with an electrical resistor-powered water/gas heat exchanger. Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) and
nitrogen (N
2
) can be used as fluids to maintain the pressure in the outer chamber, while the inner
chamber can be fed from the top to the bottom with compatible gas mixtures of oxygen (O
2
), air
(O
2
+N
2
), steam (H
2
O
vap
), hydrogen (H
2
), CO
2
and N
2
. A pyrometric sensor inserted from the top cover
of the reactor allows measurement of temperature profiles within the reactor.
The reactor contains mixtures of coal and corundum { Al
2
O
3
} (to fill up voids between coal
grains), or designed cylindrical coal blocks.
Coal sizes in the range {10-20 mm} and corundum sizes in the range {1-1.5 mm} are used for the
majority of tests. The coal processed has the next ultimate analysis (on dry basis): C : 70.6%w, H :
4.4%w, N : 1.78%w, S : 0.66%w, O : 8.36%w, ash : 14.2%w.
To resist very high temperatures and aggressive conditions in the reactor, the refractory steel wall
of the reactor is protected by a crown of fine corundum with small permeability and thickness of 15
mm. A ceramic rod containing the thermocouples is centred inside the reactor, while thermocouples are
also located on the enclosure for safety aspects. A slotted wooden disk set on the upper coal layer is
used as ignition source owing to energy given out by an electrical resistor.
The lower part of the reactor is followed by a series of shells & tubes (internal diameter
i,gas in tube

= 20 mm ; internal diameter
i,jacket
= 64 mm ; length L = 1 m) cooled with circulating oil itself cooled
by circulating water ; water and tars condensed from the gas phase are then collected in a liquid
separator, extracted and analyzed.
The particulates as well as other liquids and tars leaving the condenser are trapped from the pre-
cooled product gas inside filters and through a frozen CO
2
cooler. An aqueous absorption unit
neutralizes the acid gases, before continuous sampling and analysis of cleaned gas inside an integrated
mobile FTIR module. Finally, the produced gas is burnt inside a post-combustor.
Main adaptations to the process pilot plant were mainly linked with high exhaust flows
encountered during scheduled dynamic high pressure experiments:
- Reactors and external enclosures pressure controllers to cope with dynamic high-pressure
experiments, notably the exhaust parallel-mounted valves with large operational range;
- New exhaust mass-flow fouling-resistant measurement apparatus suitable for the whole output gas
range.
49

Besides, new process control devices and analytical tools have been identified and implemented
inside the facility, by focussing on the accuracy of their output data to be validated.

Fig. 20. HUGE semi-batch process pilot plants flowsheet
50

IV.2.1.4 Task 3.1 d Preparation of the stand for water migration study
Test stand was designed of working pressure of 1MPa (10 bar). It was essential to ensure
filtration of water through samples (brown coal, silt or other geological formations) and to prevent
migration of tested materials particles to eluate.
Primary element of the test stand was a thick-walled pipe with the following parameters:

inside
- 65 mm,
outside
= 85 mm, L- 1050 mm with steel plugs on top and at the bottom. These
plugs were equipped with O-ring type sealing. The pipe formed water container.
Plug on the top was equipped with a connector supplying gas (CO
2
, air, nitrogen)
Sampler filled with tested material was screwed in bottom plug
Typical hydraulic elements were utilized as a sampler
Valve enabling regulation of velocity of eluate outflow was installed under the sampler. Eluate
was collected in a receiver and then tested.
All elements of the test stand in contact with water were covered with epidian resin.

Structural solutions of pollution migration test stand

Sampler filling method

Fig. 21. Test stand and method of sampler filling

Tests aiming at verification of assumption of correctness were conducted after test stand
building. Conducted tests on tightness pointed out that assumed methods of particular elements
insulation was correct. Decrease in pressure inside the unit did not exceed the level of 0.3 MPa (3 bar)
for 24 hours. There were also trials in which this decrease was 0.1 MPa (1 bar) for 24 hours. Elution
obtained during trials was clear and highly saturated with CO
2.
Foam in the receiver proved that the
level of CO
2
saturation was high.

Methodology
Constant ratio of volume of utilized water to mass of tested sample was kept (expressed in dry
condition) during tests. The ratio was 1800 ml of water per 10 grams of a sample. Materials for tests
consisted of samples of lignite, raw silt, as well as residues after gasification (mixture of ungasified
coal, ash and slag) and silt from the post-reaction zone, collected and secured after lignite gasification
trial.
Tests on heavy metals migration consisted in rinsing of tested sample with distilled water or
natural underground water containing heavy metals. PH reaction, electrical conductivity and cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, iron and manganese content were defined. Tests connected with
possible presence of phenols in samples from lignite gasification process were as follows:
experiment 1 was conducted on selected material with utilization of distilled water
51

experiment 2 was conducted on a new sample of the same material but in the first stage of this
experiment water with phenols was utilized and in the second stage distilled water was used.
This method enabled determination of phenols content in samples after lignite gasification
process as well as its possible influence on natural environment in a zone of reactor of in-situ lignite
gasification.

IV.2.1.5 Task 3.1 e Preparation of the stand for strata samples study
Tests on strata behavior were performed in a servo-controlled hydraulic press with gradually
applied load to a sample type ED-40. The speed of load increment was 1 kN/s.. Testing apparatus
consisted of a muffle furnace able to heat samples up to 1200C and a servo controlled hydraulic press.
Testing apparatus and a sample assembly is presented in fig.22. Sample assembly consisted of base
plate, sample, isolation blanket and alumina ceramic plates. Isolation blanket was used to reduce
cooling effect during the test and for safety reasons.

Fig. 22. Scheme of a testing apparatus, sample assembly and servo controlled hydraulic system of a press.

IV.2.1.6 Task 3.2 Preparation of coal blocks from various coal seams

Hard coal samples - Coal Mine Bielszowice
Geological conditions
The samples of hard coal were taken in ventilation and transport inclined drift of the coal bed
510. The drift is located in the north part of the Central coal bed Zabrze-Bielszowice. The Central part
is located at the area of OG Zabrze I and partially at OG Bielszowice III.
The boundaries for the Central part are created by:
- fault Saara of throw from 100 to 210 from the north
- fault Klodnicki of throw from 220 to 500 from the south.
The geological structures of the region constitute quaternary and productive Carboniferous formations.
The overburden is of quaternary formations such as: sand, gravel and sand, clay, silt and dusts of glacial
and fluvioglacial origin. The thickness of the quaternary formations in the Central part is from 20 to 150
m. The thickness in the sampling area is between 25-40 m.
52

The productive Carboniferous is in the form of namur B+C represented by Ruda measures and
saddle series. The thickness of Ruda measures is up to 590 m and of the saddle series 180 m.
In the north part of the Central part (the area of the inclined drift) there are several faults of the
directions from SW-NE to NW-SE and throws from 1.0 to 14.0 m.
In the region of the ventilation and transport drift the measures strike is of the direction from
WSW-ENE to WNW-ESE and the dip of bed is of 6
o
-12
o
. The coal bed 510 thickness in the ventilation
and transport inclined drift is between 6.50 and 7.60m. The floor of the coal bed 510 in the inclined
drift is at the depth of - 502 to - 524 m above see level. It is formed by mudstone and locally by
arenaceous shale. The roof of the coal bed 510 is composed of mudstone and higher, of arenaceous
shale and sandstone. No sedimentary dislocations were reported in the area of the inclined drift. In the
south part of the said heading, there is a fault of the direction SW-NW and throw of about 3.0 m. The
thickness of the coal bed 510 is 8.80 m. In the floor there is 1.55 mudstone. In the roof of the coal bed
the following formations are reported: 1.65 arenaceous shale, 3.90 sandstone 6.70, arenaceous shale,
2.40 mudstone, 3.60 coal bed 507.
In the said area the production was performed in coal beds 501, 502, 506 and 507. The
distances between the coal bed 510 and the above mentioned ones are: 140 m, 126 m, 45 m and 10-12
m, respectively.
The area of the inclined drift is of the first degree of water hazard. Strength parameters of the
strata measured with the penetrometer are of the following values: Roof R
caverage
- 43.31 (MPa), Coal -
R
caverage
- 17.66 (MPa), Floor - R
caverage
- 38.46 (MPa)
Coal Sampling
Taking into account the requirements in terms of compactness and bedding related to the
expected dimensions of coal samples, the face of the inclined drift 510 was selected for coal sampling.
Coal samples were taken in two stages:
During the maintenance shift, with a heading machine AM-50 coal samples of the external
dimensions of 3.2 x 0.7 x 0.6m and 1.8 x 0.6 x 0.5m were taken. Then the sample of the external
dimensions of 2.8 x 0.6 x 0.5m was taken. The samples were removed from the face using heading
machine AM-50, servomotor and chains. Next, the samples were transported by a creeper to the
material station, loaded on platforms, transported to the shaft and to the surface.

Hard coal samples - Coal Mine Piast
Geological conditions
The samples of hard coal were taken in the coal bed 209, wall 725, located at the part VIII,
south-west part of the OG Bierun I.
The geological structures of the region constitute quaternary and productive Carboniferous
formations. he overburden is of quaternary deposits such as: silts and sandy silts of the thickness from
3 to 8 m. The productive Carboniferous is of Westfal D (Libiaz measures) and Westfal C (Laziska
measures). The boundaries for the part VIII are created by:
- fault Rownoleznikowy h of about 40 m from the north
- fault Gorecki h of about 65.0 m from the west
- fault Bijasowicki h of about 120.0 m from the south
- fault of throw h = 4.040.0 m from the east.
In the north part of the said area there are several smaller faults of the dominant directions
NEE-SWW and throws from 1.0 to 3.0 m and faults of the direction NNW-SSE and throws of about 1.0
to 1.6 m. In the south-west part there is a fault of a direction NNE-SSW and throws of about 3.0 m and
about 1.5 m as well as two faults of the direction SE-NW and throws 11.0 m and 8.0 4.5 m.
In the area of wall 725 the floor of the coal bed is at the depth of -270 to -360 m. The coal bed
thickness is from 4.85 to 6.5 m with 0.05-0.1 m of interlayer of refractory shale. In the sampling area
the coal bed thickness was 6.5 m and the interlayer of refractory shale was of 0.08 m. The coal bed
slope is 0-6
0
(NW). In the wall forms of discontinuous tectonics, flexural strains and erosive structures
(upper strata in main) are observed. They are of the direction W-E, and the balk are of 1.8 m of the
upper strata.
In the structures changes in roof conditions are observed and direct roof in a form of mudstone
to sandstone.
In the roof of the coal bed 209, part VIII mudstone of the thickness of 1.5 5.1 m, sandstone of
the thickness 48.0 61.0 m and mudstone of the thickness 0.0 0.8 m is observed. Next, there is a coal
bed 208 of the thickness of 1.6 2.0 m with interlayer of mudstone (0.5 1.2 m) between coal beds
53

208/1 and 208/2. Higher there is a layer of sandstone (83.0 86.0 m) and coal bed 207, partially
exploited, of the thickness of about 3.0 m with 0.0 1.2 shale.
In the floor of the coal bed 209 from 1.0 to 1.9 m there is mudstone and below about 36.0
41.0 m - sandstone. Lower, there is a coal bed 210/1 of the thickness 0.6 1.2 m. Under the coal bed
210/1 2.0 3.0 - mudstone is observed and below it 5.5 5.7 m - sandstone. Lower, a measure of a coal
bed 210/2-3 of the thickness 5.5 5.7 m is observed under it - sandstone.
Strength parameters of the strata measured with the penetrometer PO-27 are of the following
values: Roof R
c
- 19.4 (MPa), Coal - R
c
22.1 (MPa), Floor - R
c
- 22.1 (MPa) (coal - lower layer of the
coal bed 209).
Coal Sampling
Taking into account the requirements in terms of coal samples dimensions, the wall 725 was
selected for coal sampling.
Coal samples were taken in two stages:
During the technological break coal samples of the external dimensions of 3.5 x 1.3 x 0.55 m, 1.8
x 0.8 x 0.8 m and 1.55 x 0.8 x 0.8 m were taken. The samples were collected with a heading
machine from the area of crossing of the wall 725 with a rise gallery II 1259.
Samples of the external dimensions of: 1.0 x 0.8 x 0.5 m, 1.2 x 0.9 x 0.65 m, 1.3 x 1.1 x 0.6 m
and 1.35 x 1.2 x 0.55 m were collected from the area located about 10 m from the rise gallery II
1259.
The samples were removed using servomotor and chains. Next, the samples were transported
from the rise gallery II 1259 by a creeper to the material station, loaded on platforms, transported to the
shaft and to the surface.

Lignite samples - PGE KWB Belchatow S.A.
The lignite blocks have been prepared by PGE KWB Belchatow S.A. which is the largest
opencast in Poland and one of the biggest in Europe. The area of the internal dumping ground and
Belchatow field workings is about 3200 ha. The average annual lignite output in the last years was
about 35 million tones, which constitutes over 50% of the total lignite production in Poland. The
characteristics of KWB Belchatow lignite is given in tables 2-3.

Table 2. Basic qualitative parameters of a coal seam in a coal bed
Average value
Parameter
balance coal bed
coal bed of the
characteristics
incompatible with
the balance criteria
industrial resources
Seam thickness in m 55.1 12.4 -
Overburden thickness including interlayer in
m
24.3 26.6 -
A
r
w % 11.9 21.8 10.9
A
d
w % 23.0 40.0 21.3
Q
i
r
= W
t
r
= 50 % in kJ/kg 8 370 5 881 8 561
Q
i
r
= W
t
r
in kJ/kg 7 579 5 846 7 712
S
t
r
in % 0.73 1.12 0.68
S
t
d
in % 1.57 2.24 1.52
W
t
r
in % 53.27 53.01 53.60

Table 3. Qualitative parameters of lignite in 2008
No. Parameter Unit min max average
1 Heating value kJ/kg 7445 9172 8413
2 Moisture % 49 56.6 53.7
3 Ash % 4.1 14.7 7.9
4 Sulphur % 0.27 0.97 0.53
5 Volatiles (dry, ash-free basis) % 52.7 57.8 54.9
6 Sand % 0.2 6.0 0.5
7 Calcium carbonate % 0.5 1.9 1.0

54

IV.2.1.7 Task 3.3 Tests carried out

IV.2.1.7.1 Evaluation of texture properties and mass transport parameters through the coal and strata

Ex-situ tests
Series of the semi-pilot plant experiments in experimental mine Barbara in Mikolow were
performed with hard coal as well as with lignite samples. Textural properties of tested samples were
evaluated by using standard textural techniques based on high-pressure mercury porosimetry), physical
adsorption of nitrogen at 77 K and helium pycnometry. Home-made chromatographic setup based on
the single pellet string arrangement (SPSC) was utilized for the evaluation of the mass transport
parameters from diffusion measurements.
Hard coal test
Both texture and transport characteristics were evaluated through hard coal and strata samples
in virgin state and after gasification process. The samples of strata were being taken from the bottom
and from the top of ex-situ reactor as well as the coal samples came from the gasification channel and
the layer of gasified coal. In addition, sample 1 represents stratum and sample 8 coal before the
gasification process. Textural properties of samples 18 are summarized in table 4.

Table 4 Textural properties of samples
Sample
S
BET

(m
2
/g)
S
meso
(m
2
/g)
V
micro

(mm
3
/g )
Intrusion
volume
(cm
3
/g)
He

(g/cm
3
)
Hg

(g/cm
3
)

(- )
1 14.3 7.7 3.8 0.39 2.76 1.15 0.58
2 1.19 0.35 2.68 1.20 0.55
3 12.2 7.2 2.9 0.46 2.37 0.95 0.60
4 10.6 5.9 2.6 0.54 2.33 0.97 0.58
5 18.8 11.5 4.3 0.66 2.63 0.91 0.65
6 12.4 7.3 3.0 0.43 2.12 0.92 0.57
7 10.0 5.1 2.6 0.45 2.00 0.91 0.55
7a 0.45 1.96 0.92 0.53
8 1.9 1.5 0.3 0.68 1.37 0.65 0.52
8a 0.71 1.35 0.64 0.52
* reproducibility of coal samples before and after the burning process (88a, 77a)

Lignite test
The 6 samples from the lignite gasification experiment in ex-situ reactor were taken from the
upper part of reactor (zone of low temperature) and gasification zone. Sample 7 is the raw lignite used
in the experiment; it is used as standard for comparison with burning-experiment samples. Table 5
shows the total pore volume (given by the net mercury intrusion volume) and porosities, , of samples.

Table 5. Total pore volume (given by the net mercury intrusion volume) and porosities of samples.
Sample
Mercury intrusion
volume (cm
3
/g)
He

(g/cm
3
)
Hg

(g/cm
3
)

()
1 0.3608 1.548 0.970 0.37
2 0.2204 1.505 1.067 0.29
3 0.1835 1.485 1.222 0.18
4 0.1749 1.490 1.161 0.22
5 0.3088 1.499 1.008 0.33
6 0.3014 1.516 1.020 0.33
7 0.4612 1.541 0.819 0.47

As can be seen the results are scattered (probably also due to the inhomogenities of samples I
and II). Roughly it could be stated that samples 1 and 6 from the upper part with low temperatures show
higher porosities and mercury intrusion volumes. Sample 4 with the lowest porosity corresponds to the
zone of medium temperatures. Results for samples 2, 3 and 5 from the gasification zone (cavern) lie
somewhere in between.

55

In-situ tests
In-situ tests were carried out directly in underground reactor in Mikolow. Before gasification
process initialization series of both the surrounding strata rocks and the coal seam was sampled. Strata
rock sample was taken from overburden near the interface between strata and coal seam, on the other
hand clay sample filled space between the individual coal layers. Textural properties of tested samples
from georeactor Barbara are summarized in table 6.

Table 6 Textural properties of strata and coal samples
Sample
S
BET

(m
2
/g)
S
meso
(m
2
/g)
V
micro

(mm
3
/g )
Intrusion
volume
(cm
3
/g)
He

(g/cm
3
)
Hg

(g/cm
3
)

()
Strata 1 11.1 7.5 2.1 0.03 2.66 2.40 0.10
Strata 2 8.8 6.1 1.6 0.03 2.63 2.23 0.15
Coal 1 13.5 8.2 2.9 0.12 1.84 1.43 0.22
Coal 2 15.5 9.6 3.3 0.14 1.48 1.47 0.006
Clay 12.9 8.5 2.8 0.18 2.63 1.75 0.33

It can be clearly seen that porosity as well as total pore volume of the strata rock samples are very
low. These results are consistent with permeation measurement carried out in a permeation cell;
permeation flux through strata samples was not detected. Coal 1 revealed higher porosity than Coal 2,
however evaluated permeability for both coal samples was negligible low, too. The highest porosity and
mercury intrusion volume was observed in the clay sample, however clay forms very thin layers inside
the coal seam practically without any impact on overall permeability properties of the coal seam and
surrounding strata.
Table 7 summarized the basic texture information of the strata samples taken from Barbara
mine in March 2008 (denoted by extension 2008) and the same strata samples taken in April 2010
(denoted by 2010) immediately before ex-situ tests. All samples were collected at approximately the
same place inside georeactor, even though the PSD results reveal certain differences.

Table 7 Basic texture information
Sample
S
BET

(m
2
/g)
S
meso
(m
2
/g)
V
micro

(mm
3
/g )
Intrusion
volume
(cm
3
/g)
He

(g/cm
3
)
Hg

(g/cm
3
)

()
Strata 1/2008 15.6 8.9 3.6 0.05 2.63 2.30 0.13
Strata 2/2008 10.4 6.5 2.3 0.06 2.67 2.34 0.13
Strata 1/2010 11.1 7.5 2.1 0.03 2.66 2.40 0.10
Strata 2/2010 8.8 6.1 1.6 0.03 2.63 2.23 0.15

IV.2.1.7.2 Experiments in the ex-situ UCG reactor
The main role of the ex-situ experiments was simulating the real underground conditions on the
surface so that various underground gasification concepts for the PDU scale UCG trials could be
verified. In particular, the aims of the surface experiments were as follows:
1. Investigation of the HUGE dynamic geo reactor concept at near ambient pressure gasification
process by:
changing the partial pressures of the gaseous reagents (air, OEA, oxygen, steam) aiming at
hydrogen-rich product gas
investigation of the temperature swing (TSA) and pressure swing (PSA) process concept and its
impact on the gasification as well as on the behaviour of surrounding strata
dynamic injection of various gaseous media and identification of conditions conducive to the
hydrogen rich gas production.
2. Specifying the influence of the oxidants flow rates on the coal seam gasification process and the
final product gas composition.
3. Investigation of the influence of the different surrounding strata rocks on the product gas
composition and possibilities of its practical application.
4. Investigation of physical changes in the rocks (slates, sandstones) depending on temperature
profiles and applied gasification media collecting data for the process modelling.
5. Attainment of some abilities, crucial for the PDU scale gasification experiments, e.g.:
56

ignition the coal seam and initiation of the gasification process
assembling different technical arrangements for oxidants injection and product gas
collection, purification and determination of the chemical composition.
During the period from November 2008 till June 2010 six surface UCG simulations were carried
out three on hard coal and three on lignite samples. General information on the ex-situ UCG trials is
presented in table 8.

Table 8. General information on ex-situ UCG trials
Gasification process assumptions
No.
UCG process concept
to be verified
Simulated coal
seam
Surrounding
strata
Gasificat
ion
agents
Experimen
t date/
duration
1
Oxygen and steam gasification process in a
continuous body of hard coal according to the
channel underground gasification concept.
The main aims of the experiment were as
follows:
Verification of different coal ignition
techniques
Assessment of adopted concept of the
ex-situ unit and reliability of applied
technical solutions
Evaluation of changes in the product gas
composition depending on the kind of
gasification agent and dynamics of its
supply
Specifying conditions for the hydrogen-
rich gas production.
Coal seam
prepared from
two coal blocks
extracted from
the Coal Mine
Piast

Dimensions of
the gasified
seam:
~0.5 x 0.5 x
2.50 m
(~850 kg of
coal)
Roof and
bottom strata
layers created
from ground
slates and their
wet
consolidation
inside the
reactor space.

Strata layer
thickness:
0.25 0.4 m
Oxygen,
stem
(oxygen
supplied
individua
lly and in
a mixture
with
steam)
18-21
November
2008

Duration:
66.5 h
2
Oxygen and steam gasification process in a
continuous body of hard coal according to the
channel underground gasification concept
during a two-stage gasification process.
The main aim of the experiment was to
examine the concept of the hydrogen-rich gas
production in a two-stage gasification
process, supplying oxygen and steam
alternately, stage by stage.
Coal seam
prepared from
two coal blocks
extracted from
the Coal Mine
Bielszowice

Dimensions of
the gasified
seam:
~0.5 x 0.5 x
2.50 m
(~850 kg of
coal)
Roof and
bottom strata
layers created
from ground
slates and their
wet
consolidation
inside the
reactor space.

Strata layer
thickness:
0.25 0.4 m
Oxygen
and stem
supplied
separatel
y, stage
by stage
13-19 May
2009

Duration:
170 h
3
Oxygen gasification process in a continuous
body of lignite according to the channel
underground gasification concept.
evaluate possibilities and conditions of
hydrogen-rich gas production through
underground gasification of lignite with
oxygen as gasifying medium

Coal seam
prepared from
lignite supplied
from Opencast
Mine Bechatw

Dimensions of
the seam to be
gasified: ~0.7 x
0.7 x 2.40 m

Roof and
bottom strata
layers were
created from
sand naturally
occurring
around the
natural seam

Strata layer
thickness:
0.25 0.30 m
Oxygen
15-17 July
2009

Duration:
55 h
4
Air and OEA - Oxygen Enriched Air
gasification process in a continuous body of
lignite according to the channel underground
gasification concept.
evaluate possibilities and conditions of
hydrogen-rich gas production through
underground gasification of lignite with air
Coal seam
prepared from
lignite supplied
from Opencast
Mine Bechatw

Dimensions of
the seam to be
Roof and
bottom strata
layers were
created from
sand naturally
occurring
around the
natural seam.
Air and
OEA
supplied
individua
lly
19-21
August
2009

Duration:
50 h
57

Gasification process assumptions
No.
UCG process concept
to be verified
Simulated coal
seam
Surrounding
strata
Gasificat
ion
agents
Experimen
t date/
duration
and OEA as gasification media. gasified: ~0.7 x
0.7 x 2.50 m

Strata layer
thickness:
0.25 0.30 m
5
Air/(OEA - Oxygen Enriched Air) and steam
gasification process in a continuous body of
hard coal according to the channel
underground gasification concept. The main
aims of the experiments were as follows:
Evaluation of possibilities and
conditions of hydrogen-rich gas
production through underground
gasification of hard coal with air and
OEA as gasifying media
Examining the concept of hydrogen-rich
gas production in a two-stage
gasification process, supplying air or
OEA and steam alternately, stage by
stage

Coal seam
prepared from
two coal blocks
extracted from
the Coal Mine
Bielszowice

Dimensions of
the gasified
seam:
~0.45 x 0.5 x
2.50 m
(~850 kg of
coal)
Roof and
bottom strata
layers created
from ground
slates and their
wet
consolidation
inside the
reactor space

Strata layer
thickness:
0.25 0.4 m
Air/OEA
and stem
supplied
separatel
y, stage
by stage
26-29
October
2009

Duration:
73 h
6
Oxygen gasification of lignite seam with the
application of calcium oxide (CaO) as a CO
2

sorbent - sorption enhanced gasification
process. The main aims of the experiments
were as follows:
Evaluation of changes in the product gas
composition by employing the CO
2

chemisorber
Evaluation of feasibility of the sorption
enhanced coal gasification process in
the real underground conditions
Coal seam
prepared from
lignite supplied
from Opencast
Mine Bechatw

Dimensions of
the seam to be
gasified: ~0.7 x
0.7 x 2.50 m

Roof and
bottom strata
layers were
created from
sand naturally
occurring
around the
natural seam

Strata layer
thickness:
0.25 0.30 m
Oxygen
21-23 June
2009

Duration:
50 h

Characteristics of coals used in the experiments is presented in table 9.

Table 9. Physicochemical characteristics of coals used in ex-situ experiments
Value Standard
Parameter Hard coal
Piast
Hard coal
Bielszowice
Lignite
Bechatw

As received
Total moisture W
t
r
(%)

1.8 1.6 53.0 PN-G-04511:1980
Ash A
t
r
(%) 1.3 2.2 4.7
PN-G-04560:1998;
PN-ISO 1171:2002
Total sulphur S
t
r
(%) 0.3 0.3 1.1
PN-G-04584:2001;
PN-ISO 334:1997
Calorific value Q
i
r
(kJ/kg) 33,287 33,370 9,316 PN-G-04513:1981
Analytical
Moisture W
a
(%) 1.8 1.5 14.5 PN-G-04511:1980
Ash
a
(%) 1.3 2.2 8.6
PN-G-04560:1998;
PN-ISO 1171:2002
Volatiles V
a
(%) 28.4 32.4 42.8
PN-G-04516:1998;
PN ISO-562:2000
Heat of combustion Q
s
a

(kJ/kg)
34,474 34,572 20,161
PN-G-04513:1981
Calorific value Q
i
a
(kJ/kg) 33,287 33,399 18,955 PN-G-04513:1981
Total sulfur S
a
(%) 0.3 0.3 1.9
PN-G-04584:2001;
PN-ISO 334:1997
Carbon C
t
a
(%) 84.6 83.8 50.7 PN-G-04571:1998
58

Hydrogen H
t
a
(%) 5.2 4.9 3.9 PN-G-04571:1998
Nitrogen N
a
(%) 1.1 1.2 1.3 PN-G-04571:1998
Fixed carbon (%)* 68.5 63.9 34.1 PN-G-04516:1998
*
fixed carbon calculated as 100 W
a
A
a
V
a

The detailed descriptions of the experiments carried out and the results obtained were presented
in the particular periodical HUGE Technical Reports. In the following subsections, a concise report on
the relevant results as well as conclusions drawn from the ex-situ trials on coals of different ranks is
presented. The results were crucial for the designing, construction and running the PDU scale reactor in
Barbara Mine in Mikow.

IV.2.1.7.2.1 Hard coal gasification

Oxygen/steam gasification
Aiming at production of the hydrogen-rich product gas, in the first out of three ex-situ HUGE
simulations carried out on hard coal, different gasification concepts were to be verified. One concept
was paid a special attention, i.e. so-called two-stage gasification process, in which oxygen and steam
are supplied to the reaction zone separately in alternate stages. After about 44 hours from the beginning
of the oxygen/steam blown gasification, a gradual deterioration of the gas quality was observed (fig.23),
the decision was made to increase the oxygen supply rate in order to improve the thermal state in the
coal seam.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 1 2 3 6 12 17 21 24 27 29 31 34 39 44 47 51 53 55 57 60 62 66
Time, h
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

%
v
o
l
.
CO2 C2H6 H2 O2 N2 CH4 CO

Fig. 23. Changes in the product gas composition during the first UCG simulation

It resulted in a considerable improvement of the gas composition. The maximum hydrogen
value obtained in this period of the experiment was 38.32 %. Nevertheless, the gas quality was being
improved but only in short periods of time. The thermal state of the reactor was going down quite fast
and a periodical increase in oxygen supply rate were necessary in order to heat up the coal seam again.
As a consequence, the so called two-stage gasification process was tested and gas with the hydrogen
content ranging from about 25.56 to 56.51% with the average hydrogen concentration 50.61 % was
obtained during the next 18 hours of gasification process. The average gas compositions obtained
within the particular time periods are presented in table 10.

59

Table 10. Average product gas composition in the particular stages of the first ex-situ experiment, %
Time H
2
, CO CO
2
CH
4
C
2
H
6

0 -44 23.09 25.46 42.51 3.23 0.02
44-52 28.17 25.02 36.09 5.53 0.01
52-72 50.61 12.35 14.25 15.11 0.39

The preliminary results were promising, but to some extent incomplete, due to a relatively short
time of the experiment and gaps in experimental data, mainly regarding temperature profiles and gas
production rates. Hence, the more detailed studies were necessary.
As a consequence, the main aim of the second hard coal gasification experiment was more
detailed investigation of the two-stage cyclic gasification process for identification of conditions
favourable for hydrogen-rich gas production in the extended time and with upgraded monitoring
procedure. Similar experiments are known from literature, with the difference consisting in use of air in
the latter ones as the main gasification agent.
In the first stage of the experiment (heating up) only oxygen was supplied to the reactor and the main
reaction occurring was coal combustion:
CO O C
2(g) (g) 2
+ H = -394.9 kJ/mol
CO 2 O 2C
(g) (g) 2
+ H = -226.0 kJ/mol

In the subsequent stage the oxygen supply was stopped and only steam was fed to the reaction
zone. When steam met the incandescent coal layers, the predominant chemical reaction was the highly
endothermic water-gas reaction:.

H CO O H C
2(g) (g) (g) 2
+ + H = +135.7 kJ/mol

In the reaction of water decomposition, which is essential for the steam stage, the significant
amounts of combustible gases were produced, i.e. mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Heat released
during the coal oxidation in the first stage was gradually consumed within the course of the steam stage.
Decline in temperature below 700C was the signal for ceasing the steam supply and resuming the
oxygen blast.An average time of the oxygen stage was 2 hours. The steam gasification stage usually
lasted 1.5 hour.
During the whole experiment, due to the applied two-stage gasification approach, periodical
increases and decreases in temperatures inside the reactor were observed. According to the gasification
theory, the temperature above 1000 C 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 C slowed down the reaction
considerably.
Fig. 24. Temperature fluctuations in the coal seam during the UCG simulation due to the two-stage gasification
approach
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
o
C
]
Time [h]
0,2 m of seam length
60

For these reasons, special attention was paid to keeping parameters appropriate for the
production of gas with a high content of the combustible components, mainly hydrogen. The oxygen
stage was therefore continued to achieve temperatures in the range between 1100 and 1200C. During
the subsequent steam stage, the temperatures were constantly monitored in order to ensure proper
conditions for the water decomposition reaction. The steam stage was continued to the point, in which
the temperature in the oxidation zone dropped to about 700 - 800 C. An example of the temperature
fluctuations is presented in fig.24.
As can be seen from table 11, average gas compositions obtained in particular time periods of
the experiment, both for the oxygen and steam stage, differ significantly.

Table 11. Average gas compositions obtained in the particular time periods of the experiment
Period
Time
interval
(h)
Oxygen stage, %
vol
Steam stage, %
vol

H
2
CO CO
2
CH
4
C
2
H
6
H
2
CO CO
2
CH
4
C
2
H
6

Initiation 0 10 32.77 36.35 24.67 1.78 - - - - - -
Basic
gasification
10 125 15.28 17.58 56.96 3.05 0.09 53.77 15.78 14.40 9.77 0.24
Termination
125
165
5.43 5.63 78.66 1.02 0.04 41.41 9.46 29.45 5.54 0.19

This is mainly due to the different thermal states of the reactor achieved in the respective time
periods. Changes in the geometry of the reaction zone as the gasification process proceeded also affected
the product gas parameters. The most favourable gasification conditions in the simulated UCG reactor
were attained between around the 50
th
and 120
th
hour from the commencement of the process, since the
amount of energy accumulated was relatively high and the reaction area well developed. Example of
temperature profiles inside the reactor is shown in figs.26-27.
The average heating value of the product gas obtained during the initiation process, i.e. from the
ignition to the 10
th
h was 8.8 MJ/m
3
, as can be calculated from the figures presented in table 9. The
heating value of the gaseous mixture obtained during the essential gasification period, i.e. between the
10
th
and 125
th
h starting from the ignition point, for the oxygen gasification stage (heating up) was 5.1
MJ/m
3
. Steam gasification process resulted in a product gas of 11.5 MJ/m
3
heating value. These results
represent the averaged values for all the oxygen and steam stages in this period. Exemplary changes in
the composition of the product gas during this period of experiment are presented in fig.25 (CO
2
and H
2

maxima areas indicate the oxygen and steam gasification stages respectively).

0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
3
6
,0
0
3
6
,5
0
3
7
,0
0
3
7
,5
0
3
8
,0
0
3
8
,5
0
3
9
,0
0
3
9
,5
0
4
0
,0
0
4
0
,5
0
4
1
,0
0
4
1
,8
3
4
2
,2
5
4
2
,8
3
4
3
,5
8
4
4
,0
8
4
4
,5
8
4
5
,0
0
4
5
,3
3
4
5
,5
8
4
6
,0
8
4
6
,5
8
4
7
,0
8
4
7
,5
8
4
8
,0
8
4
8
,5
8
4
9
,0
8
4
9
,5
8
5
0
,0
8
Time, h
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

%
CO2 H2 N2 CH4 CO

Fig. 25. Changes in the composition of the product gas between 36 and 50 hours of the experiment

61

0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
S
e
a
m

l
e
n
g
h
t
,

m
0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8 1
S e a m h e i g h t , m
R
o
o
f

s
t
r
a
t
a

0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
S
e
a
m

l
e
n
g
h
t
,

m
0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8 1
0 1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
R
o
o
f

s
t
r
a
t
a

a
)

b
)

F
i
g
.

2
6
.

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
e
a
m

o
f

h
a
r
d

c
o
a
l

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
w
o
-
s
t
a
g
e

U
C
G

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
:

o
x
y
g
e
n

s
t
a
g
e

a
t

8
0

h
o
u
r
s

(
a
)
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

s
t
e
a
m

s
t
a
g
e

a
t

8
2

h
o
u
r
s

(
b
)

0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
S
e
a
m

l
e
n
g
t
h
,

m
0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8 1
R
o
o
f

s
t
r
a
t
a

0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
S
e
a
m

l
e
n
g
t
h
,

m
0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8 1
0 1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
6
0
0
7
0
0
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
R
o
o
f

s
t
r
a
t
a

a
)

b
)

F
i
g
.

2
7
.

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

i
n

t
h
e

s
e
a
m

o
f

h
a
r
d

c
o
a
l

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

t
w
o
-
s
t
a
g
e

U
C
G

s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
:

o
x
y
g
e
n

s
t
a
g
e

a
t

1
2
0

h
o
u
r
s

(
a
)
,

a
n
d

t
h
e

f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g

s
t
e
a
m

s
t
a
g
e

a
t

1
2
2

h
o
u
r
s

(
b
)

62

The maximum hydrogen content obtained in this period was 62.9 %
vol
, which demonstrates that
appropriate thermal conditions for the steam decomposition reaction as well as for the intensification of
the pyrolysis phenomena were achieved.
The average gas production rate in this gasification period was 7.8 m
3
/h for the oxygen stage and
9.2 m
3
/h for the steam gasification process. For this essential period of the experiment more detailed
analyses of oxygen and steam stages were performed. The kinetics of changes in the composition of the
main gaseous products and heating value during an exemplary oxygen stage is shown in fig.28. Since
oxygen supply rate was increased by 1 m
3
/h in half-hour increments, a corresponding graph (fig.29)
presents changes in the heating value and the gas production rate depending on the oxygen supply rate.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 30 60 90 120
Time, min
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

g
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

%
v
o
l
0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
H
e
a
t
i
n
g

v
a
l
u
e
,

M
J
/
m
3
CO2 H2 CH4 CO Heating value

Fig. 28. Kinetics of the main gaseous products and heating value during an exemplary oxygen stage

2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
CO
2
H
2
CH
4
CO
Gas production rate
Oxygen supply rate, Nm
3
/h
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

%
v
o
l
.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
G
a
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

N
m
3
/
h

Fig. 29. Changes in gas composition and gas production rate depending on the oxygen supply rate

During the analyzed oxygen stage the heating value of the produced gas decreased from 6.0
MJ/m
3
obtained in the beginning of the stage with the oxygen blast 2 m
3
/h, to about 3.8 MJ/m
3
by the
end of the stage and oxygen supply rate 5 m
3
/h. Simultaneously, the average gas production rate
increased from about 4.5 to 10.3 m
3
per hour. Increase in the oxygen blast resulted in a significant
temperature growth recorded directly in the oxidation zone (fig.30).
A characteristic observation specific for the steam gasification stage was the significant gradual
increase in CH
4
content in the product gas. In order to investigate, in detail, the kinetics of this
phenomenon, the gas sampling intervals were shortened to 5 minutes. Concentration of CH
4
increased
63

from 1.56%
vol.
in the beginning of the steam gasification stage to 13.47 %
vol.
by the end of the steam
stage. The methane concentration increased due to the exothermic reaction of hydrogenation as the
temperature inside the reactor dropped. On the other hand hydrogen concentration decreased only
slightly as the water shift reaction occurred. This reasoning is confirmed by the gradual decrease in the
carbon monoxide content (fig.31).
66,5 67,0 67,5 68,0 68,5 69,0 69,5
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
4 m
3
/h O
2
5 m
3
/h O
2
3 m
3
/h O
2
Start steam gasification
Start oxygen gasification 2 m
3
/h O
2
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
o
C
]
Time [h]

0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
118,00 118,08 118,17 118,25 118,33 118,42 118,58 118,67 118,75 118,83 118,92 119,00 119,08 119,17 119,25 119,33 119,42 119,50 119,58
Time,h
C
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
,

%
H2 CH4 CO CO2
Fig. 30. Temperature in the oxidation zone during
the oxygen stage (time between 66.5
th
and 69.5
th
h
of the experiment
Fig. 31. Kinetics of CH4 production on the background
of H2, CO and CO2 in exemplary steam stage

In the course of the steam gasification stage, the CO
2
concentration remained at quite a stable
level, close to 20 % during the whole stage, since its concentration increased as the result of the water
shift reaction.
During the course of the steam stage, a gradual drop in temperatures in the gasification zone was
observed, which favoured the exothermic reaction of coal hydrogenation leading to methane production
(fig.32).
118,0 118,2 118,4 118,6 118,8 119,0 119,2 119,4 119,6 119,8 120,0
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Start steam cycle
Start oxygen cycle
Oxygen cycle
Temperature profiles 0.4 m above gasification channel
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
o
C
]
Time [h]

Fig. 32. Temperature in the steam gasification zone during the steam stage(time between 118
th
and 120
th
h of the
experiment)

The next period between the 125
th
and 165
th
h can be considered as the termination of the
process, since the gas quality gradually deteriorated and the work of the reactor was becoming unstable.
In this period of the experiment the heating value of the produced gaseous mixture on the average was
1.7 MJ/m for all oxygen stages. For the steam stage gas of the average heating value 7.8 MJ/m
3
was
produced, which represents a decrease by about 32% when compared with the basic period of the
gasification experiment. The obtained production rates were 5.6 m
3
/h and 8.4 m
3
/h for the oxygen and
steam gasification stages respectively.

64

Air and OEA (Oxygen Enriched Air) gasification of hard coal
The fifth ex-situ experiment concerned simulation of hard coal underground gasification using
air and oxygen enriched air (OEA) as gasification media. In this trial the coal sample deriving from the
Coalmine Bielszowice was used. After ignition of the coal seam, for the first about 20 hours pure
oxygen was supplied to the reaction zone with the rate in the range between 2 and 3 m
3
/h in order to
heat up the coal seam. The percentage composition of gaseous product mixture, the average gas
compositions as well as the calorific value of the product gas in the hard coal seam oxygen gasification
phase are presented in fig.33 a) and in table 12, respectively. Average gas production rates in relation to
gasification agents supply rates and its ratios are given in fig.34. The produced gas was composed
mainly of combustible components such as CO and H
2
(33.2 and 31.5 %vol., respectively) and the non-
combustible one, CO
2
, amounted to 27.9% vol. This resulted in relatively high calorific value (8.6
MJ/m
3
).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
.
5
0
4
.
5
0
5
.
0
0
6
.
0
0
7
.
0
0
8
.
0
0
9
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
1
2
.
0
0
1
3
.
0
0
1
4
.
0
0
1
5
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
0
1
7
.
0
0
1
8
.
0
0
1
9
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
a)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
.
5
0
4
.
5
0
5
.
0
0
6
.
0
0
7
.
0
0
8
.
0
0
9
.
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
1
2
.
0
0
1
3
.
0
0
1
4
.
0
0
1
5
.
0
0
1
6
.
0
0
1
7
.
0
0
1
8
.
0
0
1
9
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
a)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2
0
.
5
0
2
0
.
7
5
2
1
.
0
0
2
1
.
2
5
2
1
.
5
0
2
1
.
7
5
2
2
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
b)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2
0
.
5
0
2
0
.
7
5
2
1
.
0
0
2
1
.
2
5
2
1
.
5
0
2
1
.
7
5
2
2
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
b)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2
2
.
5
0
2
2
.
7
5
2
3
.
0
0
2
3
.
2
5
2
3
.
5
0
2
3
.
7
5
2
4
.
0
0
2
4
.
2
5
2
4
.
5
0
2
4
.
7
5
2
5
.
0
0
2
5
.
2
5
2
5
.
5
0
2
5
.
7
5
2
6
.
0
0
2
6
.
5
0
2
6
.
7
5
2
7
.
0
0
2
7
.
2
5
2
8
.
0
0
2
8
.
5
0
2
9
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
c)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2
2
.
5
0
2
2
.
7
5
2
3
.
0
0
2
3
.
2
5
2
3
.
5
0
2
3
.
7
5
2
4
.
0
0
2
4
.
2
5
2
4
.
5
0
2
4
.
7
5
2
5
.
0
0
2
5
.
2
5
2
5
.
5
0
2
5
.
7
5
2
6
.
0
0
2
6
.
5
0
2
6
.
7
5
2
7
.
0
0
2
7
.
2
5
2
8
.
0
0
2
8
.
5
0
2
9
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
c)

Fig. 33. Percentage composition of gaseous product mixture during a) oxygen, b) air and c) OEA hard coal seam
gasification phases

Table 12. Average gas compositions and calorific values of the product gas in oxygen, air and OEA gasification of
hard coal seam
Gasificatio
n agent
Time (h)
CO
2

%
vol.

C
2
H
6
%
vol.

H
2

%
vol.

O
2

%
vol.

N
2

%
vol.

CH
4

%
vol.

CO
%
vol.

H
2
S
%
vol.

Calorific
value
(MJ/m
3
)
Oxygen 1-19.5 27.9 0.13 31.5 0.71 3.2 3.2 33.2 0.20 8.58
Air
19.5-
21.75
14.7 0.09 11.8 0.67 59.6 2.8 10.3 0.08 3.63
OEA 21.75-29 23 0.09 18.7 0.60 35.9 4.2 17.3 0.18 5.74
65

0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
2,7 4,2 5,2 6,2 7,2 8,2 9,2 10,2 10,7 11,7 12,7 19,2 19,6 20,0 20,4 21,1 21,7 22,8 24,6 25,4 25,9 27,7
Time, h
G
a
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
3
/
h
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
S
u
p
p
l
y

o
f

o
x
i
d
a
n
t
s
,

m
3
/
h
Gas production, m3/h Supply of oxidants, m3/h

Fig. 34. Changes in gas production and gasification agents supply rates during hard coal gasification experiment

After 19 hours of the oxygen gasification stage the gasification agent was switched from pure
oxygen to air. The hard coal air gasification stage lasted for 2 hours and 15 minutes (between about 19
hours and 30 minutes and 21 hours and 45 minutes of the experiment). An initial air supply rate was 6
Nm
3
/h but a rapid decrease in the temperature inside the oxidation/gasification zone after about 1 hour
was observed. Therefore the air stream was increased to 8 Nm
3
/h. It did not, however, change the
decreasing trend in the temperature in the reaction zone (see fig.35), which may be explained by high
concentration of non-combustible components in product gas (59.8%vol. of nitrogen and 14.7%vol. of
CO
2
) and decrease in H
2
and CO contents (11.8%vol. and 10.3%vol., respectively). It was reflected in
the calorific value of product gas of 3.63 MJ/m
3
. The gasification agent was then enriched with oxygen
due to a decrease in temperatures in the reaction zone and low quality of product gas. The oxygen
content in the gasification agent was being gradually increased in order to produce heat necessary for
sustaining the gasification process (see fig.35). Finally, an optimum air to oxygen ratio was found to be
3:2 by volume. The air/oxygen gasification stage was continued for the next 7 hours and 15 minutes. In
further course of the experiment, the gasification process was carried out in alternate stages of heating
up with air/oxygen and steam gasification, until 73 hour of process duration. In the air/oxygen
gasification stage the temperature observed in the coal seam about 0.2 m above the gasification channel
increased to the level of 850
o
C. This increase in temperatures was reflected in the composition of
product gas. The concentration of non-combustible components decreased from about 74.3% vol. in the
air gasification stage to 58.9% vol. in the OEA gasification stage with a significant increase in H
2
and
CO concentrations of 18.7 and 17.3% vol., respectively. In consequence the calorific value of product
gas also increased and reached an average value of 5.74 MJ/m
3
, higher than observed in the lignite
seam OEA gasification phase.
a) b)

IV.2.1.7.2.2 Lignite gasification

Fig. 35. Changes in temperature during air gasification of hard coal: (a) gasification channel, (b) coal seam 0.2 m
above gasification channel
19,0 19,5 20,0 20,5 21,0 21,5 22,0 22,5 23,0 23,5 24,0 24,5 25,0
200
400
600
800
410
O
C
620
O
C
Start air, 7 m
3
/h
O2/air= 1:5
O2/air= 2:5
O2/air= 3:1
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
O
C
]
Time, h
0.2 m from inlet (th.6)
19,0 19,5 20,0 20,5 21,0 21,5 22,0 22,5 23,0 23,5 24,0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1200
O
C
470
O
C
O2/air= 3:1
O2/air= 2:5 O2/air= 1:5
Start air, 7 m
3
/h
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
o
C
]
Time, h
66

IV.2.1.7.2.2 Lignite gasification

In July 2009, the HUGE team carried out the third ex-situ gasification experiment. In this trial a
lignite samples were gasified for the first time in the project. The process intentions were similar to
these in the second hard coal trial: alternate supply of oxygen and steam to produce the hydrogen-rich
product gas in the two stage gasification process. In fact, such experimental assumptions did not work
out in the case of lignite gasification and were modified during the experiment. In another experiment
(August 2009), the air-blown UCG simulation of lignite was tested. In the following subchapters results
of the two gasification experiments are presented.

Oxygen gasification of lignite
The experiment initially was planned to be divided into three phases, following the
preliminary one, consisting in ignition of the lignite seam. In the second phase oxygen was supplied to
the reaction zone in order to heat up the coal seam and to accumulate sufficient amount of thermal
energy before supplying steam to the reactor. In the third phase of the experiment oxygen was replaced
by steam and the steam gasification test was performed. During the fourth phase the optimization of
oxidant supply rates was to be performed based on the direct observations of the product gas
composition and the temperature profiles in the different layers of the coal seam.
The study of lignite gasification in the ex-situ reactor was oriented on the selection of optimal
conditions for hydrogen-rich gas production with pure oxygen (second and fourth phase) and steam
(third phase) as oxidants. The experiment lasted about 54 hours.
Fig.36 a) presents the percentage composition of the gaseous products mixture during the
ignition stage. The average composition of the product gas in the ignition phase is presented in table 13.
The ignition process lasted about 3 hours. Long ignition time stems from high moisture content in the
lignite and the resulting difficulties in achieving appropriate temperatures.

Table 13. Average composition of the product gas during experiment
Gas composition (%
vol.
) Phase of lignite gasification
experiment
Time
interval
(hours)
H
2
CO
2
CO CH
4
C
2
H
6
H
2
S O
2
N
2

1 Ignition 0-3 3.3 62.7 2.8 0.33 0 0 10.2 20.6
2 The first oxygen
gasification stage
3-21.5 16.1 64.9 7.0 1.3 0.02 0.10 3.6 7.0
3 Steam gasification 21.5-22.25 46.3 39.5 4.8 4.4 0.26 1.8 0.58 2.4
4 The second oxygen
gasification stage
22.25-54 26.4 54.0 9.9 2.7 0.08 0.53 1.8 4.7

The second phase of the experiment lasted 18.5 hours during which the lignite seam was heated
up. The oxygen supply rates varied from 2 to 6 m
3
/h. The quality of gas obtained in the first oxygen
gasification stage may seem to be rather unsatisfactory (see fig.36 b)). The main goal of this stage of
experiment was, however, only to heat up the coal seam and to accumulate sufficient amount of thermal
energy before the steam gasification phase. In table 13 the average product gas composition is
presented. The most abundant was CO
2
(64.9% vol
.
) and the hydrogen content reached 16.1% vol. The
average gas production rate was 15.8 m
3
/h, whereas the calculated calorific value of gas produced in
this stage equaled 3.1 MJ/m
3
. During the oxygen gasification stage the temperatures reached 800-900
0
C
mainly due to the dominant role of highly exothermic reaction of coal combustion. The relatively high,
for oxygen gasification stage, hydrogen concentration could be explained by the high moisture content
in the lignite.

67

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0,23 0,52 0,88 1,18 1,60 1,87 2,63
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 0,23 0,52 0,88 1,18 1,60 1,87 2,63
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
a)

0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
3
,
5
5
5
,
6
2
7
,
4
2
9
,
5
8
1
1
,
5
8
1
3
,
5
8
1
5
,
5
5
1
7
,
6
3
1
8
,
7
2
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
,
0
8
2
0
,
9
8
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
b)
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
3
,
5
5
5
,
6
2
7
,
4
2
9
,
5
8
1
1
,
5
8
1
3
,
5
8
1
5
,
5
5
1
7
,
6
3
1
8
,
7
2
1
9
,
2
0
2
0
,
0
8
2
0
,
9
8
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
b)

0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
21,83 22,10 22,27
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
c)
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
21,83 22,10 22,27
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
c)

0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
2
2
,
4
8
2
5
,
0
5
2
7
,
5
3
3
0
,
0
5
3
3
,
5
8
3
8
,
5
8
4
2
,
0
2
4
4
,
3
2
4
5
,
5
2
4
8
,
5
5
5
1
,
0
0
5
2
,
6
3
5
4
,
9
3
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
d)
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
2
2
,
4
8
2
5
,
0
5
2
7
,
5
3
3
0
,
0
5
3
3
,
5
8
3
8
,
5
8
4
2
,
0
2
4
4
,
3
2
4
5
,
5
2
4
8
,
5
5
5
1
,
0
0
5
2
,
6
3
5
4
,
9
3
Time [hours]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
d)

Fig. 36. Changes in the product gas composition in the particular stages of the gasification

In the third phase of the experiment oxygen was replaced with steam with a flow rate of 4.2
m
3
/h. After switching the oxygen to steam the quality of gas increased significantly (see fig.36 c) and
table 13). The average hydrogen content increased to 46.3% vol. and the calorific value of the product
gas to 7.8 MJ/m
3
. In this stage the dominant role of highly endothermic reaction of steam
decomposition was observed. A rapid decrease in temperature levels and in the amount of the produced
gas was also observed. The temperature in the reaction zone fell from about 1000
0
C to 350
0
C, whereas
68

the average gas production rate decreased from 15.8 m
3
/h to about 3.2 m
3
/h (see fig.37). Due to a
gradual deterioration of the process parameters and the risk of its termination, the steam was switched
off after 45 minutes and only the oxygen was supplied to the reaction zone with a flow rate of 5 m
3
/h.
The drastic decrease in temperature can be explained by the lack of exothermic reaction of oxygen with
carbon. Under the conditions of stoichiometric excess of water in the system, a great amount of thermal
energy was consumed for water evaporation leading to a considerable heat loss.
In order to sustain the gasification process in the fourth phase of the experiment, increase in
oxygen supply as well as complete switch off of the steam supply were necessary. However, quality of
the gas produced in such conditions during the second oxygen gasification stage was rather low (see
fig.36 d) and table 13). The hydrogen content in the product gas decreased to 26.4% vol. and the
calorific value to 5.2 MJ/m
3
. A strong correlation between the amount of the produced gas and the
oxygen supply rates can be observed (see fig.37). In table 14 the average product gas composition and
the production rates of particular gas components in 54 hours of the experiment duration are presented.
The average calorific values of gas produced in the whole experiments equalled 4.5 MJ/m
3
.

0,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1
5
,
9
2
1
6
,
3
3
1
6
,
7
5
1
8
,
0
8
1
9
,
0
0
1
9
,
7
5
2
0
,
1
7
2
0
,
3
5
2
0
,
7
2
2
0
,
8
8
2
1
,
3
3
2
1
,
8
3
2
2
,
6
7
2
3
,
0
8
2
3
,
4
7
2
4
,
0
0
2
4
,
3
3
2
4
,
9
2
2
5
,
5
8
4
0
,
2
5
4
0
,
8
2
4
1
,
9
5
4
2
,
3
3
4
4
,
1
0
4
4
,
9
2
4
6
,
3
3
4
8
,
0
0
4
9
,
3
3
5
0
,
4
2
5
1
,
4
2
5
2
,
5
8
5
3
,
5
8
Time [hours]
a
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Gas production rate, m3/hour Oxygen supply rate, m3/hour
G
a
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
[
m
3
/
h
o
u
r
]
O
x
y
g
e
n
s
u
p
p
l
y
r
a
t
e
[
m
3
/
h
o
u
r
]
0,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1
5
,
9
2
1
6
,
3
3
1
6
,
7
5
1
8
,
0
8
1
9
,
0
0
1
9
,
7
5
2
0
,
1
7
2
0
,
3
5
2
0
,
7
2
2
0
,
8
8
2
1
,
3
3
2
1
,
8
3
2
2
,
6
7
2
3
,
0
8
2
3
,
4
7
2
4
,
0
0
2
4
,
3
3
2
4
,
9
2
2
5
,
5
8
4
0
,
2
5
4
0
,
8
2
4
1
,
9
5
4
2
,
3
3
4
4
,
1
0
4
4
,
9
2
4
6
,
3
3
4
8
,
0
0
4
9
,
3
3
5
0
,
4
2
5
1
,
4
2
5
2
,
5
8
5
3
,
5
8
Time [hours]
a
a
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Gas production rate, m3/hour Oxygen supply rate, m3/hour
G
a
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
e
[
m
3
/
h
o
u
r
]
O
x
y
g
e
n
s
u
p
p
l
y
r
a
t
e
[
m
3
/
h
o
u
r
]

Fig. 37. Interdependence between the gas production rates and gasifying agent, oxygen, supply rates during the
gasification of lignite

Table 14. The average gas composition (% vol.) and the production rates of particular gas components (m
3
/h)
obtained in 54 hours of the experiment
Parameter CO
2
H
2
CO CH
4
O
2
N
2
C
2
H
6
H
2
S
Gas composition (%
vol.
) 56.9 22.7 8.5 2.2 2.8 6.4 0.07 0.43
Production rates (m
3
/h) 9.5 3.8 1.4 0.37 0.47 1.1 0.01 0.07
Calorific value (MJ/m
3
) 4.5

Air and OEA (Oxygen Enriched Air) lignite gasification
For the first 18 hours of the experiment on air and OEA gasification of lignite only pure oxygen
was supplied to the reaction zone with a rate of 4 5 m
3
/h in order to heat up the coal seam and to
accumulate sufficient amount of thermal energy for the development of gasification process. The
percentage composition of the gaseous product mixture, the average gas compositions as well as the
calorific value of the product gas in the lignite seam oxygen gasification phase are presented in fig.38 a)
and in table 15, respectively.
The quality of gas obtained in the oxygen lignite gasification stage (2-18.5 hours) was
relatively low. It was composed mainly of CO
2
(63.6% vol
.
) and hydrogen (19.2% vol.). The average
calorific value of product gas at this stage equalled 3.49 MJ/m
3
. The main goal of this part of the
experiment was, however, to heat up the coal steam before the air gasification stage. The parameter
crucial in terms of making a decision about switching the gasification agent from pure oxygen to air
was the temperature.
69

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2
.
0
0
2
.
5
0
4
.
5
0
6
.
5
0
8
.
5
0
9
.
5
0
1
0
.
5
0
1
1
.
5
0
1
2
.
5
0
1
3
.
5
0
1
4
.
5
0
1
5
.
5
0
1
6
.
5
0
1
7
.
5
0
1
8
.
5
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
a)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2
.
0
0
2
.
5
0
4
.
5
0
6
.
5
0
8
.
5
0
9
.
5
0
1
0
.
5
0
1
1
.
5
0
1
2
.
5
0
1
3
.
5
0
1
4
.
5
0
1
5
.
5
0
1
6
.
5
0
1
7
.
5
0
1
8
.
5
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
a)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
9
.
2
5
1
9
.
5
0
1
9
.
7
5
2
0
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
b)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
9
.
2
5
1
9
.
5
0
1
9
.
7
5
2
0
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
b)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2
0
.
2
5
2
1
.
5
0
2
3
.
2
5
2
4
.
0
0
2
5
.
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
.
0
0
3
6
.
0
0
3
9
.
0
0
4
2
.
0
0
4
3
.
2
5
4
4
.
5
0
4
6
.
0
0
4
7
.
5
0
4
9
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
c)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2
0
.
2
5
2
1
.
5
0
2
3
.
2
5
2
4
.
0
0
2
5
.
0
0
2
7
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
0
3
3
.
0
0
3
6
.
0
0
3
9
.
0
0
4
2
.
0
0
4
3
.
2
5
4
4
.
5
0
4
6
.
0
0
4
7
.
5
0
4
9
.
0
0
Time [h]
G
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

[
%
v
o
l
.
]
CO2
C2H6
H2
O2
N2
CH4
CO
H2S
c)

Fig. 38. Percentage composition of gaseous product mixture during a) oxygen, b) air and c) oxygen-enriched air
lignite seam gasification phases

Table 15. Average gas composition and calorific values of product gas in oxygen, air and OEA gasification of
lignite seam
Gasification
agent

Time (h)
CO
2

%
vol.

C
2
H
6
%
vol.

H
2
%
vol.
O
2
%
vol.
N
2
%
vol.

CH
4

%
vol.

CO
%
vol.

H
2
S
%
vol.

Calori
fic
value
(MJ/
m
3
0
Oxygen 2-18.5 63.6 0.05 19.2 2.0 7.0 1.7 6.2 0.34 3.49
Air 18.5-20 12.1 0.01 2.5 5.7 78.2 0.17 1.3 0.02 0.49
OEA 20-50 49.4 0.07 23.1 1.47 16.4 2.3 6.3 0.42 4,18

The temperature profiles obtained are presented in fig.39. During the initial part of the oxygen
gasification stage the maximum temperatures in the gasification channel reached 850
o
C. The
temperature of lignite oxygen gasification in the reaction zone was relatively low which can be
explained by high moisture content in the tested lignite (53%vol.) resulting in consumption of great
amount of thermal energy for water evaporation leading to a considerable heat loss. On the other hand,
70

relatively high amount of hydrogen in the product gas may be attributed to the reaction of lignite steam
reforming preferred at temperatures above 675
o
C.
a)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Seam length, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
S
e
a
m

h
e
i
g
h
t
,

m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Roof strata

b)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Seam length, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
S
e
a
m

h
e
i
g
h
t
,

m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Roof strata

c)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Seam length, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
S
e
a
m

h
e
i
g
h
t
,

m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Roof strata

d)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Seam length, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
S
e
a
m

h
e
i
g
h
t
,

m
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Roof strata

Fig. 39. Temperature profiles in the seam of lignite during the UCG simulation: (a) oxygen gasification at 17.5
hours, (b) air gasification at 18.5 hours, (c) OEA gasification at 30 hours, and (d) OEA gasification at 45 hours

Subsequently, a gasification agent was switched from pure oxygen to air. The air gasification
stage was performed between about 18.5 and 20 hour of the experiment. An initial air supply rate was 4
m
3
/h, however due to a rapid decrease in the temperature inside the oxidation/gasification zone (see
fig.39 b)), the air stream was increased to 6 m
3
/h. As can be seen in fig.40, it did not change the
decreasing trend in the temperature and therefore it was decided to enrich the air with oxygen. A drastic
decrease in temperature in the reaction zone from 800 and 860
o
C (thermocouples nos 12 and 13) to
430
o
C could lead to termination of the gasification process. The product gas composed mainly of non-
combustible components such as nitrogen (78.2%vol.) and CO
2
(12.1%vol.), whereas H
2
content
rapidly decreased from 19.2%vol. in the oxygen gasification phase to 2.5%vol. in the air gasification
phase, which may result from a lack of the steam reforming reaction at lower temperature. The
71

calculated calorific value of product gas equaled 0.49 MJ/m
3
and was far too low in terms of gas
utilization.
Due to a considerable cooling of the reactor again the pure oxygen blast was necessary (4m
3
/h).
After switching the oxygen on the temperature recorded in the reaction zone increased immediately and
reached the level of about 800
o
C (thermocouple nos 12 and 13).

Fig. 40. Temperature profile 0.4 m above gasification channel recorded between 17.5 and 20 hour of the lignite
seam gasification experiment

In the fourth gasification stage, of about 30 hours duration, an initial air to oxygen volume ratio
was 1:4 and the optimal one was found to be 2:4. Changes in the product gas composition are presented
in fig.39 c) and gas production rates in relation to gasification agents supply rates and its ratios are
given in fig.41.

0,0
2,0
4,0
6,0
8,0
10,0
12,0
14,0
16,0
18,0
20,0
17,83 18,08 21,83 24,32 26,25 28,25 30,25 40,83 41,65 41,92 46,72 47,97
Time, h
G
a
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

r
a
t
e
,

m
3
/
h
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
S
u
p
p
l
y

o
f

o
x
i
d
a
n
t
s
,

m
3
/
h
Gas production, m3/h Supply of oxidants, m3/h
O2/air
= 0:4
O2/air
= 0:6
O2/air
= 2:2
O2/air
= 4:1
O2/air
= 4:1
O2/air
= 4:1
O2/air
= 4:1
O2/air
= 4:0
O2/air
= 5:0
O2/air
= 4:0
O2/air
= 4:2
O2/air
= 4:2

Fig. 41. Changes in gas production and gasification agents supply rates during lignite gasification experiment

An average concentration of non-combustible components (nitrogen and CO
2
) decreased from
90.3% vol. in the lignite air gasification stage to 65.8% vol. in the oxygen-enriched air gasification
stage. Moreover in OEA gasification stage higher concentration of hydrogen in product gas (23.1%
vol.) than in the oxygen gasification stage (19.2% vol.) was also observed.

Conclusions
The conducted ex-situ experiments proved the feasibility of producing a hydrogen-rich gas
applying the underground coal gasification technique. The two-stage gasification approach, in which the
oxygen and steam are supplied alternately, in stages, can considerably increase the concentration and
amounts of hydrogen in the product gas during the steam gasification stage. The average hydrogen
17,5 18,0 18,5 19,0 19,5 20,0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
860
O
C
430
O
C
O
2
, 4 m
3
/h
Air/O
2
=4/2 m
3
/h
Air, 6 m
3
/h
Air, 4 m
3
/h
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
o
C
]
Time [h]
0.2 m of the seam length (th.11)
72

concentration in the product gas after achieving stable work of the reactor was 15.28 % with the
maximum of 54.4% during the oxygen stage (heating up). The average hydrogen concentration during
the steam stage was 53.77 % with the maximum of 62.90%.
In order to ensure appropriate conditions for the production of a hydrogen-rich gas, continuous
monitoring of the temperature in the respective gasification stages is necessary. The oxygen stage
therefore should be continued until temperatures in the range between 1100 and 1200 C have been
achieved, since the temperatures above 1000 C indicates a high-speed diffusion of the water
decomposition reaction on the coal, constituting the fundamental process for the production of the
hydrogen rich gas in the steam stage. On the other hand, the steam stage was continued to the point, in
which the temperature in the oxidation zone decreased to about 700 - 800 C. In such conditions the
reaction of water decomposition over incandescent coal slowed down considerably.
An interesting message can be derived from the ex-situ experiment no.2, in which the cyclic
character of the changes in the composition of product gas in response to the repeated shifts of
gasification parameters is clearly evident. This suggests that the dynamic way of conducting the UCG
processes could potentially become the effective method for producing a good quality, hydrogen-rich
product stream. It should, however, be noticed that each time before the production of a gas fraction of
high heating value, a very lean product, rich in carbon dioxide, is produced. These low value fractions
need to be removed from the system and utilized separately if one wants to fully exploit the benefits of
this swing operation approach. Moreover, one could expect that dynamics of the UCG process will be
highly related to the scale and geometry of the gasification space and will be substantially changing with
the progress of the gasification. In order to utilise the potential benefits of the dynamic UCG operations a
program of extensive experimental and modelling work under true in situ conditions is required.
Because of the high moisture content in the lignite (about 53%), in order to achieve appropriate
thermal conditions inside the reactor (temperatures above 800
0
C), a relatively high rate of oxygen supply
was required; in these conditions the product gas was poor in combustible gases like hydrogen with the
CO
2
content exceeding 55%. That relatively low temperature can be attributed to the heat loss for water
evaporation from lignite. Replacement of oxygen with steam led to a significant increase in the product
gas quality (average hydrogen content of 46.3% vol.), however, due to a high stoichiometric excess of
water in the lignite, addition of steam resulted in a rapid decrease in temperature and amount of the gas
production rate, leading to gradual extinguishing of the reacting system. The moisture content is hence
one of the crucial parameters determining gasification conditions, quality and amounts of the products as
well as suitability of lignite for the in-situ gasification. Further studies are needed to find the way to
create higher temperatures in the reaction zone by e.g. optimization of reactor geometry by increasing
the ratio of lignite volume to the surface area of the georeactor
Also weak mechanical structure of lignite and the solid products of its thermal decomposition
are very important for the process and may result in the breaking of the seam roof, as it happened in the
conducted experiment.
The results generate two major recommendations for underground works. The most crucial one
is the necessity of development of the effective tools for moisture control and/or water flow in the lignite
bed and through the surrounding stratum. Otherwise, the optimal wetness of the in-situ lignite production
of valuable gas should be ensured. The lignite deposits are rather shallowly buried and therefore
gasification is possible only at low pressures. This makes keeping water by carrying out the gasification
at high pressures impossible and thus the drainage should be provided during the preparatory works in
order to control the moisture content in the lignite seam. The second recommendation for in-situ lignite
gasification consists in selection of large thickness lignite bed as the dispersion of the heat increases with
the surface of contact area between the reaction space and the adjoining stratum. Moreover, in the large
lignite deposits the dispersed heat of combustion/gasification is consumed for its thermal pre-treatment,
to increase the temperature of lignite before gasification, for partial degasification pyrolysis and for
evaporation of water to steam to be consumed in-site. During gasification of thin lignite layers a
substantial amount of the reaction heat is instead irreversibly lost by heating up the surroundings.
The experiments with air and oxygen enriched air (OEA) carried out on the simulated lignite and
hard coal seams demonstrated that gasification with the application of air as a sole gasification agent is
difficult for a rapid decrease in temperatures leading to a drop in the gas production rates, deterioration
of its quality and, finally, cessation of gasification reactions. In both cases addition of oxygen was
necessary to sustain the gasification process.
73

In lignite gasification an optimum volume air/O
2
ratio was 2:4. Under such conditions, the
average H
2
content in the produced gas was 23.1% vol. and CO of 6.3% vol. and a calorific value
equaled 4.18 MJ/m
3
.
An optimum air/O
2
ratio in hard coal gasification was 3:2. The average hydrogen content in the
product gas was 18.7% vol. and CO 17.3% vol. Gas calorific value was 5.74 MJ/m
3
.
The differences in the temperature profiles between the lignite and the hard coal seams, which
are decisive for the quality of produced gas, may be explained by the inherent differences between
lignite and hard coal. The crucial one is the moisture content in coal samples. In the lignite oxygen
gasification more energy was consumed for water evaporation and lower temperatures were recorded in
the reaction zone. As a consequence, problems with reaching of appropriate thermal conditions inside
the reactor were observed during lignite seam gasification experiment. It is likely that lignite with lower
moisture content will give better results.
Another difference between the lignite and the hard coal blocks were observed in terms of the
ultimate analyses of the tested coal samples. The hard coal block was characterized by higher carbon
content and the progress of the reaction zone was slower than in lignite gasification. This explains
significant differences in terms of the temperature observed during the lignite and the hard coal tests.
The optimal air/O
2
ratio during the OEA gasification is strongly related to the reactor geometry, which
should be taken into account in the future experiments.

IV.2.1.7.3 Tests in the pressurized reactor
Process conditions
Coal gasification is a high temperature autothermal process which combines heat-balanced
endothermal reactions (in the case of hydrogen-targeted gasification with H
2
O
vap
as gasifying agent) and
exothermal ones (using O
2
strictly needed to provide the heat for endothermal reactions by burning part
of coal).
Experimentations in ISSPs process-pilot facility were performed to get the basic knowledge
essential for a substantial progress in the implementation of this new coal processing way. The focus
was set on the verification of the specific production of valuable species (CO, H
2,
CH
4
) as a function of
pressure P
reac
and reaction zone temperature T
reac
within the reactor.
Each gasification test begins with an ignition and preheating period, during which only air is fed.
When the front temperature reaches about 900C, steam can be progressively injected in the reactor and
the gasification itself starts up. Then, steam and oxygen inputs are adjusted to the desired operating
conditions. Pressure is controlled by the output valves.
During the experimentations, the temperature trend inside the reactor is measured by 7 successive
thermocouples in the pyrometric probe placed along the reactor axis. The successive variations of
temperature show the displacement of the hot reaction front (see fig.42).
Experimental conditions have also been applied on solid and gaseous mixtures in dynamic mode:
the pressure was varied slowly around P
ref
with P = 5 bars to determine the gasifier qualitative
behavior (by comparison with pressure swing in UCG processing linked with modification of gasified
coal seams porosity and surrounding rocks strata permeability).
Bulky coal blocks similar to those ones found within coal layers have been adapted to the
diameter of the central core of the pilot reactor and tested with the steady-state operating conditions
close to those encountered with coal grains.
The tested parameters can thus be summarized as follows:
- semi-batch reactor load : W
coal grains
(20 - 25 kg) , W
corundum
(20 - 35 kg)
- steady-state P
ref
(15 - 35 bars)
- steam flow Q
in,H2Ovap
(15 - 40 kg/hr)
- reaction zone T
reac
(850 - 1050 C), controlled by O
2
flow Q
in,O2
(2 - 5 Nm
3
/hr)
- dynamic P (37.5 5 bars).
Fig.43 shows the online evolution of syngas compounds during a test.

Process data treatment
Modelling developments aimed at perfecting a generalized treatment of process data directly
usable in performance analysis of gasification pilot experimentations.
They were checked on previous tests performed on coal samples by using O
2
and H
2
O
vap
as
gasifying agents, under various operating conditions.
74

Z=0 mm
Z=395 mm
Z=545 mm
Z=695 mm
Z=845 mm
Z=995 mm
Z=1150 mm 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
T
r
e
a
c
(
C
)
Gasifier T profile
7 T probes along Z
reac
C { 0 = top : 1150 = bottom } mm

Fig. 42. Reactor front temperature profile during coal grains steam gasification

Output gas volumetric flow and concentration (CO,CO
2
,H
2
,CH
4
) as well as temperature profiles
along the reactor height were recorded continuously during a time period (generally 1h) corresponding
to nearly steady operational gasification conditions. At the end of each experiment, global residual
solids (mainly bottom ash) and single condensed mixture of {water + tars} were sampled, weighted and
chemically characterized by quantitative analysis. All these measured data were then reconciled in order
to find the most likely variables values satisfying global process materials balances and allowing to
deduce gasification performance indicators. In the present validation, during the pre-test phase
corresponding to the temperature increase inside the reactor, coal was assumed to be only combusted
(no output gas content available; production of CO
2
and N
2
by consuming all O
2
from air feeding).

Produced gas composition
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
15:59:02 16:13:26 16:27:50 16:42:14 16:56:38 17:11:02
time
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
Cell2_CH4 %
Cell2_CO %
Cell2_CO2 %
Cell2_H2O %
Cell2_O2 %
Cell2_H2 %

Fig. 43. Produced gas composition during coal grains steam gasification

75

Gasification process performance evaluation
a) Steady-state steam gasification trials on coal grains
The next three graphs perfectly illustrate the relations between: on the one hand, the specific
global gas production q
sp,tot,out
(i.e. related to the weight unit of coal consumed in the reactor) (see
fig.44) and the targeted valuable gases contents resulting from the gasification (f
V,H2
, f
V,CH4
) (see figs.45
and 46) and on the other hand between two parameters characterizing the process: the pressure, P, and
the ratio of the consumed weigths of steam and carbon of coal {Q
H2O
/W
CCoal
}
consumed
.

Fig. 44. Steam gasification of coal grains : Specific global production of output gas

Fig. 45. Steam gasification of coal grains: H
2
volumetric content in output gas

Fig. 46.Steam gasification of coal grains: CH
4
volumetric content in output gas
76

b) Dynamic steam gasification trials on coal grains
From the very limited tests achieved under a swinging pressure, some qualitative considerations
can be pointed out :
the response of the continuous gas analyzers was time shifted ( 10) but followed satisfactorily
the varying pressure with a similar oscillating evolution, although the manual control of the
pressure-reducer at the analyzer input didnt provide an enough stable value required for a correct
quantitative running of the analyzer ;
the screening of the coal grains after reaction indicated that the core of the grains was
transformed and hence that the conversion was higher than when operating at constant pressure ;
this statement is likely to be linked with the prime influence of the alternately increasing and
decreasing pressure on the reacting gas diffusion respectively inside and outside the solid porous
structure.

c) Steady-state trial on coal blocks
Cylindrical coal blocks designed from rough coal issued from a Polish coalmine were gasified
in the semi-batch pilot reactor under a pressure of 15 bars with steam and oxygen as gasifying reactants.
In fig.47 the input and output variables (i.e. weights, volumetric flows, volumetric and weight
fractions) are summarized to be validated through reconciliated materials balances.
During the trial, the wall of the inner tubular reactor was broken due to very hot spots generated in the
confined reacting enclosure, and consequently nitrogen was introduced from the external enclosure
through the reactor wall in the processing medium.
Fig.48 shows the front temperature profile observed during the test running.

Fig. 47.Experimental conditions applied during coal blocks steam gasification phase

77

Fig. 48.Front temperature profile inside reactor during coal blocks steam gasification

In fig.49 related to synthesis gas analysis, the sequential phases are well identified:
start up with process gas appearing (decreasing O
2
content and increasing CO
2
content)
gasification ( 1h) producing H
2
-rich ( 25%v) synthesis gas
reactor tube breaking and gas analysis stop ( 30), indicated by fictitious level of gas
compositions
analysis recovering, with CO
2
peak assigned to combustion of hydrocarbonaceous materials
(residual solid and tars) accumulated in bottom of reactor.

Fig. 49. Reactor output synthesis gas composition during coal blocks steam gasification

At the time of reactor opening, the ceramic case containing temperature probes was broken and
coal blocks were disaggregated into grains of various shapes and sizes.

Conclusions
The steam gasification of coal grains is dedicated to the production of valuable gases, mainly H
2

and CH
4
. All the O
2
introduced being consumed and the gasification temperature kept higher than
78

875C, some guidance of the process can be highlighted from the impact of essential parameters well
suited to the performance assessment:
the pressure increase reduces the specific global production of output gas and its H
2
content ;
reversely, it improves the corresponding CH
4
content;
the specific ratio (q
H2O(steam)
/w
C
)
consumed
exhibits an optimal value close to 0.6 kg/kg generating the
highest specific production of output gas and related H
2
content ; but it doesnt influence
significantly the CH
4
content, which is principally raised by a high hydrogen partial pressure
inside the reactor;
By combining the specific productions of CH
4
and H
2
, the optimal sum (see fig.50) is
independent of the pressure and is close to 1.5 Nm
3
/kg coal consumed for a specific ratio
(q
H2O(steam)
/w
C
)
consumed
near 0.64 kg/kg.

Fig. 50. Steam gasification of coal grains: (CH
4
+H
2
) specific production in output gas

The computed specific performance factors related to coal blocks are lower than the
corresponding ones dedicated to coal grains in similar gasification conditions, essentially because of the
lesser external specific surface area of the coal blocks.

IV.2.1.7.4 Water migration study
Within the task tests enabling determination of interaction between geological deposits
surrounding brown coal beds (underground gas generator) and by-products of coal gasification process-
ashes, slag and post-gasification water were conducted.
Tests of elution of heavy metals from raw brown coal and silt as well as from samples collected
from module reactor chamber after brown coal and silt gasification were performed under conditions of
unforced flow of water through mentioned samples.
PH reaction and electric conductivity as well as cadmium, chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc,
iron, manganese content in a filtrate were defined. Results are presented in table 16.

Table 16. Heavy metals elution
Number of series
Defined
parameter
Unit
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Washed material - Dry coal
Raw
coal
Raw silt
Raw
coal +
raw silt
Residues
after
trial
Silt after
trial
Residues
after
trial +
silt after
trial
Filtering velocity cm
3
/h 120 240 116 257 171 196 154
pH reaction - 5.39 4.14 6.43 4.19 5.91 6.23 6.17
79

Conductivity S/cm 114 163 17 252 47 15 53
contents
Cadmium (Cd) mg/dm
3
0.0071 0.0008 0.0010 0.0010 0.0008 0.0010 0.0008
Chromium (Cr) mg/dm
3
0.0003 0.0003 0.0042 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 0.0005
Copper (Cu) mg/dm
3
0.0017 0.0008 0.0047 0.0044 0.0009 0.0014 0.0003
Nickel (Ni) mg/dm
3
0.0034 0.0041 0.0046 0.0146 0.0058 0.0097 0.0043
Lead (Pb) mg/dm
3
0.0016 0.0004 0.0058 0.0019 0..0010 0.0013 0.0004
Zinc (Zn) mg/dm
3
0.0447 0.0315 0.0309 0.0606 0.0258 0.0156 0.0212
Iron (Fe) mg/dm
3
0.1414 0.1130 0.3054 0.2011 0.0662 0.0738 0.0371
Manganese (Mn) mg/dm
3
0.0810 0.2838 0.0029 0.4469 0.0240 0.0081 0.2138

Similar tests were performed on designed and constructed test stand enabling operation under
increased pressure and in CO
2
presence. In these tests samples of brown coal were used as well as
samples from brown and hard coal gasification trials. Selected results are presented below.

Table 17. Migration of heavy metals during elution with distilled water in CO
2
presence (p=10bar)
Tested sample
Defined parameter Unit
Raw coal Raw silt
Residues after
gasification
trial
Silt after
gasification trial
Filtrate properties
pH- reaction - 4.76 5.82 5.99 5.09
Conductivity
S/cm 297 306 288 98
Heavy metals content mg/l
Chrome total mg/l 0.0011 0.0024 0.0013 0.0025
Zinc mg/l 2.4190 11.6373 12.5568 6.4849
Cadmium mg/l 0.0037 0.0052 0.0043 0.0044
Copper mg/l 0.8831 0.1766 0.8488 0.4722
Nickel mg/l 2.3999 0.8501 1.7822 0.2557
Lead mg/l 0.0997 0.0617 0.0218 0.0446
Iron total mg/l 3.4344 11.2753 1.5760 4.3270
Manganese mg/l 0.4106 0.0664 0.1085 0.1162

Tested material
Unit Raw hard
coal
Hard coal
after
gasification
Raw brown
coal
Brown coal
after
gasification
Raw
surrounding
rock
Surrounding
rock after
gasification
pH reaction - 5.20 5.43 5.63 5.74 5.32 5.04
specific conductance S/cm 142 177 202 244 147 110
Heavy metals content
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel

mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l

0.0014
0.0008
1.4576
1.2218

0.0018
0.0030
0.2384
1.1936

0.0005
0.0006
0.3327
0.7669

0.0019
0.0005
0.4024
0.8176

0.0009
0.0005
0.7759
0.6269

0.0012
0.0011
0.7200
1.5802
80

Lead
Zinc
Iron
Manganese
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
0.0790
10.3421
0.5454
0.0902
0.0125
13.9289
4.2164
0.3162
0.0114
2.6388
1.9721
0.0578
0.0123
9.5418
0.6974
0.0271
0.0196
11.4208
1.3010
0.2417
0.0196
6.8535
1.7952
0.2503

Obtained results indicate that elution of chromium and cadmium is the lowest and elution of
zinc and iron is the highest.
Tests of interaction between samples from hard and brown coal gasification and water polluted
with gasification by-products (phemols) were also performed in two series:
Run I: The main aim of this run was to define quantity of pollutions eluted from tested materials-
definition of the background size.
Run II- The main aim of this run was to define interaction between tested materials and waters
contaminated with gasification products (phenols). In this case, the experiments were conducted
in two stages - samples of tested materials were rinsed sequentially at the beginning with
phenoled water (stage 1) and after that with distilled water (stage 2).
Phenolic water was obtained as a result of dilution of phenoled water. This water was also from
trial conducted by CMI gasification of hard and brown coal.
Results of the analysis indicate that side products from coal gasification process, especially
phenolic water, may become serious problem for natural environment, particularly for groundwater.
Data in table 18 include analysis of water from brown coal gasification trial and admissible values for
waste water (Polish regulations- Dz. U. z 2006r. Nr 137, poz. 984) and they show in a very clear way
how serious the problem is.

Table 18. Analysis of water obtained after brown coal gasification and admissible values

Results obtained at this stage of tests are presented in figs.51 and 52. Results presented above
indicate that some phenols contained in post gasification water are bounded permanently by
investigated materials. The ability of raw materials to detain phenols is lower than for the same
materials after gasification trials, which is presented in fig.53.
Comparison of all results indicates that the highest amount of phenols was adsorbed by brown
coal obtained from gasification trial. Retention rate (expressed in mg of phenols adsorbed by 1 g of
tested sample, mg/g) for this sample is about 0.8 mg/g.
Heavy metals content, excluding chromium and cadmium, in obtained filtrates was several
times higher than in phenolic water introduced to the system. This indicates that elution of metals from
tested materials decides about heavy metals content in waters, when the filtration process takes place.
There is no dependence between a type of tested material (raw or obtained after gasification trial) and
heavy metals content in the filtrate.
Because of potential threat of underground coal gasification for natural environment,
preliminary tests aiming at utilization of geological structures surrounding brown coal deposits for
dangerous compounds retention were undertaken.
During tests conducted in the first serie utilization of lake chalk from Bechatw Brown Coal
Mine as sorbing agent caused decrease of phenols content in water from 20 mg/l to 17 mg/l. In this
situation following trials were undertaken in which silt and sandy till from Bechatw Opencast, after
thermal processing, were used as sorbent. Obtained results indicate that in case of both materials burnt
at temperature of 850C slightly below 10% of phenols contained in initial water is adsorbed. Retention
rate was about 0.3 mg/g.
Unit
Water obtained after the
process
Admissible values for waste water
1 electrical conductivity, S/cm 22800 -
2 pH - 3.90 6.5 -9
3 ammonia nitrogen mgN/l 4080 10
4 volatile phenols mg/l 271 0,1
5 sulfates mg/l 6700 500
6 zinc mg/l 145 2
6 iron mg/l 105 10
81

Samples of investigated materials dried at temperature of 105C behave differently. In this case
clays retained about 32% of phenols, what caused that retention rate was about 1.25 mg/g. For sandy
tills the values are 18 % and 0.7 mg/g respectively.
The results indicate that geological deposits accompanying brown coal beds and forming walls of
underground gasification reactor may reduce migration of harmful contaminants. Nevertheless total
retention of contaminants is unlikely.

Fig. 51. Phenols amount in particular stages of elution tests

Fig. 52. Phenols amount in particular stages of elution tests (tests performed on materials from gasification of
brown and hard coal gasification trial conducted by CMI)
82

Fig. 53. Phenols amount in particular stages of elution tests (tests performed on materials surrounding brown coal
strata)

Conclusions
It was confirmed that post gasification water generated during the underground coal
gasification process might be a serious threat for natural environment, especially for groundwater. Tests
of heavy metal leachability from samples originated from brown and hard coal gasification trial
conducted under CO2 pressure and without it indicate that elution of chromium and cadmium is the
lowest and elution of zinc and iron is the highest. The results indicate that sorption of harmful
contaminants (phenols) by geological deposits accompanying brown coal beds and forming walls of
underground gasification reactor may reduce their migration. Despite confirmed opportunity to reduce
migration of contaminants by geological deposits surrounding gas generator or applied sorption-
bonding materials, it is still unsure whether total elimination (bonding and stable retention
underground) of contaminants originated from underground coal gasification process is possible.

IV.2.1.7.5 Tests on strata behavior

Experimental procedure
First, the samples were heated in a muffle furnace up to desired temperature. Heating was done
gradually in order to avoid damaging of the sample caused by fast temperature increase. After reaching
desired heating temperature the sample were placed in a testing apparatus, insulated with a blanket and
the test was performed. Heating temperature was defined as the internal temperature of the furnace.
Thus, temperature in particular sample might have been slightly lower due to temperature drop caused
by transfer of sample from the furnace into testing apparatus (press). Uniaxial compression strength was
determined knowing measured yield load and size of a sample
Tests were performed at various temperatures due to the fact that the temperature decreased
rapidly with the distance from the gasifier. Each strata sample was tested at different temperatures i.e.:
room temperature, 600C, 900C, 1120C. Each test was repeated on three or four samples. Types of
rocks selected for the tests were typical overlaying strata of coal carboniferous rocks in Upper Silesia
Coal Basin. First, two types of rocks were tested i.e.: sandstone and mudstone cores from depths of
approximately 800 m. The diameter of a core was approximately 36 mm. Samples had length to
diameter ratio of 1.
83

Mineralogical evaluation of samples
The samples were examined mineralogically by the means of optical microscopy in transmitted
light and X-ray diffraction (XRD). Microscopic observations were made on thin sections of rock and
minerals (microscope AXIOSKOP by Zeiss). XRD analysis was performed using a HZG-4 X-ray
diffractometer, with the use of a Cu
K
X-ray tube in the following conditions: voltage 35 kV, intensity 20
mA, 2 theta angle range 4 - 64
o
, step 0.05
o
. This research included qualitative identification of mineral
composition and description of aspect changes after heat treatment. For interpretation of results Dronek,
X-Rayan and ASTM tables software was used. Index of names and chemical formulas of minerals
mentioned in text has been shown in table 19.

Tests on Carboniferous rocks
Evolution of temperature of sandstone, mudstone and claystone samples during their heating in
the furnace was presented in fig.54. Results of uniaxial compressive strength tests before and after
heating were presented in tables 20-22 and in fig.55.

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480
H
e
a
t
i
n
g

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
,

[
C
]
Heating time, [min.]
Sandstone
Mudstone
Claystone

Fig. 54. Development of heating temperature of all sandstone, mudstone, and claystone samples.

Rock samples heated up to the temperatures of 600, 900, and 1120
o
C underwent uniaxial
compressive strength measurements. The test procedure was arranged in a way that allowed keeping as
much as possible constant temperature of the sample between taking it from the furnace and crushing in
the press.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
C
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
R
c
[
M
P
a
]
Heating temperature, [C]
Sandstone
Mudstone
Claystone

Fig. 55. Average uniaxial compressive strength of sandstone, mudstone, and claystone samples at room
temperature and after heating up to temperature: 600, 900, and 1120C.

84

Table 19. Index of names and chemical formulas of minerals mentioned in text
Name Chemical formula
Biotite K(Mg, Fe, Mn)
3
((OH,F)
2
AlSi
3
O
10
)
Chloritoid (Mg,Al.,Fe)
6
((OH)
8
(Si,Al.)
4
O
10
)
Dolomite (Ca,Mg)(CO
3
)
2

Hematite Fe
2
O
3

Illite K
0,65
Al
2,0
(Al
0,65
Si
3,35
O
10
(OH)
2
)
Kaolinite Al
2
((OH)
4
Si
2
O
5
)
Cordierite Mg
2
Al
3
(AlSi
5
O
18
)
Quartz SiO
2

Maghemite Fe
2
O
3

Magnetite Fe
3
O
4

Mullite Al
8
((O,OH,F)(Si,Al)O
4
)
4

Muscovite KAl ((OH,F)
2
AlSi
3
O
10
)
Sillimanite Al
2
(OSiO
4
)
Siderite FeCO
3

Table 20. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test of sandstone samples in various temperatures before and
after heating.
Sample
No.
Sample
length
Sample
diameter
Sample
surface area
Load
applied
Compressive
strength
Average
compressive
strength
Heating
temperature
(cm) (cm) (cm
2
) (kN) (MPa) (MPa) (
o
C)
P-1 3.615 3.595 10.151 65 64.04
P-2 3.660 3.595 10.151 53 52.21
P-3 3.675 3.580 10.066 51 50.67
P-13 3.670 3.575 10.038 60 59.77
56.67
20
(before heating)
P-4 3.610 3.575 10.038 87 86.67
P-5 3.655 3.585 10.094 95 94.11
P-6 3.780 3.580 10.066 96.5 95.87
92.22 600
P-7 3.660 3.595 10.151 93 91.62
P-8 3.600 3.595 10.151 102 100.49
P-9 3.610 3.585 10.094 82 81.24
91.11 900
P-10 3.610 3.585 10.094 52 51.52
P-11 3.710 3.570 10.010 55 54.95
P-12 3.675 3.575 10.038 65 64.75
57.07 1120

Table 21. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test of mudstone samples in various temperatures before
and after heating.
Sample
No.
Sample
length
Sample
diameter
Sample
surface area
Load
applied
Compressive
strength
Average
compressive
strength
Heating
temperature
(cm) (cm) (cm
2
o
C)
M-1 3.575 3.550 9.898 42 42.43
M-2 3.665 3.550 9.898 37 37.38
M-3 3.525 3.545 9.870 37 37.49
39.10
20
(before
heating)
M-4 3.550 3.540 9.842 88 89.41
M-5 3.500 3.540 9.842 98 99.57
M-6 3.525 3.530 9.787 80 81.74
M-7 3.640 3.545 9.870 Break up ------
M-9 3.595 3.530 9.787 Break up ------
90.24 600
M-8 3.570 3.545 9.870 78 79.03
M-11 3.330 3.555 9.926 93 93.69
86.36 900
M-10 3.575 3.530 9.787 Melting ------
M-12 3.580 3.530 9.787 Melting ------
------ 1120

85

Table 22. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test of claystone samples in various temperatures before and
after heating.
Sample
No.
Sample
length
Sample
diameter
Sample
surface
area
Load
applied
Compressive
strength
Average
compressive
strength
Heating
temperature
(cm) (cm) (cm
2
o
C)
I-1 3.620 3.590 10.122 45 44,46
I-2 3.635 3.580 10.066 49 48,68
I-3 3.635 3.595 10.151 44 43,35
45.49
20
(before heating)
I-14 3.710 3.585 10.094 96 95,10
I-15 3.670 3.585 10.094 81 80,02
I-4 3.685 3.585 10.094 Break up ------
I-5 3.665 3.590 10.122 Break up ------
I-6 3.660 3.580 10.066 Break up ------
87.56 600
I-7 3.680 3.580 10.066 Break up ------
I-8 3.680 3.585 10.094 Break up ------
I-12 3.600 3.590 10.122 77 76,07
I-13 3.580 3.595 10.151 87 85,71
80.89 900
I-9 3.520 3.580 10.066 Swelling ------
I-10 3.665 3.590 10.122 Swelling ------
I-11 3.395 3.580 10.066 Swelling ------
------ 1120

Qualitative analyses of sandstone, mudstone, and claystone samples at high temperatures (up to
900C) indicated generally similar behavior of all rocks. Heating of rocks to the temperature of 600C
increased their compressive strength 1.5 to 2 times in comparison to compressive strength at room
temperature. Further increase in temperature (up to 900C) had no significant impact on strength
properties. Behavior of rock samples at 1120C depended on a rock type and the common feature of
these rocks was a decrease in compressive strength. In case of sandstone heated up to 1120C
compressive strength dropped to the value measured at room temperature (T:20C). Mudstone and
claystone at highest measured temperature swelled and transformed into slag-like material which made
impossible further testing. However, it might be assumed that it lost all of its strength properties.
Mineralogical analysis of the rock samples after heat treatment with use of optical microscopy and X-
ray diffraction showed gradual transformation of the mineral composition of the rocks resulted from
decomposition of certain minerals and creation of other substances in presence of high temperatures.
Analysis of the mineralogical composition of the rock preliminary believed to be claystone,
showed that it represented clayey mudstone. This explained very similar behaviour of mudstone and
claystone samples in the tests. Both rocks had similar characteristics of temperature compressive
strength relation, also their failure at high temperatures underwent similarly.
General conclusions from quantitative analysis of behaviour of carboniferous rocks at high
temperatures resulted from underground coal gasification can be formulated as follows
at temperatures up to about 900
o
C strength of roof strata over underground gas generator should
be considered as 1.5 2 times higher than it results from standard measurement procedures,
at temperatures above 900
o
C, strength of the roof strata rapidly decreases, even with physical
destruction of the roof above underground gas generator,
behaviour of rocks above and below underground gas generator can strongly vary depending on
types of rock in roof and floor strata.

Tests on lignite bed strata
Samples of rocks were collected from the bottom and from the roof strata of a lignite bed in
south-western part of Poland. The test procedure covered uniaxial compressive strength measurements
of samples not exposed on temperatures and heated to the temperature of 600, 900, and 1120
o
C. The
heating time at given temperature was conducted during three hours at each temperature level.
Compressive strength was measured immediately after taking out a sample from the oven.
86

Results of compressive strength of rock samples in temperature range of 20-1120
o
C are

Table 23.Uniaxial compressive strength of rock from the bottom and roof strata of lignite bed in function of
temperature
Sample description
Compressive strength
Rc (MPa)
Rock from the floor of lignite bed No. 1 No. 2 Average
Without heating 2.87 2.65 2.76
At 600C 3.18 3.14 3.16
At 900C 5.82 5.58 5.70
At 1100C 8.54 8.32 8.43
Rock from the roof of lignite bed
Without heating 1.42 1.24 1.33
At 600C 1.19 Destructed 1.19
At 900C 1.46 1.30 1.38
At 1100C 1.84 1.76 1.80

Rock samples collected from the bottom of the lignite bed exhibited compressive strength
increasing from 2.76 to 8.43MPa in the temperature range of 20-1120
o
C. The roof rocks exhibited
similarly increasing trend of compressive strength change with temperature, however in lower range
between 1.30 and 1.80MPa, with minimal value of 1.19MPa at 600
o
C. Decrease in compressive
strength of the samples in early stage of the heating resulted from drying of rock samples, which in
natural state possess significant moisture content. Further heating of the samples in the oven was
accompanied by combustion of organic matter, which was also present in significant amount in the rock
samples from roof and floor strata of a lignite bed. Organic matter however was present in larger
amount in the rocks from the floor of the lignite bed. Low compressive strength of tested rocks relates
to the macroscopic structure of these rocks, which is fragile and brittle. Larger blocks of rocks tend to
fracture and break into smaller pieces under relatively small forces. It was even difficult to obtain
satisfactory number of samples of given dimensions by manual cutting. Increasing compressive strength
of the samples resulted from their heating, corresponded to firing of the clay, which was the dominant
compound of analyzed rocks. Exposing of rock samples from lignite beds to temperatures in range 1000
1100
o
C did not result in creeping and melting of the rocks. Changes of compressive strength of
analyzed rock samples in function of temperature were presented in fig.56.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature,
o
C
U
n
i
a
x
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

M
P
a
Floor Roof

Fig. 56. Compressive strength in function of temperature of rock samples from roof and floor of a lignite bed.

From the point of the UCG operation it was advantageous that under influence of high
temperature both types of clays created impermeable external layer of highly transformed clay, on the
surfaces exposed to temperature in the presence of oxygen. In the inner parts of these rocks organic
matter underwent carbonization but was not combusted. This behavior of the rocks from a lignite bed
87

suggests that the surfaces of roof and floor opened during UCG operation will be able to reduce
penetration of product gases and migration of contaminants, however highly problematic will be
stability of opened roof surface over the reactive zone, due to overall weak strength of considered types
of rocks.

Test on rocks from EM Barbara
The samples were collected from the direct roof layer over the coal seam where the in-situ
UCG experiment has been executed (EM Barbara), in an area nearby the experiment site.
The samples of the roof rocks taken from UCG experiment site represented mudstone of
relatively low consistence, with fragile structure. Larger pieces of the rock tended to break on visible
cleavage surfaces. Cutting of samples for further tests was difficult for this reason. Compressive
strength results for mudstone from the roof of UCG in-situ experiment site in EM Barbara are
presented in table 24. While the rocks seemed to have significant moisture content, a couple of
specimens were dried at room temperature to check the influence of drying (not related to high
temperature influence) on the compressive strength of the samples. As it can bee seen from table 24, in
natural conditions the samples exhibited average compressive strength of about 17MPa. The result was
much lower when compered to the one obtained for another mudstone rock from fairly deeper
geological strata. Relatively wide distribution of compressive test results between individual samples
the range of 13.2 and 22.6 MPa is significant. Low temperature drying of the samples leads to decrease
of compressive strength to average value of round 16MPa. Heating of the samples in an laboratory oven
led to an increase in compressive strength to the average value of 30.843 MPa, which was two times
higher than the value after drying at 20
o
C. By further heating up to 900
o
C compressive strength was
slightly decreased to 25.42 MPa. Further increasing the temperature led to melting of the samples,
similarly like in case of heating of Carboniferous rocks from deeper geological strata.

Table 24. Results of compressive strength R
c
measurements of rocks from direct roof over in-situ UCG
experiment at EM Barbara mine
Sample R
c
(MPa) Average R
c
(MPa)
Natural moisture, temperature 20
o
C
Mudstone #a1 22.61
Mudstone #a2 13.21
Mudstone #a3 15.88
Mudstone #a4 16.84
17.135
After drying at 20
o
C
Mudstone #b1 17.25
Mudstone #b2 14.58
15.915
Temperature 600
o
C
Mudstone #c1 32.658
Mudstone #c2 29.028
30.843
Temperature 900
o
C
Mudstone #d1 23.475
Mudstone #d2 27.005
25.420
Temperature 1120
o
C
Mudstone #e1 0.000
Mudstone #e2 0.000
0.000

Roof conditions belong to the most crucial factors for successive UCG operations.
Advantageous mechanical properties of direct roof strata, which are exposed to the highest
temperatures, are required to ensure stability of caverns and voids being created during UCG operation
for the time and dimensions satisfactory for appropriate procedure of the gasification process.
Direct roof in EM Barbara, in the area of the in-situ UCG experiment represented mudstone
of relatively poor mechanical properties in natural conditions. Samples of rock tended to crack along
surfaces of natural divisibility under action of insignificant forces. Initial compressive strength of about
17 MPa slightly decreased in the result of evaporation of moisture in dry environment. Influence of the
temperature of 600
o
C led to compressive strength almost twice its initial value in normal temperature.
Further temperature growth led to loss of mechanical strength until melting at temperature over 1000
o
C,
fig.57.
88

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature,
o
C
U
n
i
a
x
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

M
P
a

Fig. 57. Compressive strength in function of temperature of rock samples from roof and floor of a EM Barbara
rocks.

IV.2.1.8 Task 3.4 Evaluation of the process background on the basis of experimental results
According to the project assumption, the results of the laboratory experiments described above
were used in the development of the concept and the basis for the in-situ UCG trial.
In these terms most information was provided by the ex-situ experiment at EM Barbara, in
particularly by trials on hard coal from coal mines Piast (1 trial) and Bielszowice (2 trials).
Analysis of the results enabled drawing conclusions in terms of technological and technical
aspects. The data obtained were critically assessed in terms of their usefulness in an installation of a
larger scale and different parameters related to the location of the georeactor in a real coal seam.
The technological conclusions referred to:
1. Fire channel configuration and location of the initiation point along the fire channel.
The gasification was initiated by coal ignition in a distance of about 2/5 between the inlet and
outlet of the horizontal and rectilinear fire channel located in the layer close to the floor of the
coal block. The gasification process development with a set gasification agents flow rates and
gravity product gas collection was determined based on the changes in the temperature field in
the georeactor and periodical georadar measurements. The air and oxygen gasification was
performed in a counter flow (to the gasification agents supply direction); and in a two-stage
process the cavern was developed in a central part of the coal block.
2. Gasification agents flow rates and composition.
The optimal air/oxygen ratio selected based on the experiments for hard coal gasification, in
terms of hydrogen content in product gas was 3:2. Under such conditions the average hydrogen
content was 18.7%, and heating value of product gas was 5.74 MJ/m
3
.
In a two-stage process the control of the duration of the oxygen or steam supply periods was
based on the georeactor temperature observation. The optimal conditions in terms of hydrogen
content in product gas were reached in the temperature range of:
oxygen supply phase from 700 to 1100
0
C
steam supply phase from 1100 to 700
0
C.
The technical conclusions referred to:
1. Control of the changes in terms of dimensions and shape of the georeactor during the gasification
process.
Determination of the dimensions and changes in the georeactor based on the thermocouples
readings in case of the gasification process performed in a coal seam in real conditions was
difficult or even unfeasible. Therefore, in shallow coal seams or coal seams accessed from the
headings in the georeactor surroundings, the measurement method based on the georadar
technique, developed within the ex-situ experiments should be applied.
2. Product gas collection and pretreatment method.
The considerable amounts of water were collected in a two-stage process in a steam supply phase.
The amounts of tars collected were also high in all experiments. The collection system of water
and tars from the in-situ UCG experiment should enable dewatering and tar removal possibly
close to the georeactor outlet. This would protect the following parts of the installation from
stoppage of the product gas flow and related malfunctions.
89

Since the coal seam selected for the in-situ trial at EM Barbara was characterized by a
significant water inflow, some results of the ex-situ experiments on lignite were also useful in the in-
situ trial planning. It was expected that relatively large amounts of oxygen would be required to reach
the desired temperature in the reactor (above 800
0
C). Under such conditions high content of CO
2
in
product gas was expected, resulting from the predominance of combustion reaction, supplying the heat
needed for water evaporation.
The experiments of steam coal gasification under the pressure of 15 bar provided information
on product gas composition in case when large amounts of water influence the process results.
Additionally, the data on the difference in product gas yield resulting from various seam compressions,
with a use of grinded coal (coal grains) and block of coal were acquired. The values determined with a
use of 0.66 kg/kgC of steam were as follows:
product gas yield: 3.05 Nm
3
/kg of coal (in grains) and 2.5 Nm
3
/kg of coal (in a block)
hydrogen and methane yields: 1.47 Nm
3
/kg of coal (in grains) and 0.67 Nm
3
/kg of coal (in a
block)
These results showed that lower coal bed compression results in higher product gas yield.
The total hydrogen and methane yield was independent from the process pressure; only the
gases ratio varied. Higher pressure resulted in higher methane and lower hydrogen contents.
The data on rock mass behavior in the georeactor surroundings was based on the analyses of the
results of the temperature influence on sandstone, mudstone and clay stone strength. Rock strength is of
key importance for process development. Fast destruction of roof may results in gasification agents and
product gas flow stoppage as well as ground subsidence in case of gasification of shallow coal seams.
For all tested rocks an increase in uniaxial comprehensive strength was observed at
temperatures up to 600
0
C. In the temperature range between 600
0
C and 900
0
C the uniaxial
comprehensive strength did not change, and above 900
0
C the uniaxial comprehensive strength of
sandstone decreased and of mudstone and clay stone was close to zero. The phenomena of the total
disintegration of the material took place.
The measurements of product gas migration into the in-situ reactor surroundings were based on
the determination of gas concentration profiles in the strata and coal samples from the ex-situ reactor.
The experiments consisted in modeling of the gas process migration into georeactor surroundings in
order to asses the migratiion of gases over the years after the end of the process.
The estimation of gas diffusion and permeation of the strata and coal samples from the ex-situ
reactor were the base of the gas process migration modeling through the underground surrounding in
the in-situ reactor. The measurements of the ex-situ samples consisted in the estimation of:
the specific surface area
the specific surface area of mesopores S
meso
and volume of micropores V
micro
from nitrogen
physical adsorption isotherm at 77K evaluated with a use of modified BET equation.
intrusion volume, V
intr
, and apparent density,
Hg
, from high pressure mercury porosimetry, true
density,
He
, from a helium pycnometer
the gas permeation and diffusion
The diffusion and concentration characteristics (fig.58) and the range of gas permeability (fig.59)
for carbon dioxide profiles were obtained as results of modeling.

Fig. 58. CO
2
diffusion; profiles of relative CO
2
concentration and relative molar flux densities
90

Fig. 59. CO
2
permeation; time-change of pressure 300 m away from the gas source for the initial source pressure
po=5bar () and 10bar ().

It was also found that the movement of the gas front for individual gases corresponds to gas
viscosities; the higher the gas viscosity the lower the gas transports rate. The front of individual gases
will move in the order hydrogen>ammonia>methane>hydrogen sulfide>carbon dioxide>carbon
monoxide.
All of the results presented in T3.3 were taken into account in:
the development of the concept and the design of the in-situ UCG installation
the development of the basis for the in-situ experiment, with a special emphasis put on risk
assessment related to the installation operation in emergency situations.

91

V. WP4
WP Leader: CMIPL
WP Contractors:
T 4.1 Double swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production; CMIPL, KOMPWEG,
BOTGiE
T 4.2 CO
2
capture method; CMIPL, KOMPWEG, BOTGiE
T 4.3 Monitoring of the process parameters, process gasses concentrations and rock mass changes;
CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE, TUSIL

V.1 WORKPACKAGE WP4 OBJECTIVES
The test facility designed and built in the frame of WP-1 is to be used for testing of two
technological options of the process, which will be based on the results of the modeling studies (WP-2)
and on the results of tests carried out mainly in the ex-situ installation.
The important issue for the UCG process operation and optimization (selection of the
temperature, pressure, gasification medium type) is the knowledge of the actual parameters in the coal
seam during the process.
One of the most important elements of the coal gasification is the control of process parameters.
Continuous measurements are necessary not only for the generator state monitoring but also for the
understanding of the phenomena taking place during gasification process. During all experiments as
well as before and after gasification experiments the process parameters, process gasses concentrations
and rock mass and structure changes will be monitoring.
The knowledge on values of such parameters as: temperature, pressure, flow rate and
continuous composition analyses of the product gas and water are crucial. Locating sensors in deep
depths is, however, problematic. The knowledge of process parameters and the ability of process
control are essential for implementation and optimization of the UCG system.
The main target of the task is an assessment and control of the UCG process.

V.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES

V.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results

V.2.1.1. Task 4.1 Double swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production

Methods of measurements of process parameters
Georeactor feeding system
The in-situ georeactor constituted a part of coal seam 310 of a thickness of about 150 cm, depth
of about 30 m, separated with concrete walls of galleries. Horizontal fire channel of a diameter of about
14 cm was drilled through the coal seam. The length of the channel (georeactor) is 15 m. The channel
was equipped with steel pipes of a diameter of 15 and 20 cm on the inlet and outlet of the georeactor,
and introduced into the coal seam on the length of about 4 m. Pipes were introduced tightly through
concrete walls from the inlet and outlet of the georeactor. Four underground pipelines fed oxygen, air,
nitrogen and water to the georeactor. Water feeding system was placed by the inlet to the georeactor. It
consisted of a flow meter and a solenoid valve. Water dosage control was realized in a remote mode,
from the surface. Gaseous media dosing system was located on the surface and consisted of needle
valves and rotameters. Flow rates control was manual; flow rates readings were made every hour.

Temperature and pressure
The temperature was measured in four points; underground, on the inlet and outlet pipe of the
georeactor (4 and 8 m from the outlet). On the surface the temperature was measured behind the suction
fan. The temperature was measured with thermocouples of K type and measurement range of
40
o
C600
o
. In the range of 0-100
o
C, the measurement accuracy was 1.1
o
C. The pressure in the
georeactor was measured with two converters mounted on the inlet to the reactor and on the outlet
pipeline. The piezoelectric, explosion proof converters of DMP 331 type, measurement range of 0-1 bar
and accuracy of 0.5% were used. Between a converter and the pipeline special compensators were used
to protect the device against a sudden pressure increase. The readings of the temperature and pressure
were taken every a few seconds, in a remote mode, by a telemetric system. The gaseous atmosphere
was also monitored in the georeactor surroundings to ensure safe process operation. Gas composition
93

control was made with a use of methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxides detectors, in
a remote mode, by a telemetric system. The method and locations of detectors were presented in WP1.

Gas composition
Gas composition was controlled on the horizontal part of the channel, between the suction fan
and the flare. Gas was directed from the channel to the gas chromatograph by copper pipes. Gas flow
rate, temperature and moisture content were measured by a special opening cut in the channel.
Composition of dry and clean samples of synthesis gas was analyzed every 30 min via the two-channel
gas chromatograph Agilent 3000A. If necessary, gas samples were analyzed more frequently. In the
first channel, a column PLOT U (8m x 0.32mm) with a TCD detector was used (for separation of CO
2

and C
2
-C
5
). In the second channel, a backflush injector module with a pre-column PLOT U (3 m x 0.32
mm) and an analytical column MS5A PLOT (10 m x 0.32 mm) with a TCD detector (for separation of
H
2
, N
2
, CO, CH
4
) were applied.Gas flow rates were measured with Delta-OHM type DO-2003 device,
equipped with vane anemometer. Moisture content was measured with a condensation method. Flow
rates were measured every hour. Moisture content was measured three times, at the beginning, at the
end and in the middle of the experiment. Results were averaged. All results for gaseous compounds
were recalculated for dry gas and normal conditions.

Rssults
Setting of the suction fan operating parameters
The in-situ experiment lasted between the 7
th
and 22
nd
of April 2010 (355 h).
The in-situ trial was started with a start up of the suction fan and ignition of the coal seam. The
fan directed air from the gallery into the fire channel drilled in coal. Coal seam was ignited with a
propane-butane fuelled burner. Coal seam was ignited 4.5 m from the concrete wall constituting the
inlet to the georeactor. Ignition period was 2 hours. At the end of this period the temperature of gas on
the outlet from the georeactor was 300C and combustible product gas was burnt in a flare. Next, the
burner was removed, a special feeding head was mounted on the inlet pipe. The experiment was
initiated with heating up the coal seam with oxygen supplied with a flow rate of 20 Nm3/h. The
duration of the gasification experiment was measured from this moment.
Taking into account the unstable operation of the georeactor during the first 190 hours, the in-
situ experiment may be divided into 3 stages:
I. 0-190 h: coal seam ignition and reaching the stability of georeactor operation.
II. 190 -355 h (165 h): stable operation of the georeactor
III. 355 h and for the next 40 days: safe shut down of the georeactor and termination of the
experiment.
During the I
st
stage coal seam was to be heated up and stable operation of the georeactor was to
be reached. Oxygen was periodically replaced with air or oxygen enriched air, with changing flow rates
in order to acquire various experimental data. The dams were closed in 4 days from the gasification
experiment initiation. During the I
st
stage, between the 13
th
and 18
th
hour of the experiment the process
was stopped for 1 hour. The camera monitoring the inlet to the reactor recorded short fire and strong
fogging. Oxygen supply was stopped and nitrogen was supplied to the georeactor for an hour. Next, air
was supplied to the georeactor with a flow rate of 20-30 Nm3/h. During the inspection a leak found on
the inlet was removed. A few more breaks in the operation of the georeactor were necessary during the
I
st
stage by stopping the oxygen or air supply and short (up to one hour) period of nitrogen supply to the
georeactor. This was caused by periodical unstable operation of the georeactor (changes in product gas
components concentrations, fogging and increase in hydrogen, methane, carbon monoxide and dioxide
concentrations underground, by the inlet into the georeactor).
Stable operation of the georeactor was reached in the 190
th
hour. Nitrogen was used
occasionally. In the II
nd
stage oxygen was used as the sole gasification agent with a flow rate of 20-40
Nm3/h. In the III
rd
stage oxygen supply was stopped and nitrogen was supplied to the georeactor
(average flow rate of 35 Nm
3
/h) for about a week in order to cool down and shut down the georeactor.
7400 kg of nitrogen were used in total. Then the inlet and outlet valves were closed. After another 4
weeks the dams were opened and ventilation was started. After a few more days the initial georeactor
state was reached in terms of the temperature and gas atmosphere composition.

Results and discussion
Coal samples analysis before and after gasification
94

Results of the analyses of coal samples taken from the fire channel before and after gasification
experiment are presented in table 25. Both samples were taken from the upper part, 2 m from the wall.
Analyses were performed in the accredited laboratory of CMIPL, in accordance with Polish Standards
in force.

Table 25. Results of analyses of coal samples from EM Barbara taken before and after gasification experiment
Coal from Barbara mine Residue after gasification
As received:
Moisture
r
t
W (%)
11.81 1.92
Ash
r
t
A (%)
15.56 7.81
S total
r
t
S (%)
0.51 0.86
Calorific value
r
t
Q kJ/kg)
21 708 30 450
Analitical:
Moisture
a
W (%)
6.39 0.54
Ash
a
A (%)
16.52 7.92
Volatile matter
a
V (%)
29.84 0.62
Calorific value
a
A (kJ/kg)
23 0192 30 914
a
C (%)
57.95 89.44
a
H (%)
3.70 0.10
a
N (%)
0.87 0.69
a
S total (%)
0.54 0.87
c
a
S (%)
0.54 0.76
a
O
*
(%)
14.03 0.65
* Oxygen calculated as:
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( 100 ) (
a a
c
a a a a a
N S H C A W O = (%)

Coal was characterized by high moisture, ash and volatiles content. The composition of the
residue is cock like. During the inspection of the georeactor inlet after termination of the experiment
(and inlet pipe removal) no increase in inlet opening diameter in the distance of 2 m from the inlet was
reported and the surroundings of the georeactor constituted large amounts of coal which has undergone
cocking processes.

Computation of oxygen and air amounts supplied into the georeactor
The flow rates of gasification agents (oxygen and air) in time are presented in figs.60 and 61.
Flow rates were in the range of 10 - 50 Nm
3
/h.
Oxygen flow rates used were on the level of 10-50 Nm3/h. Based on the data shown in figs.60
and 61. The volumes of oxygen and air consumed were computed. 5840 Nm
3
of oxygen was introduced
into the georeactor with an average flow rate of 16.5 Nm
3
/h and 2505 Nm
3
of air with an average flow rate
of 13.5 Nm
3
/h.

Product gas composition
Product gas composition vs gasification period is presented in fig.62. The duration of the
experiment of 355 hours was assumed in computations of the average values.
As it can be seen in fig.62 changes in product gas components concentrations were irregular.
After the 190
th
h the georeactor operation was more stable and changes in product gas compositions
were less significant. The concentrations of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide decreased with
time. The highest contents reported were 45% for hydrogen, 35% for carbon monoxide and 8% for
methane. Average concentrations of these components in the experiment were: 14%, 13.4% and 1.5%,
95

respectively. Concentration of H
2
S was on the level of 0.1-0.3%, average of 0.17%. Carbon dioxide
content increased from the beginning of the experiment from 10 to 30% (average of 16.5%).

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
10
20
30
40
50
Total oxygen flow - 5840 Nm
3
Average flow - 16,45 Nm
3
/h.
O
x
y
g
e
n

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

[
N
m
3
/
h
]
Time [h]
0 50 100 150 200
0
10
20
30
Total air flow - 2505 Nm
3
Average flow - 13,5 Nm
3
/h.
A
i
r

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

[
N
m
3
/
h
]
Time [h]

Fig. 60. Oxygen flow rate vs time Fig. 61. Air flow rate vs time

Nitrogen content increased rapidly to 50% and then increased further. Often changes of the
value of over 60% could be noted resulting from nitrogen supply into the georeactor. Changes in
nitrogen concentrations in particularly at the beginning of the experiment resulted most probably from
the leak on the georeactor stemming from the fire on the inlet. Since this moment air was sucked into
the georeactor diluting product gas. Small amounts of oxygen were also reported in the experiment of
about 1.9%. In the about the 100
th
hour of the experiment short increases in oxygen concentration even
up to 10% were reported. These changes were related to operational problems with a tar separator and
leaks on the suction fan. After faults removal concentration of product gas components stabilized.
Variations in gas composition were reported also in the 250
th
hour of the experiment and ceased after
another a few hours.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
1E-3
0,01
0,1
0,5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
II Stage I Stage
G
a
s
e
s

f
l
o
w

[
%

o
b
j
.
]
Time [h]
CO
2
C
2
H
6
H
2
O
2
N
2
CH
4
CO
H2S

Fig. 62. Product gas components variation in time

In figs.63-65 product gas yield, water content in product gas and gas heating value are presented.

96

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
10
20
30
40
T
o
t
a
l

g
a
s

f
l
o
w

r
a
t
e

[
N
m
3
/
h
]
Time [h]
II Stage I Stage
W
a
t
e
r

b
u
l
k

i
n
t
o

g
a
s

[
k
g
/
h
]

Fig. 63. Product gas flow rate and water content

Average water content in product gas was high and amounted to 0.1 kgH
2
O/Nm
3
of dry gas.
The total volume of dry product gas was 71 764 Nm
3
, average of 202 Nm
3
/h. Mass of water was 7410
kg, average of 20.9 kg/h.
During the experiment about 500 dm
3
of contaminated water per day was collected in the
underground separator, which makes an average of 20.8 kg/h. Total mass of contaminated separated
water was 7400 kg. Total water mass was 14810 kg. No additional water was supplied through the
system developed because of the natural continuous water inflow into the georeactor. Water inflow into
the separator was stopped shortly after termination of the experiment, which resulted from fast cooling
of the georeactor. In fig.64 product gas heating value is presented.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
II Stage
I Stage
C
a
l
o
r
i
f
i
c

v
a
l
u
e

[
M
J
/
N
m
3
]
Time [h]

Fig. 64. Product gas calorific value

Heating value was calculated from the equation:
W = (12,634CO +63,785C
2
H
6
+ 10,804H
2
+ 35,818CH
4
+14,7H
2
S) (MJ/Nm
3
)
where: CO, C
2
H
6
, H
2
, CH
4
and H
2
S denote content (in % vol.) of particular gas components in product
gas, and the numbers respective heating values in MJ/m
3
. It can be seen in fig.64 that the heating
value decreased from 10 to about 3 MJ/m
3
. Average heating value of product gas was 3.75 MJ/Nm
3
,
which is comparable with values reported for air or OEA gasification. Thermal power of product gas
was calculated based on product gas volume and its heating value (fig.65).
97

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

p
o
w
e
r

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

g
a
s

[
M
J
/
h
]
Time [h]
II Stage I Stage
Energy heating - 269 323 MJ
T
h
e
r
m
a
l

p
o
w
e
r

o
f

p
r
o
d
u
c
t

g
a
s

[
k
W
]

Fig. 65. Heat generated in product gas combustion

Thermal power available in product gas was 269 323 MJ and average thermal power generated
by product gas was 211 kW. Peak value of 1 MW was reported at the beginning of the experiment when
the georeactor was tight. Based on the heating value of coal from EM Barbara of 21708 MJ/kg it can
be stated that generation of the same amount of energy would require combustion of 12 407 kg of coal
(35 kg of coal/h).

Balance computations
Gas balance
Product gas composition and components mass is given in table 26.

Table 26. Composition and mass of components of product gas.
Total amount of product gas generated
during the experiment
Component Average concentration
in gaseous mixture
(%vol.) (Nm
3
) (kmol)

(kg)
CO
2
16.42 11 784 526.06 23 146.64
C
2
H
6
0.038 27 1.22 36.6
H
2
14.17 10 169 453.97 907.94
O
2
1.95 1 399 62.47 1 999.04
N
2
52.39 37 597 1 678.44 46 996.32
CH
4
1.50 1 076 48.06 768.96
CO 13.37 9 595 428.34 11 993.52
H
2
S 0.17 122 5.45 185.30
Total 100 71 770 3 204.01 86 034.32

The amounts of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and sulfur in dry gas were computed based on the
above data (table 27).

Table 27. Balance of elements.
Balance of elements
(kmol)/(kg)
Gas Total amount of
product gas
generated during
the entire
experiment (kmol)
/ (kg)
C H S O N
CO
2
526.06
23 146.64
526.06
6 312.72
526.06
16 833.92

C
2
H
6
1.22
36.6
2.44
29.28
3.66
7.32

H
2
453.97 453.97
98

907.94 907.94
O
2
62.47
1 999.04
62.47
1 999.04

N
2
1 678.44
46 996.32
1 678.44
46 996.32
CH
4
48.06
768.96
48.06
576.72
96.12
192.24

CO 428.34
11 993.52
428.34
5 140.1
214.17
6 853.44

H
2
S 5.45
185.30
5.45
10.90
5.45
174.3

Total (kmol)/(kg) 3 204.01
86 034.32
1 004.9
12 058.8
559.2
1 118.4
5.45
174.3
802.7
25 686.4
1 678.44
46 996.3

As can be seen, carbon content in gas was 12 059 kg. This implies that 22 114 kg of coal should
be gasified (62.3 kg/h) to transfer this amount of C into product gas components. The computations of
heating value of product gas showed that 12 407 kg of coal should be gasified to obtain the respective
amount of heat. This implies that 56% of chemical energy of coal was converted to product gas. The
remaining 444 of energy was utilized for heating of gas, water heating and evaporation, cocking
processes, heating of the gasification surroundings and heat losses on pipelines.

Balance of nitrogen
Nitrogen content in gas was 46 996 kg. Common source of nitrogen in product gas is nitrogen
contained in air and in coal. Taking into account the amount of nitrogen content in coal, in air injected,
water produced and supplied into the georeactor, the missing amount of nitrogen in the balance is
44 400 kg. The source of the unbalanced nitrogen was air, which was sucked by the suction fan and
nitrogen used during ventilation of the georeactor. The total amount of nitrogen supplied into the
georeactor was 1680 Nm
3
(2100 kg). The missing 42 300 kg of nitrogen was in 43 385 Nm
3
of air. An
average, uncontrolled inflow of air into the georeactor was then 122 Nm
3
/h. Air could have migrated
into the system either by leaks, created in the course of gasification process or on the surface through
damaged seals of the suction fan. In the latter case increased level of oxygen content in product gas was
observed during the I
st
stage of the experiment. These are the reasons of severe errors of water and
nitrogen balances since the amount and source of air is hard to be identified.

Balance of water and hydrogen
Water balance is approximate as only part of water was evaporated and the rest reacted with
coal to generate hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This was more complicated by the fact of possible
inflow into the georeactor of water contained in coal from places outside the gasification zone as well as
of rain water. For simplification it was assumed that water content of coal was evaporated and external
water inflowing into the gasification zone took part in chemical reaction with coal.
Mass of water directed to the surface in product gas was 7 410 kg and of water inflowing into
the underground separater - 7 400 kg. Total water mass was 14 810 kg. Gasification of 22 114 kg of
coal released 2612 kg of water. The amount of water in uncontrolled air inflow was 217 kg. About
11 981 kg of water was missing in the balance. Average, water inflow was then 33.7 kg/h. Actual water
inflow must have been greater since part of water must have reacted in hydrogen generation. Water
balance should therefore be corrected.
Hydrogen (H) contained in gas was generated in the reaction between coal and water (not taken
into account in the water balance) or originated from coal. Taking these data into account it was
calclulated that 3 132 kg of water must have reacted with coal. Water inflow must have been then
higher of 8.8 kg/h and amounted to 42.6 kg/h.

Balance of oxygen
Oxygen sources were the following:
Oxygen stream 8 343 kg
Controlled air - 752 kg
Uncontrolled air 13 016 kg (based on nitrogen balance)
Oxygen content in coal 2 920 kg.
Water reacting with coal 2 784 kg
99

Total oxygen supplied 27 815 kg
Oxygen content in produt gas was 25 686 kg. An excessive amount of oxygen in the balance is
2129 kg, which was 8.3% of the total oxygen content in product gas. Based on the amounts of oxygen
and air supplied into the geaoreactor an average concentration of oxygen in gasification agent during
the entire experiment was calculated to be 30%.

Balance of sulphur
Sulfur content in product gas was 174 kg and in coal 113 kg. The rest remained in the gasified
seam. Sulfur content in water (underground and on the surface) was about 25 kg. About 86 kg of sulfur
was then missing in the balance. Part of it might have been contained in tars, and part in SO
2
which
concentrations were not determined.
The balance was based on the assumption that there was a specific mass of coal underground
(22 tonnes), which was transformed into gas and water during gasification process. It was assumed that
the remaining coal was inert. No product gas losses were taken into account. In reality, however, there
were also other processes which took place, like devolatisation and cocking of coal, creation of fissures
in coal, through which water and air were directed. These phenomena affected the gasification process
and accuracy of computations.
The accuracy of carbon balance was affected by the following process parameters:
accuracy of gas composition, amount and moisture content measurement
technical and elemental composition of coal
accuracy of rotameters used for air, oxygen and nitrogen flow rates control
accuracy of the measurements of volume of water inflowing into the separator.
The amount of tars collected in the tar separator and in the suction fan was not taken into
account in the balance. The amount of tars collected in the first week was about 5 dm
3
per day, and in
the following days it decreased systematically. At the end of the experiment tar generation was
practically ceased. The amount of tars collected during entire experiment was about 50 dm
3
.
The data on tars formation show that in the beginning of the gasification intensive devolatization took
place, which with the initially small diameter of the fire channel migrated to the surface with product
gas. In the course of the experiment the surface of the cavern increased, the amount of volatiles
decreased as well as the distance between the gasification zone and outlet channl. There the volatiles
took part in secondary reactions, e.g. combustion.

The temperature
The temperature on the outlet is presented in fig.66.
Apr 2 Apr 9 Apr 16 Apr 23 Apr 30 May 7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

[
o
C
]
Date
Start End
07.04
22.04

Fig.66. Temperature on the outlet of the georeactor.
The temperature on the outlet of the georeactor reached 300
0
C. The initially varying
temperature stabilized in the 190
th
hour on the level of 300
0
C, which implies that the stabilization of the
process was reached.

Results
In tables 28-29 average product gas components concentrations in the I
st
and II
nd
stage are given.
100

Table 28. Average concentrations of gas components
Average concentration (%vol.)
Stage H
2
CO CH
4
C
2
H
6
H
2
S CO
2
N
2
O
2

I. 0-190 h 18.5 15.7 2.0 0.05 0.18 13.2 47.8 2.6
II. 90-355 h 9.2 10.7 0.90 0.03 0.16 20.2 57.6 1.2
Total 14.2 13.4 1.50 0.04 0.17 16.4 52.4 1.9

Table 29.Technical parameters of product gas in the Ist and II stage of the gasification experiment.
Stage Gas volume
(Nm
3
)
Average gas flow
rate (Nm
3
/h)
Average gas
heating value
(MJ/Nm
3
)
Average gas
thermal power
(kW)
I. 0-190 h 38 444 202.3 4.67 262
II. 90-355 h 33 320 201.6 2.71 153
Total 71 764 202.2 3.75 211

Summary
The amount of coal used in the gasification experiment of the duration of 355 hours was 22 114
kg (62.3 kg/h).
The volume of dry gas produced was 71 764 Nm
3
. Average gas yield was 202 Nm
3
/h. Average
moisture content in dry gas was 0.10 kgH2O/Nm
3
.
The thermal power from gas combustion was 269 323 MJ.
The uncontrolled air inflow into the georeactor was 43 385 Nm3 (122 Nm
3
/h). Average oxygen
content in gasification agent was 30%.
Average heating value of product gas was 3.75 MJ/Nm
3
.
Average thermal power generated in the flare was 211 kW.
The ratio of chemical energy content in product gas to the amount of coal gasified is 56%.
The amount of water outflow was 14 810 kg (41.7 kg/h). The water was strongly contaminated
and should be treated.

Conclusions
1. The control of the UCG process in shallow coal seams is difficult mainly due to the problems of
precise control of gasification agents flow rate and tightness of a georeactor.
2. The in-situ experiment performed in the EM Barbara proved the feasibility of combustible gas
production under real underground conditions. However, the uncontrolled inflow of an excess air
into the georeactor resulting from the loss of tightness caused deterioration of gas quality, since part
of the combustible components was burnt in the excess air-derived oxygen. This explains relatively
low average product gas heating value.
3. Nevertheless, the results show that the UCG process can be successfully applied in hydrogen-rich
gas production and thereby generation of gas of high heating value. The maximum hydrogen content
reported in the in-situ UCG trial was 40%
vol.
but the process optimization in terms of hydrogen-rich
gas production requires further experimental studies.
4. The underground experiment enabled also identification of potential problems related to the UCG
process operation. The most important issue identified in these terms was the need for an application
of an advanced monitoring system enabling to undertake actions adequate to changes in composition
of an explosive gases mixture generated in the georeactor. Future works in the field will be focused
on mastering the process operation by a development of an advanced, innovative monitoring and
control system in order to ensure stability and controllability of the UCG process.
5. The security systems used for headings in the georeactor surroundings, existing ventilation system of
the mine, monitoring systems for ventilation air flow and for concentrations of hazardous gasses in
the headings of the georeactor surroundings provided data which will be used in a determination of
secure zones, behind which the gas hazards is minimized.

V.2.1.2. Task 4.2 CO
2
capture method
The test planned in T4.2 was replaced with the experiment in the ex-situ reactor on the oxygen
blasted gasification of lignite seam with the application of calcium oxide (CaO) as a CO
2
sorbent -
sorption enhanced gasification process aiming at evaluation: of the changes in the product gas
101

composition by employing the CO
2
chemisorber and of the feasibility of the sorption enhanced coal
gasification process in the real underground conditions.
Un-mineable thin seams of bituminous coal, lignite deposits of high humidity, and residual coal
seams after extraction by standard extraction techniques (long walls) are the examples of low value coal
resources expected to be utilized applying UCG techniques. Thin deposits of coal (<1.5 m), mixtures of
rubbles of fragmented strata with coal residues, lignite and brown coals of 50% humidity are difficult
for gasification also when pure oxygen is used as the gasifying agent.
The ex-situ gasification experiments carried out with humid lignite and also with blocks of
hard coal have shown that production of gases with target calorific value and/or composition should be
carried out at temperatures high enough for the generation of H
2
and CO (>900
o
C). The in-situ
gasification of lean and humid coal deposits has shown that the important part of heat produced during
the coal combustion stage is consumed for the evaporation of the free water contained in coal seam and
for pre-drying the seam to the humidity level required for the gasification or hydro-gasification
(production of hydrogen needs an adequate amount of steam). Gasification of weak coal deposits
benefits a lot when the gasification stage is preceded by the drainage drying heating operation. This
could be carried out applying various methods. Two of them: the addition of CaO and Ca(OH)
2
to the
coal bed and the controlled self heating of preliminary fractured coal deposit have been evaluated by
experiments or simulations within this project.

Carbon capture option explanation
The HUGE proposal declared exploration of possibilities to achieve in a one UCG operation two
key coal conversion targets: production of hydrogen-rich gases and sequestration of a part of the
produced carbon dioxide directly in the georeactor space. Decision on the location of the in-situ
experiments in EM Barbara, with coal deposits located close to the surface, excluded the possibility
to carry out any large scale UCG experiments at elevated pressures. This fact restricted our works on
the integration of the UCG with CCS to modelling and simulation (TUDT) and to analysis of literature
data relevant to such an issue. This has been done as part of final evaluation of the project results when
majority of experiments (ex-situ and in situ) were concluded. Analysis of the results enables the
following recommendations for integration of the UCG and CCS technologies:
1. There indeed exists the possibility to locate substantial part of CO
2
produced in the UCG
operations just in the post-gasification cavity, however, the storage should be done under
substantially elevated pressure of the gas inside the emptied caverns.
2. To protect the water resources against contamination by hazardous components contained in
the gasification products, integrated UCG + CCS technology needs to be situated at high
depths, below the location of aquifers
3. The above is achievable for underground gasification at large depths and for coal deposits
covered by virgin, consolidated layers of low permeable rock deposits
4. According to the recent study [8] the total storage capacity of post-gasification space at large
depths could accumulate the whole amount of CO
2
produced during the gasification stage
5. Moreover, the concept can be economically feasible, since in the UCG-CCS combined
installations the costs of CO
2
transport from the generation place to the storage place will be
low.
6. The UCG at large depths will be preferentially performed at high pressures and with pure
oxygen as the gasification reagent this will substantially decrease the costs of carbon dioxide
capture and compression before sending the gas to the storage space.
7. Carrying out the UCG and CCS, in parallel. seems highly attractive, but due to their
complexity, it can be planned only after collecting the experience in the UCG and CCS
performed at high pressures and on industrial scale.
8. HUGE (apart from the laboratory scale works of ISSP) was executed at atmospheric pressures
and did not deliver the experimental arguments for direct combination of the UCG and CCS,
however, the experimental data focused on low temperature sorption of compressed CO
2
on
samples of solid residues taken from the post-gasification cavern confirm the high potential of
such space for safe storage of pressurised CO
2
.
102

Reasons for the exclusion the CaO enhanced gasification works from the in-situ experiment
The in situ experiments on CaO enhanced gasification have been excluded form the schedule
after the exploratory experimental works relevant to the concept. The first promising results, from the
small scale laboratory tests have been presented in the first year report and are recalled here for
reference (fig.67a)).
They were obtained in the laboratory isothermal fixed bed reactor with precisely controlled
temperature and pressure. The results confirmed the highly positive role the presence of reactive
sorbents of carbon dioxide (calcium oxide and calcium hydroxide) has on the production of hydrogen-
rich product gas. The experiments were done using small samples of coal particles thoroughly mixed
with freshly activated sorbent particles (15 g).
The small scale experiments were repeated, next, with larger samples of coal and CaO mixtures
of similar (stoichiometric) composition, using 800 g and, finally, with 50 kg of solid reagents. The
results of CaO enhanced gasification of coal obtained at various scales of experiments are presented in
fig. 68).
Substantial differences in the composition of product gases obtained in sorption enhanced
experiments at various scales generated the question on the value of the in-situ sorption enhanced
experiments at the conditions possible for arrangement in EM Barbara. During the mid-term meeting
the Consortium decided to exclude such experiments from the programme of HUGE. Instead of this,
USTUTT conducted systematic studies aimed at experimental exploration of the reasons of such
discrepancies in the experimental results. The difficulties in the temperature control of the complex set
of endo and exothermic reactions participating in hydrogen generation rapidly increases when the scale
of the experiments grows. High gradients of temperatures, oscillations of temperature in non-
homogeneous reaction bed rapidly raise with dimension. The temperature profiles measured during the
experiments are included in the drawing above. This influences the mass transfer and kinetics of the
hydrogen generation reactions. The results suggest that large scale in-situ tests should be planned only
after elaboration of a mostly complete model of the process based on the ex-situ results. A substantial
step towards this direction was done in experiments of USTUTT. The data presented in fig. 67b) give a
more precise picture of the reaction.
The schemes compare the equilibrium and kinetic curves measured for the carbonation of
calcium oxide at temperatures relevant to the ex-situ experiments. The radical influence of temperature
and concentration of carbon dioxide on the kinetics and equilibrium of CaO carbonization is evident
from the curves.
Carbonization of CaO itself, is a highly exothermic process. For the utilization of the heat of
calcium oxide carbonisation in support of coal gasification conditions should be determined under
which the reaction heat will be released at the right time and at the right space in the georeactor.

CaO and Ca(OH)
2
addition to the coal deposit
Sorption enhanced coal hydro-gasification to hydrogen is the trendy subject of research of ex-situ
Clean Coal Technologies. This is the basic element of ZECA-like processes aimed at a parallel
production of pure hydrogen and sequestration ready CO
2
. In ex-situ works, the attention is paid to the
elaboration and multiple use of solid reagents: CaO/Ca(OH)
2
or MgO /Mg(OH)
2
which are able to
participate in numerous CO
2
capture - regeneration cycles. Because of the exothermic character of
hydration and carbonation reactions of CaO (MgO) the reagent moves the hydro-gasification
equilibrium to hydrogen and is the important source of energy consumed during the conversion. Within
HUGE the CaO/Ca(OH)
2
solid reagents in stoichiometric amounts were added to the coal to be gasified.
The experiments were carried out in various scales. The experimental units used, and illustrative results
obtained are presented in figs.67 and 68.
Double positive effects were expected in the results of the gasification and hydro-gasification of
coal-sorbent mixtures. First, the steam reforming process of C to hydrogen with participation of CO
2

sorbents should generate high purity hydrogen. CaO hydration to Ca(OH)
2
and, Ca(OH)
2
carbonation to
CaCO
3
are both exothermic reactions. It was expected that the energy produced in the
hydration/carbonation should cover the majority of heat required for gasification. In the small scale
adiabatic experiments the possibility to produce gas with high hydrogen content (> 85-90 %) in reaction
of coal with steam with CaO carbonation was fully confirmed. After the optimization, the process could
be realized without the use of extra O
2
during gasification.
103
a
)

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

f
o
r

g
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

p
u
r
e

c
o
a
l

a
n
d

f
o
r

t
h
e

r
u
n
s

f
o
r

c
o
a
l

m
i
x
e
d

w
i
t
h

C
a
O

a
n
d

C
a
(
O
H
)
2

i
n

t
h
e

s
t
o
i
c
h
i
o
m
e
t
r
i
c

a
m
o
u
n
t
s

C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

t
i
m
e

p
r
o
f
i
l
e
s

f
o
r

t
a
r
g
e
t

g
a
s
e
o
u
s

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s

t
o

s
h
o
w

t
h
e

i
m
p
a
c
t

o
f

s
o
r
b
e
n
t

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n

o
n

g
a
s

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
0
,
0
0
,
2
0
,
4
0
,
6
0
,
8
1
,
0
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
t
e
s

f
o
r

P
u
r
e

C
o
a
l

G
a
s
i
f
i
e
d

M
i
x
t
u
r
e

1
1
1

g

o
f

c
o
a
l

3
6
0

g

H
2
O

i
n
3
4
5

g

H
2
O

o
u
t
G a s i f i c a t i o n R a t e [ d m
3
/ m i n ]
T
i
m
e

[
m
i
n
]

T
o
t
a
l

G
a
s

H
2

C
H
4

C
2
H
6

C
O

C
O
2

N
2

O
2

u
n
k
n
o
w
n
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

C
o
a
l

a
n
d

C
a
O
G a s C o n c e n t r a t i o n s [ % v o l ]
T
i
m
e

[
m
i
n
]

H
2

C
H
4

C
2
H
6

C
O

C
O
2

N
2

O
2

u
n
k
n
o
w
n
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
2
0
3
0
4
0
5
0
6
0
7
0
8
0
9
0
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

R
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
o
r

C
o
a
l

a
n
d

C
a
(
O
H
)
2

G a s C o n c e n t r a t i o n s [ % v o l ]
T
i
m
e

[
m
i
n
]

H
2

C
H
4

C
2
H
6

C
O

C
O
2

N
2

O
2

u
n
k
n
o
w
n
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
,
1
0
,
2
0
,
3
0
,
4
0
,
5
0
,
6
0
,
7
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

H
y
d
r
o
g
e
n
G a s i f i c a t i o n R a t e s [ d m
3
/ m i n ]
T
i
m
e

[
m
i
n
]

C
o
a
l

C
o
a
l

+

C
a
O

C
o
a
l

+

C
a
(
O
H
)
2

0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
,
0
0
,
1
0
,
2
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

C
a
r
b
o
n

D
i
o
x
i
d
e

3
/ m i n ]
T
i
m
e

[
m
i
n
]
C
o
a
l
C
o
a
l

+

C
a
O

C
o
a
l
+

C
a
(
O
H
)
2
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
8
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
,0
0
0
,0
5
0
,1
0
G
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

t
o

C
a
r
b
o
n

M
o
n
o
x
i
d
e

3
/ m i n ]
T
im
e

[
m
i
n
]

C
o
a
l

C
o
a
l

+

C
a
O
C
o
a
l

+

C
a
(
O
H
)
2

104
b
)

C
o
n
v
e
r
s
i
o
n

o
f

C
a
O

t
o

C
a
C
O
3

(
X
C
a
O
)

R
a
t
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

m
o
l
e

C
a
O

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

t
i
m
e
.

R
a
t
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

m
o
l
e

C
a
O

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

t
i
m
e

R
a
t
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

m
o
l
e

C
a
O

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

a
c
t
i
v
e

C
a
O

(
f
a
)

R
a
t
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

m
o
l
e

C
a
O

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

t
i
m
e

R
a
t
e

o
f

C
O
2

a
b
s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

p
e
r

m
o
l
e

C
a
O

a
g
a
i
n
s
t

a
c
t
i
v
e

C
a
O

(
f
a
)

E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
s

w
e
r
e

p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d

t
o

e
x
p
l
a
i
n

t
h
e

t
r
o
u
b
l
e
s

t
o

c
o
n
f
i
r
m

t
h
e

p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e

r
o
l
e

o
f

C
a
O

i
n

l
a
r
g
e

s
c
a
l
e

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

c
o
a
l

g
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.

T
h
e

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

s
h
o
w

t
h
e

c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y

o
f

t
h
e

k
i
n
e
t
i
c

a
n
d

e
q
u
i
l
i
b
r
i
u
m

p
h
e
n
o
m
e
n
a

w
h
i
c
h

n
e
e
d

b
e

p
r
e
c
i
s
e
l
y

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d

d
u
r
i
n
g

t
h
e

f
i
e
l
d

t
e
s
t
s
.

6
5
0

C

7
0
0

C

F
a
s
t

r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

p
e
r
i
o
d

1
.
5

t
i
m
e
s

g
r
e
a
t
e
r

a
t

l
o
w
e
r

t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

6
5
0

C

7
0
0

C

5

v
o
l
-
%

C
O
2

1
5

v
o
l
-
%

C
O
2

5

v
o
l
-
%

C
O
2

1
5

v
o
l
-
%

C
O
2

F
i
g
.

6
7
.

E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

r
e
s
u
l
t
s

f
r
o
m
:

a
)

l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y

s
c
a
l
e

s
o
r
p
t
i
o
n

e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d

g
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

c
o
a
l
;

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

C
a
O

a
n
d

C
a
(
O
H
)
2

a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n

o
n

c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

o
f

g
a
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
,

b
)

C
a
O

c
a
r
b
o
n
a
t
i
o
n

l
a
r
g
e

s
c
a
l
e

e
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
s

r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t

t
o

H
U
G
E

U
S
T
U
T
T

c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
.
105

1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11
12
4
5
9

SW90_H2O_CaOnisko_650_layered_HUGE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0
3,2
6,4
9,6
12,8
16,0
19,2
22,4
25,6
28,8
32,0
35,2
38,4
41,6
44,8
48,0
51,2
54,4
57,6
60,8
t [min]
C
[
%
v
o
l.]
CH4
CO
CO2
H2
SW90_H2O_CaOnisko_650_layered_HUGE
0
425
467
115 113
98
70
54
27 27 27 27 27 26
13 13 13 13 13 13
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0,0
3,2
6,4
9,6
12,8
16,0
19,2
22,4
25,6
28,8
32,0
35,2
38,4
41,6
44,8
48,0
51,2
54,4
57,6
60,8
t [min]
Q
[
m
l/m
in
]H2
CO2
CO
CH4

Small scale
15 g (C+CaO)

Isothermal experiments under fully controlled temperature
for perfectly homogenized mixture of C and CaO particles

Medium scale
800 g (C +CaO)

Product gas composition
for medium scale fixed bed

Hot spots for adiabatic regime
of CaO hydration

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
D ugo zoa, m
Zgazowanie wgla brunatnego 20 godzina eksperymentu
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko zoa, m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900

16 h

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo zoa, m
Zgazowanie wgla brunatnego 30 godzina eksper ymentu
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysko zoa, m

32 h

3 m

0 hours 72
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo reaktora, m
Zgazowani e wgl a brunatnego 40 godzi na eksperymentu
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko reaktora, m

48 h
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo reaktora, m
Zgazowanie wgla brunatnego 50 godzina eksper ymentu
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko reaktora, m

60 h

Ex situ scale
50 000 g (C+CaO)

Product gas composition in
large scale gasification run

Temperature fields during the
semi adiabatic run

H
2
CO
2
Other N
2
, O
2
CO
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
Gasificat ion to Hydrogen
G
a
s
if
ic
a
ti
o
n
R
a
t
e
s
[
d
m
3/m
in
]
Time [min]
Coal
Co al + CaO
Coa l + Ca(OH)
2

Fig. 68. Composition of product gas in CaO enhanced coal gasification versus the scale of experiments.

The laboratory (<20 g) and small scale (<100 g) experiments of coal to hydrogen conversion in
externally heated beds with coal powder well mixed with CaO and/or Ca(OH)
2
powder confirmed the
expectations. However, the technical scale results of sorption - reaction experiments, carried out with
large blocks of virgin lignite of high humidity did not repeated the results from the small scale runs. The
high humidity of the virgin blocks of lignite and non-perfect mixing of CaO Ca(OH)
2
reagent with
coal were the reasons of the observed discrepancy. Heat generated by the CaO hydration and
carbonation was dispersed in the whole area of gasified space or lost to the surrounding inert solids.
The ex-situ results with a block of virgin coal have demonstrated that efficient use of the
internal energy of CaO for steam - gasification of coal directly in the coal seam is not feasible. The
large scale of the hydro-gasification experiments resulted in the situation when substantial part of
chemical energy contained in CaO has been wasted for de-watering and pre-drying of the sample. The
conditions favorable for sorption enhanced steam-coal reaction could be achieved using preferably well
mixed mixtures or all reagents (CaO, steam, carbon) under adiabatic conditions. It has been found that it
is truly difficult to prepare the stoichiometric reaction mixture for the in-situ pure hydrogen generation
in coal steam gasification. The total exergy efficiency of the process scheme those use the
stoichiometric amounts of CaO for in-situ sorption enhanced coal gasification was found also low in
simulation calculations done by TUD in the frame of WP2.
106

The ex-situ results have shown however, that presence of CaO, Ca(OH)
2
and CaCO
3
in the
catalytic amounts dispersed in chars produced from various coals essentially decreases the temperature
of coal-steam conversion. The effect is comparable to the known catalytic effect of potassium in the
steam the chars reaction (C+2H
2
O => CO
2
+ 2H
2
). Presence of CaCO
3
in the thermally processed
coal beds decreases also temperatures of coal pyrolysis. Both catalytic effects which follow from the
presence of calcium compounds in the reaction space are beneficial for in-situ gasification of residual
coal deposits. The decrease of pyrolysis and gasification temperatures reduces also the reaction heat lost
from the reaction space to the surrounding strata.

Coal Fracturing in UCG Operations
Efficiency of in-situ gasification could be improved by coal pre-fracturing and by pre-treatment
operations performed on the previously fractured coal. Fracturing, and other ways of comminution of
coal seams (controlled coal outburst techniques) have the fundamental advantages for gasification
operations:
First, fracturing of the virgin coal seams opens the space for in situ coal gasification by the
effective percolation-filtration techniques.
Second, fractured coal could be effectively impregnated with solutions or slurries of catalysts for
pyrolysis or gasification.
Third, controlled self heating and self combustion of coal deposits could be employed for pre-
drying the humid coal seams in the pre-fractured coal bed. The self heating effects of coal
deposits are observed when fractured, or comminuted coal contacts air. In such process the
temperature of the bed increases (up to 120 280
o
C). In case of unlimited availability of oxidizer
the process leads to self ignition of the bed. The coal drying is the side effect of the temperature
increase. Employing the controlled self heating of coal in-situ the humidity of previously
fractured wet coal could decrease from 20 50% to 2 3% of free water content. Such effects are
shown in fig.70.

0.00000
10.00000
20.00000
30.00000
40.00000
50.00000
60.00000
70.00000
80.00000
90.00000
100.00000
0
0
.88
1
.83
2
.87
3
.83
4
.83
5
.83
7
.12
7
.65
8
.30
9
.28
10
.2
7
11
.3
0
12
.4
7
13
.2
7
14
.3
2
15
.2
0
16
.2
8
17
.2
3
18
.3
3
19
.3
3
20
.3
3
21
.3
5
22
.3
3
22
.8
7
23
.0
5
23
.2
5
23
.5
0
23
.8
3
24
.4
2
24
.6
7
25
.0
0
25
.3
3
25
.6
7
26
.0
0
26
.8
3
27
.8
3
28
.3
3
29
.3
3
30
.2
5
31
.8
5
32
.8
0
33
.7
8
34
.8
3
35
.7
8
36
.7
7
37
.7
8
38
.9
2
39
.7
7
40
.8
2
41
.7
8
42
.0
0
42
.1
7
42
.3
3
42
.8
3
43
.8
3
44
.8
3
46
.0
2
46
.8
7
47
.8
5
48
.8
3
49
.8
5
Time,h
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

%
CO2 C2H6 H2 O2 N2 CH4 CO
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo zoa, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko zoa, m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo zoa, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko zoa, m
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo zoa, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysko zoa, m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo reaktora, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko reaktora, m
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4
Dugo reaktora, m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
W
ysoko reaktora, m
Hydrogen (blue) and Carbon monoxide ( red ) content in large scale
sorption enhanced experiments versus temperature increase in the bed

Fig. 69. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide content in large scale sorption enhanced experiments

107

The Innovative Value of HUGE
After analysis of the results of ex situ and in situ experiments of HUGE, especially in the area
of sorption and reaction enhanced hydrogen generation in underground gasification of coal, the Partners
decided to protect the achieved intellectual property value by writing the joint patent application:
Generation of Hydrogen Rich Gases in the Sequential in- situ Catalytic Combustion -
Gasification of Coal
Patent application was registered in the draft form in the Coordinators (CMIPLs) internal
system of protection of innovative value, as the result of HUGE project. After concluding the
formalities will be registered in the Polish Patent Office, and submitted next for international protection
according to the PCT procedures. It is expected, that the official text of the patent applications will be
available for the Reviewers of this Report before the final presentation of the report in Oviedo.
The extended abstract of patent application (unofficial shortened translation from the patent
description in Polish, without claims) is attached below.
Generation of Hydrogen Rich Gases in the Sequential in situ Catalytic Combustion - Gasification
of Coal
In situ Coal Combustion (ICC) and Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) are processes that
recover the energy of coal seams without the necessity to physically extract and transfer coal to the
surface for further processing. In ICC, the primary product brought from underground is hot, fully
combusted flue gas with temperature from 600 to 1000C. The sensible heat of the post-combustion gas
contains most (up to 90%) of the heating value of the coal processed in-situ, (11,600 to 30,200 kJ/kg).
In UCG, the primary product brought from underground is a combustible fuel gas of low to
intermediate calorific value, from 3.7 to 11.2 MJ/Nm
3
).
Both UCG and ICC are particularly applicable to coal deposits that cannotto be mined applying
conventional methods. In fact, the ICC and UCG processes are compatible to each other because site
conditions that are favourable for UCG often will not promote in situ combustion. UCG is favoured for
shallow, rubblized, highly permeable dry seams which can be gasified through percolation-filtration
methods, whereas ICC works well on the precisely defined phase boundaries of gas solid carbon
surfaces of combustion fronts.
In situ combustion of coal converts the spatially and thermally distributed gas-solid reaction
zone of georeactor to complete oxidation, thus converting the underground coal seam cavity into a high-
temperature (> 1000C) furnace. The thermal energy release in the cavity furnace is recovered by
bringing hot flue gases (mainly N
2
, CO
2
, and H
2
O) to the surface for onsite conversion to steam,
electricity, or process heat. The advantage of ICC is the ease of maintaining complete combustion (i.e.,
chemical equilibrium) as opposed to incomplete combustion of (i.e., shifting equilibrium) of the
gasification in situ.
The ICC and UCG was carried out at Gorgas, AL, US using the bituminous coal seam. At 12
day of the 37 day long test aimed preliminary on producing the combustible gas in UCG regime, the
system has jumped from gasification to the complete combustion regime. It happened, probably due to
the uncontrolled break through of oxygen. This has led to the steady burning, and about 90% of the
heating value of the processed coal appeared in the high temperature exhaust gas. The thermal power
level of the system was estimated to be 1.5 MW.
The unintentional transfer from the UCG regime to the ICC operation was observed also in the
works of HUGE during the in situ experiment with OEA and pure oxygen as gasifying agents. After
production of the combustible mixture of gases with acceptable composition and high calorific value,
the system transferred to production of hot gas with carbon dioxide as dominating component.
The findings have created the question of feasibility of creation the new technology of in situ
coal exploitation as the intentional sequence of combustion gasification operations. In fact, such a
concept is the essence of two stage gasification procedures, elaborated by Kreinin (Kreinin,
E.B.,(1992), Method of two stage underground coal gasification, Mining Renditions, 12(2)20-21), and
described in more details in the recent paper by Hongtao, L., et al., Method of oxygen-enriched two
stage underground coal gasification, Mining Science and Technology, (China) 2011, doi:
10,1016/j.mstc.2011.02.018). Two stage operation was found favourable for the generation of hydrogen
rich gases also in the HUGE ex situ and in situ experiments.
The attention was paid to elaborate the frames for designing the UCG systems for hydrogen
generation optimised for sequential combustion-gasification operations and for identification the
conditions under which the intentional switching between ICC and UCG regime will produce the
maximal added value of in situ coal processing.
108

The HUGE sequential technology for hydrogen generation goes beyond the known
technologies of in situ exploitation of coal deposits. It is because it jumps over the state of the art of
underground coal processing, known for example from the recent patents by Steinberg, (US Patent
7467660 Pumped carbon mining methane production process, Dec. 23, 2008) akiewicz (US Patent,
6,679,326 B2, Pro-ecological mining system, Jan.20,2004, The solution offered within this patent
description is based on numerous synergy effects created by targeted integration of various geological
and coal processing techniques. The georeactor technology concept was found to be the effective
platform for description, analysis and creation the best engineering practices for excellence the coal to
hydrogen conversion during the sequential operations in situ. The novel technology consumes the
results from:
1. Coal Bed Methane Recovery
2. Coal and strata outburst phenomena
3. Wet and dry shallow geothermy
4. Modelling of self-heating the coal beds in contact with air, protection of such beds against self-
ignition and techniques of prevention or control of coal fires underground;
5. Fracturing and hydro-fracturing techniques of coals and surrounding strata;
6. Non catalytic and catalytic pyrolysis, combustion, gasification and hydro-gasification of pre-
fractured coals;
7. Extraction of coal deposits employing the long-wall mining operations and post mining
subsidence control;
8. Sorption and reaction enhanced reforming and purification of gasification products;
9. Control of emission and migration of gaseous and liquid hazardous contaminants of coal
conversion fluids, employing the clean cavern concept.

The technology shows the ways of effective pre-treatment operations for sequential combustion
gasification of coal deposits for production of hydrogen rich product gases.

http://www.smenet.org/page/index.cfm?title=Mine_Ventilation_Symposium_Papers

Temperature profile of coal bed after self-heating Moisture profile of coal bed after self-heating

Development of temperature profiles in time Dependence of temperature profiles on coal type
Fig. 70. Self-heating phenomena of fractured coal beds

0
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance from Air Inlet (cm)
C
o
a
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
o
C
)
Day 0 Day 2 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 6.875
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (h)
C
o
a
l

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(

o
C
)
Coal A (subC) Coal B (subB) Coal C (subA) Coal D (hvCb) Coal E (hvBb) Coal F (hvBb)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance from air inlet (cm)
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

c
o
n
t
e
n
t

(
%
)
Column Moisture Profile Raw coal
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance from air inlet (cm)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
o
C
)
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
109

V.2.1.3. Task 4.3 Monitoring of the process parameters, process gasses concentrations and rock mass
changes

Surface geophysical monitoring of the UCG test site
The main aim of the surface geophysical measurements was to determine changes of selected
physical parameters (temperature, specific electroresistance, gas and radon concentrations in soil) and
structural characteristics of layers in the roof of the gasified coal seam. The particular parameters were
monitored through the whole period of the gasification trial. The measurements were performed using
the following geophysical techniques:
geothermal method (GT),
vertical electroresistance sounding (PSE),
georadar method (GPR),
gasometry (G),
radiometry (Rn).
The first series of measurement was done before the gasification test was started (background
level). Subsequently the measurements were being carried out every 3-4 days. Location of the
monitoring points and measurement lines on the surface above the UCG test site is presented in fig.71.

Fig. 71. Location of monitoring points and survey lines on the surface above the UCG test site

Geothermal measurements (GT)
Geothermal measurements were carried out in order to illustrate dynamics of temperature
changes in the near-surface layer (soil and weathered carbon rocks) under influence of thermal wave
emitted from the UCG reactor. Thirteen measurement series were carried out with the minimal temp.
3.77 C recorded during the first series and maximal temp. 13.19 C during the 13
th
series. The
measurements were performed using a thermistor geothermometer GTP-02 for the measurements in
shallow boreholes with the accuracy 0.05 C. The data acquired during and after UCG experiment
were used for the elaboration of maps of the relative changes in temperature in the surface layer,
presented in fig.72. Effect of the UCG test on the thermal condition in the near-surface level was
revealed as early as after 2 day of the experiment in the borehole no. 7 located above the gasification
channel about 1.5 m from the ignition point. The next graphs visualize development of the gasification
zone and main directions of the process development. The results indicate the UCG process did not
develop along the previous gasification channel, but along some privileged pathways in the gasified
coal seam. The observed changes in the near-surface layer indicate relatively good thermal conductivity
of the rock layers above the gasification area.

110

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
60
120
180
240
300
360
420
480
540
600
660
720
780
840
900
960
1020
1080
1140
1200
1260
1320
1380
%

2 days from ignition
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
80
160
240
320
400
480
560
640
720
800
880
960
1040
1120
1200
1280
1360
%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
1150
1200
1250
1300
1350
1400
%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
80
160
240
320
400
480
560
640
720
800
880
960
1040
1120
1200
1280
1360
%

11 days after termination
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
0
90
180
270
360
450
540
630
720
810
900
990
1080
1170
1260
1350
%


Fig. 72. Maps of the coefficient of relative temperature changes of ground at depth 1 m in the area of the UCG site

Vertical electroresistance sounding (PSE)
24 PSE curves were obtained during the measurements, which characterized electrical
conductivity of the overburden geological layers. The curves were obtained in three measurement
points located above the gasification channel (PSE1, PSE2, PSE3) in 8 measurement series. Basing on
the layered models, the geoelectrical sections of the rock mass in the particular measurement series
along the gasification channel were created (fig.73).

series 1 background

series 2 2 days from ignition






series 8 5 days after termination

Fig. 73. Geoelectrical sections obtained from the electroresistance sounding in the area of the UCG site

Comparison of the obtained sections indicated that in the near-surface layer (soil and weathered
rocks) changes in the electrical resistance were small during the whole gasification process. Significant
changes in electrical resistance were detected in the roof strata (sandstone) at depth between 7 and 16 m
and in the coal seam. The anomalies can be attributed to the changes in temperature of overburden
strata and coal seam due to the gasification process. Characteristic observation in the 8
th
measurement
series is significant decrease in resistance along the whole gasification channel, which indicates creation
of the post gasification cavity void.

Georadar method (GPR)
The GPR scanning of the ex-situ model gasifier exhibited considerable usefulness of the
reflection georadar method for the geometrical imaging of the gasification zone. For the measurements
the georadar system SIR2 and a 1000Hz transmitter receiver set were used. The applied devices made
111

it possible to obtain sections of the vertical resolution in the range 5 10 cm. The 8 measurements
series were performed (simultaneously with the PSE scanning) along the lines denoted as R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5 and R6. Analysis of the obtained results indicated that the height of the cavity void in the region
of the mass depletion (due to coal gasification) did not exceed 1 m. Some reflection horizons can be
identified in the georadar records, which most probably represent fractures in the coal seam along
which the combustion/gasification process developed. The gasification zone appears on the georadar
sections as a region of a relatively smaller suppression of waves. It is illustrated by the section of the R6
profile (along gasification channel) recorded two days after process termination (fig.74).

Fig. 74. Georadar section of the R6 profile performed 2 days after process termination.
Gasometry (G)
Gasometry is a fast and economical method for determination of gas concentration in the soil
air. During the in situ gasification experiment, gasometry technique was applied for the monitoring of
gas migration from the reaction zone toward the surface in order to detect the possible leakages and to
assess chemical hazards on the ground above the gasification site. 14 shallow holes were drilled, in
which gasometers were installed at depth about 1 m. For the measurements an ECOPROBE 5 meter
was applied, which combines two types of analyzers: PID and IR. The PID analyzer allows
determination of a total content of volatile organic compounds like aromatic hydrocarbons, ketones,
aldehydes, amines and chlorinated hydrocarbons. The second, infrared-based analyzer (IR), allows
selective determination of CO
2
, methane and the sum of aliphatic hydrocarbons. The gasometry
measurements were performed every two days from the UCG process initiation, and revealed small
concentrations of the test gases, e.g. maximum CO
2
concentration was 0.6% (fig.75), while several
hundred ppm of CH
4
(fig.76). Only slow increase in the concentration of gases in relation to the
background level was observed.

Radiometry (Rn)
During the in situ gasification trial, measurements of changes of radon exhalation rates from
soil over gasification channel were performed. The idea of measurements of the exhalation rate is based
on the assumption that radon migration and exhalation is closely linked to temperature. Therefore
changes of temperature of rock body and soil should be reflected by changes in intensity of radon
emission. The sides of radon exhalation rates measurements covered with the places of other
geophysical measurements. The measurements have been done using a field method for measuring the
radon exhalation rate developed in the Central Mining Institute.

112

a) b)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
6
2
0
6
7
0
7
2
0
7
7
0
8
2
0
8
7
0
9
2
0
9
7
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
7
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
7
0
Legenda: Zawarto C02 w powietrzu glebowym
5 Otwory o g.1m
do pomiaru emisji gazw
i temperatury gruntu
- kana ogniowy
ppm

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Legenda: Zawarto C02 w powietrzu glebowym
5 Otwory o g.1m
- kana ogniowy
ppm
8
0
0
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
3
0
0
1
4
0
0
1
5
0
0
1
6
0
0
1
7
0
0
1
8
0
0
1
9
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
2
3
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
5
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
7
0
0
2
8
0
0
2
9
0
0
3
0
0
0

Fig. 75. Ground level CO
2
concentrations above the UCG site on 5 (a) and 16 (b) day from the process initiation

a) b)
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Legenda:
5 Otwory o g.1m
- kana ogniowy
4
0
8
0
1
2
0
1
6
0
2
0
0
2
4
0
2
8
0
3
2
0
3
6
0
4
0
0
4
4
0
4
8
0
Zawarto CH4 w powietrzu glebowym
ppm

90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
180
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Legenda:
5 Otwory o g.1m
- kana ogniowy
ZawartoCH4 w powietrzu glebowym
ppm
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
3
0
0
3
5
0
4
0
0
4
5
0
5
0
0
5
5
0
6
0
0
6
5
0

Fig. 76. Ground level CH
4

An accumulation chamber was constructed (fig.77) as a metal cylinder with inside diameter 350
mm and height 200 mm. The lower edge of the cylinder is sharp and during measurements the wall is
buried in the ground to a depth of a few centimeters to seal the accumulation chamber and prevent
ventilation of atmospheric air. After a certain period of time of radon accumulation, not shorter than
2.5 hours, air from the chamber was sampled. Due to a high table of water in soil, which was caused by
heavy rainfalls during all period of measurements (routine depth of sampling of soil gas is 0.8 m, which
was below water table), the obtained results did not allow for a reliable interpretation and turned out to
be rather useless.

Fig. 77. Method of measurement of radon exhalation from soil with application of accumulation chamber -
sampling kit scheme

113

Monitoring of groundwater parameters
Five groundwater monitoring points were selected in the underground galleries in the vicinity of
the UCG reactor. Background water analysis was performed before the UCG trial started, and
subsequently monitoring activities were conducted every four weeks. The scope of the water parameters
was determined basing on the chemical composition of the post-processing effluent waters collected
during gasification experiments. The following inorganic parameters were identified: total ammonia
nitrogen, nitrites, chlorides, cyanides, sulphates, and 17 metal and metalloid trace elements: Sb, As, B,
Cr, Zn, Al, Cd, Co, Mn, Cu, Mo, Ni, Pb, Hg, Se, Ti, and Fe. The organic analysis of effluents included
phenolics, benzene with its three alkyl homologs: toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene (BTEX), and 15
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Conductivity, pH, biological oxygen demand (BOD
5
),
chemical oxygen demand (COD
Cr
) and total organic carbon (TOC) were additionally determined in the
representative UCG effluent as typical industrial wastewater parameters. The chemical analyses were
performed applying standard analytical methods. Average composition of the effluent waters is

Table 30. Average composition of post-processing effluents obtained during the Barbara UCG trial

Monitoring activity performed over the
period of six month from the UCG process
termination indicated a little penetration of
contaminants to the surrounding environment for
most of the selected monitoring points. Small
quantities of some test compounds were identified in
the direct vicinity of the UCG site, below the reactor
inlet. The maximum concentration peaks were
recorded shortly after the termination of the
experiment (figs.78 and 79).

a) b) c)

d) e)
Parameter/compound Unit Value
Conductivity S/cm 13 552
pH - 6.18
BOD
5
mg/l O
2
2 483
COD
Cr
mg/l O
2
4 647
TOC mg/l 1 030
Phenolics mg/l 526
Ammonia nitrogen mg/l N 1 775
Chlorides mg/l 1 321
Cyanides mg/l 1.19
Sulphates mg/l 4 248
As mg/l 2.80
B mg/l 6.33
Cr mg/l 1.39
Zn mg/l 4.02
Al mg/l 23.4
Cd mg/l 0.026
Co mg/l 0.046
Mn mg/l 6.58
Mo mg/l 0.13
Ni mg/l 0.209
Pb mg/l 0.044
Se mg/l 0.14
Ti mg/l 0.457
Fe mg/l 803
Total BTEX g/l 42.3
including benzene g/l 38.9
Total PAH g/l 1 401
including naphthalene g/l 1 167
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
500uS/cm
800uS/cm
1100uS/cm
1400uS/cm
1700uS/cm
2000uS/cm
2300uS/cm
2600uS/cm
2900uS/cm
3200uS/cm
3500uS/cm
3800uS/cm
4100uS/cm
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
500uS/cm
800uS/cm
1100uS/cm
1400uS/cm
1700uS/cm
2000uS/cm
2300uS/cm
2600uS/cm
2900uS/cm
3200uS/cm
3500uS/cm
3800uS/cm
4100uS/cm
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
500uS/cm
800uS/cm
1100uS/cm
1400uS/cm
1700uS/cm
2000uS/cm
2300uS/cm
2600uS/cm
2900uS/cm
3200uS/cm
3500uS/cm
3800uS/cm
4100uS/cm
Upad
114

Fig. 78.Conductivity of groundwater in the surrounding of UCG test site: a) background, b) 1 day after
termination, c) 4 weeks after termination, d) 8 weeks after termination, e) 24 weeks after termination

a) b) c)

d) e)

Fig. 79. Total organic carbon (TOC) in groundwater in the surrounding of UCG test site: a) background, b) 1 day after
termination, c) 4 weeks after termination, d) 8 weeks after termination, e) 24 weeks after termination
Monitoring of gaseous components in the post gasification cavity
Some chemical compounds like ethylene, propene, acetylene and CO can be used as indicators
of temperature in the post-gasification zone since the intensity of their emission from the cooled down
coal seam is correlated with temperature. For the period of 5 weeks from the UCG process termination,
concentrations of these chemical compounds in the post-gasification cavity were determined, indicating
the gradual decrease in temperature over time (fig.80 a,b). Basing on these results the decision on
opening and accessing the underground cavity was made.
a) b)
4 May 2010 14 May 2010 17 May 2010 24 May 2010 31 May 2010
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
p
m
Date
Ethylene
Propene
Acetylene

4 May 2010 14 May 2010 17 May 2010 24 May 2010 31 May 2010
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

p
p
m
Date
Carbon monoxide

Fig. 80. Concentrations of temperature indicatory compounds in gas emitted from the post-gasification cavity: a)
ethylene, propane, acetylene, b) carbon monoxide.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0mg/l
5mg/l
10mg/l
15mg/l
20mg/l
25mg/l
30mg/l
35mg/l
40mg/l
45mg/l
50mg/l
55mg/l
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0mg/l
5mg/l
10mg/l
15mg/l
20mg/l
25mg/l
30mg/l
35mg/l
40mg/l
45mg/l
50mg/l
55mg/l
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0mg/l
5mg/l
10mg/l
15mg/l
20mg/l
25mg/l
30mg/l
35mg/l
40mg/l
45mg/l
50mg/l
55mg/l
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0mg/l
5mg/l
10mg/l
15mg/l
20mg/l
25mg/l
30mg/l
35mg/l
40mg/l
45mg/l
50mg/l
55mg/l
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
0mg/l
5mg/l
10mg/l
15mg/l
20mg/l
25mg/l
30mg/l
35mg/l
40mg/l
45mg/l
50mg/l
55mg/l
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
500uS/cm
800uS/cm
1100uS/cm
1400uS/cm
1700uS/cm
2000uS/cm
2300uS/cm
2600uS/cm
2900uS/cm
3200uS/cm
3500uS/cm
3800uS/cm
4100uS/cm
Upad
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
500uS/cm
800uS/cm
1100uS/cm
1400uS/cm
1700uS/cm
2000uS/cm
2300uS/cm
2600uS/cm
2900uS/cm
3200uS/cm
3500uS/cm
3800uS/cm
4100uS/cm
Upad
115

VI. WP5

WP Leader: HUGEPL
WP Contractors:
5.1 UCG process impact on the natural environment; HUGEPL, TUSIL
5.2 UCG process impact on life standards; CMIPL, ISSP

VI.1 WORKPACKAGE WP5 OBJECTIVES
The UCG process may have a negative impact mainly on the ground waters. Therefore it is
essential to ensure the generator insulation from the ground water and reliable insulation of the
pipelined boreholes. The generator location close to the surface may cause a risk of creating settlement
basins. Such phenomenon is not observed if a generator is located on deeper depths. Surface ground
settlement caused by full scale underground coal gasification is comparable with strip mining and
simultaneous use of dry filling.
The aim of the task is an assessment of potential hazards and the UCG process impact on
environment and life standards. In the course of the UCG process assessment the natural environment
monitoring will be carried out, enabling identification of the potential environmental and social hazards.

VI.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES
VI.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results
VI.2.1.1. Task 5.1 UCG process impact on the natural environment

The principal goals of the task were identified as follows:
reducing migration of contaminants from underground chamber after coal gasification is
performed with the use of sorptive-bonding materials for retention of contaminants;
reducing effects of land subsidence and deformation above chambers of underground coal
exploitation with the use of filling materials;
securing gasification chambers from escape of process gases by sealing with mixtures of water
and silty materials.
Research on sorption-bonding materials
One of the methods to reduce migration of contaminants is adsorption onto bentonites with
parallel sealing of post-reaction zone. The sealing process is connected with hydro-insulation properties
of aqueous bentonite solutions. The sodium bentonites were selected for experimental measurements
due to their high swelling abilities which determine hydro-insulation properties and high contaminant
adsorption capacity.

Fig. 81. Sorption of phenols onto bentonites.

Tests revealed an increase of phenol adsorption with their increasing concentration in water
from gasification of bituminous coal. Maximum adsorption of bentonite A is 8mg/g for initial
concentration of phenols exceeding 900mg/l.
In summary, results from laboratory tests indicate that there is possibility to reduce migration of
environmentally harmful contaminants. However, the question about total bonding of contaminants
originated from underground coal gasification process still stays open.
117

Studies of gas permeability
Gas escape from the underground reactor chamber, may cause losses in gas production as well
as pose a threat of atmosphere contamination in the area of exploitation. Determination of gas
permeability of geological formations in the vicinity of a coal bed destined for gasification is an
important research problem.
The studies were conducted in two directions. The first direction was associated with
determining influence of moisture content in geological formations on their gas permeability what was
then connected to reactor tightness. The second direction involved studying permeability of different
geological structures with respect to hot gases.

Influence of temperature on gas permeability in geological strata
Tests of gas permeability in geological layers regarding CO
2
were conducted under variable
pressure and temperature gradient (gas pressure in the chamber ranging between 6 and 10 bar,
temperature inside the chamber during permeability measurement ranging between 500 and 550
o
C).
The reactor chamber was filled with CO
2
after placing the sample into the tube reactor. Next, an
electric heater placed in the chamber was switched on to increase temperature.
Temperature and pressure changes were recorded by measuring and control system. Obtained
data were analyzed to determine permeability properties of investigated material. After experiments
sample was removed from the tube reactor. It was found that a part of material directly affected by
temperature (about 25cm) was dry and sintered. However, the material placed above was found in the
similar to initial state.
In the system of solid rocks the influence on permeability is mainly connected with porous
structure of rocks and pressure gradient. In case of silt materials with high content of moisture strong
influence of temperature was to be expected. Experiment results demonstrate only negligible influence
of temperature on permeability increase.

Fig. 82. CO
2
permeability changes in geological layers in relation to temperature increase

Obtained results suggest that impermeable layers like clays and non-carbonaceous silts will be
sufficient insulation for gases produced during underground brown coal gasification process. However,
there is one necessary condition to be fulfilled. The thickness of such strata must be high enough to
secure layers above the underground gasifier from moisture loss.

Conclusions
The results indicate that geological deposits accompanying brown coal beds and forming walls of
underground gasification reactor may reduce migration of harmful contaminants.
1. Application of sorption-bonding materials to the gas generator can reduce migration of harmful
pollutants. On the other hand it might serve as a filling reducing land deformation above
underground gas generator.
2. Despite confirmed opportunity to reduce migration of contaminants by geological deposits
surrounding gas generator or applied sorption-bonding materials, it is still unsure whether total
118

elimination (bonding and stable retention underground) of contaminants originated from
underground coal gasification process is possible.
3. Gas permeability of examined geological deposits, including brown coal, depends on water
content in samples. For natural moisture they will be impermeable for gases.
4. Obtained results suggest that impermeable layers like tills, clays, silts will be sufficient
insulation for gases produced during underground brown coal gasification process. However,
there is one necessary condition to be fulfilled. The thickness of such strata must be high
enough to secure layers above the underground gasifier from moisture loss.
5. Significant variation of brown coal properties as well as properties of surrounding geological
structures cause that tests of gas permeability should be performed for every single location of
underground gas generator.
6. Conducted calculations indicate that underground gasification process may influence overlying
deposits and cause land subsidence. The subsidence might reach from about 0.5-1 m to
maximum 2 meters in the central part of the profile depending on coal bed thickness.
7. Underground coal gasification process requires monitoring system installation, which enables
determination of its influence on natural environment (pollution of: atmosphere, ground water
and surface water as well as land surface deformation).

Filling of voids options for UCG
Main points of work were considerations related to following two aspects:
Review of existing and prospective UCG technological solutions regarding integration with
backfilling of voids,
General considerations on applicability of backfill technology within UCG, focused mainly on
the influence of water introduced in UCG area as a result of backfill operations on the
gasification processes, while balance of water belongs to the most important factors that affects
the final efficiency of the whole UCG process.
The main conclusions for further analyses, which indicated the general directions for following
steps in development of prospective backfill method for UCG, were based on the following
observations:
number of access points to the processing coal bed (wells) per surface unit is decreasing strongly
with the depth of the coal bed
structure of the voids to be backfilled in UCG in comparison with underground mining, reminds
cavings rather than caverns
active UCG operation at locations nearby backfilling operation will result in high pressure of
gases in the voids to be filled.
In the second part of backfill for UCG considerations, analyses on properties of mixtures and
parameters of flow were conducted. Taking into account conditions listed above, it seemed obvious that
further analyses should relate more to the technology of grout injection rather than typical backfill.

Flow of slurries in cavities
The steady laminar velocity of a viscous incompressible fluid flow through a pair of parallel
smooth plate walls separated by distance h satisfies the Darcy equation:

I k v
f
=
(25)
where: I hydraulic gradient,
k
f
coefficient of hydraulic conductivity
Value of coefficient k
f
can be obtained from the formula:

k
f
g h
k
12
2
=
(26)
where: g acceleration of the Earth,

k
kinematical viscosity of the fluid.

119

Then flow rate of a fluid per elementary width of a fracture is equal to:

f d k
L
p h
I
g h
vh q

= = =
12 12
3 3
(27)
where: p pressure lost over the length of fracture L
f
.

d
dynamic viscosity of the fluid.

Thus, flow rate of a fluid in a fracture (rectangular cavity) of aperture e, width b, and length L
f

can be expressed as:
f d
f
L
p be
Q
12
3
= (28)
In case of non-Newtonian (Bingham) fluid, equation (3.17) takes a form:

(
(
\
|
+
|
\
|
|
\
|
=
2
2
0
3
0
3
3
2
3 4
1
12 dx
dp
b
dx
dp
b
dx
dp
b
Q
B
f

(29)
where we can assume that
f
L
p
dx
dp

The maximal distance at which a slurry can flow into a cavity defined as above is equal [9]:

0
max
max
2
h p
L =
(30)
where: p
max
maximum value of injection pressure or pressure resulted from elevation
difference by gravitational filling.
Alternatively, equation can be presented in a form:

h
L
p
f 0
min
2
=
(31)
where: p
min
minimum pressure necessary to fill all fractures (cavities) of aperture higher then
h.

Injection of grout in conditions of UCG operation.
In a little bit simplified approach, grout injection related to insulation of the rockmass can be
divided into:
1. Gravitational injection and
2. Pressurized injection.
Gravitational injection, similarly to backfilling is operated with use of elevation difference
between input and output of the transport pipeline. Also the flow of a grout through cavities is governed
by elevation differences within the cavings (porous space) and the grout flows down to the lowest
available voids.
Pressurized injection is operated with a use of pumps; however taking advantage of elevation
difference is not excluded also in this case.
However geoengineering science is distinguishing many particular options, here it is enough to
say that grout injection is a process of pressing of a substance being able to solidify itself and bind
adjacent portions of the rocks into a solid or at least much more mechanically stable body.
Each penetration of the rockmass with a liquid media has its range, which is a factor of specific
interest, while it is crucial for the efficiency of the application; however, by the way it is on of most
hardly to determined parameter of the process of grouting.
Range of penetration depends generally on dimensions of the voids to be grouted, rheological
properties of the grout, pressure of the injection and type of injection inlet of a grouting pipe. Grout
could be injected into the porous body just through its open end or with use of perforated section of a
pipe.
In case of grout mixtures being considered as Newtonian fluids, following formulations could
be used for calculation of the range of grouting in dependence to the type of injection inlet:
120

relation for grout injection pipes with open ends by E. Magg:

m
w f
n
THr K
R
3
= (32)
Where: R range of injection, m,
K
f
coefficient of filtration, m/s

w
kinematical viscosity of water, m
2
/s,

m
kinematical viscosity of grout, m
2
/s,
T time of process, s,
H injection pressure as meters of water, m,
r radius of injection pipe, m,
n porosity of grouted rocks, -.
relation for perforated injection pipe by R. Tafeli:

r
x
n
TH K
R
m
w f
ln
2
=
(33)
Where: x maximal distance from injection pipe, where injection pressure induces
change in pressure normally present in grouted rock, m.

In an approach presented by the above equations range of injection depends on applied pressure
and time of the process. Maximal range of injection is being achieved by time asymptotically going ad
infinitum. By given porosity of grouted rocks and rheological parameters of the grout, flow rate of the
grout injection Q
gi
depends on the pressure of injection.
In case of the UCG it must be taken under consideration that the voids to be filled with grout
high pressure of gases can be present, of absolute value reaching maximally about 90% of hydrostatic
water pressure at the given depth. Thus, use of gravitational filling system, as known from underground
coal mining will be limited and pumps must be applied to deliver enough pressure for the filling
operation.
Balance of pressures by grouting of UCG voids, can be described as follows:

v i l H p
p p p p p + + = + (34)
Where: p
p
pressure generated by injection pump,
p
H
hydrostatic pressure resulted from elevation difference,
gH p
m H
= (Pa)
p
l
pressure loss resulted from flow of the grout in injection pipe,
p
i
injection pressure,
p
v
pressure present in the voids.
At the injection point (end of the injection pipe) absolute pressure of the grout is a sum of
injection pressure (p
i
) and pressure of gases in voids (p
v
). Accordingly to formulation of K. Baker the
laminar flow of Newtonian fluid in a void of aperture e can be expressed as:

(
+ =
2 2 2 2
2
3
1 1
20
3
ln
6
R r e
Q
r
R
e
Q
p
f m f N
i
(Pa) (35)

Analysis of fill parameters for grouts prepared on the basis of fly ashes
Four types of coal combustion by-products (fly ashes) have been chosen for examination of grout
mixtures properties: fly ash from ordinary combustion vessels (without flue-gas desulphurisation by-
products) from power plants S and J marked as OS and OJ, and fly ash from fluidization bed
vessels from the same plants marked as FS and FJ. In first stage of research, these by-products have
been mixed with water in wide range of solids to water ratio, with respect to their table spread test result
(D
s
). The latter is modified viscosity cup test, adopted for purpose of easy composition of mixtures that
possess similar flow properties. Result of the test is diameter of a circle created by a volume of 120 cm
3

of liquid spread on a flat smooth surface from a height of 30 cm, using a truncated cone with 4 cm
diameter bottom outlet. Fig.83 presents relation between solids to water ratio and spread D
s
for slurries
121

made with four types of CCPs. The S/W ratio on the graph is expressed as mass of solids in proportion
to elementary mass of water..
Four values of spreads D
s
have been selected for further analysis of slurries: 160, 200, 240, and
280 mm. This selection range is remarkable for slurries of physical properties required by application as
grouts in most conditions offered by Polish coal mines similar are to be expected by UCG operations.
For selected slurries yield shear stress
0
and apparent viscosity
B
have been determined using
rotational viscometry, under assumption that these slurries, similarly to fresh concrete and mortars can
be described by Bingham model. Measured properties of selected grout mixtures have been presented in
the table 31.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
M
a
s
s
o
f
s
o
l
i
d
s
p
e
r
u
n
i
t
m
a
s
s
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
[
-
]
Table spread diameter D
s
[mm]
OJ OS FJ FS Fly ash:

Fig. 83. Composition of slurries expressed as solids to water ratio by mass, in relation to spread diameter for
selected types of coal combustion by-products.

Table 31. Selected physical parameters of fly ash water slurries used in analysis
Fly ash
code
Fly ash
density
s
(kg/m
3
)
Table
spread
diameter
D
s
(mm)
Mixture
density
m
(kg/m
3
)
Concentra-
tion by
volume
C
V
(-)
Solids/ water
ratio
S : W
Yield shear
stress
0
(Pa)
Apparent
viscosity
B
(Pas)
160 1597 0.553 2.50 : 1 116.03 0.3506
200 1569 0.527 2.25 : 1 81.35 0.2076
240 1539 0.497 2.00 : 1 52.77 0.1475
OJ 2063
280 1481 0.442 1.60 : 1 33.41 0.1207
160 1577 0.558 2.50 : 1 111.50 0.6903
200 1551 0.532 2.25 : 1 86.85 0.2560
240 1495 0.477 1.80 : 1 47.90 0.1702
OS 2017
280 1450 0.431 1.50 : 1 35.71 0.1050
160 1483 0.291 1.05 : 1 131.60 0.3860
200 1451 0.270 0.95 : 1 99.04 0.2494
240 1424 0.253 0.87 : 1 72.78 0.1603
FJ 2614
280 1385 0.229 0.76 : 1 49.70 0.1204
160 1445 0.255 0.90 : 1 106.10 0.6519
200 1416 0.237 0.82 : 1 77.38 0.2479
240 1378 0.215 0.72 : 1 57.35 0.1342
FS 2689
280 1329 0.185 0.60 : 1 32.18 0.1107

122

Flow of grouts in voids
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0,0 1,0 100,0 10000,0
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
L
f
[
m
]
Time of flow t [s]
OS200 4,38m
OS240 7,64m
OS280 9,96m
Slurry: L
max
:
OS160 3,48m

Fig. 84. Flow of selected slurries in a single rectangular fracture in relation to rheological properties of slurry. See
the text for details.

Fig.84 presents calculations result of filing process of a single rectangular cavity with slurries,
with all assumptions about their homogenity and rheology. Aperture of the cavity is e = 0,05 m, width b
= 0,20 m, hydraulic head of slurry at the inlet into the cavity is 1 m. Slurries analysed in the graph are
made with fly ash type OS with spread from 160 up to 280 mm. Density and rheological parameters
of these slurries wwre shown in table 31.
Taking into the consideration a reasonable time span it can be seen that the slurry can reach
certain maximal distance in a cavity. In the column on the right side of fig.84 the maximal values of
transport distances have been shown. In practical conditions range of filling will be adequate to such
value, which can be reached in acceptable period of time. Due to asymptotic course of presented time
relation, reaching of maximal distance L
max
occurs after unrealistic long time, however, presented
relation shows clearly how the fill efficiency of slurry is changing with its rheological properties and
concentration of solids, as it was shown in fig.85. After initial phase of fast flow, propagation of grout
through a void progresses with very low velocity. Although presented graph is basing on simple
mathematical idealization, generally it reflexes actual course of grouting.
The next graph, fig.86, presents the same relation as in fig.85, however for slurries of the same
spread diameter (D
s
= 280 mm) made from different types of fly ash (see table 31). As it can be seen in
fig.86, grout slurries made with fly ash of types OJ, OS, and FS present relatively similar
maximal fill distance (L
max
) and fill ratio (inclination of the curve, especially within first 60 seconds of
flow. Definitely lower fill properties express slurry made with fly ash of type FJ. The idea of
presentation of this graph is to illustrate the difference of flow properties being important for grouting
operation resulted from specific differences of generally very similar grout compositions.
During filling of underground cavings, slurry flows in the same time through a number of
cavities and each of them has different dimensions. Thus, distribution of pressures and range of filling
will be differentiated.
During injection of grout into cavings some part of water might be absorbed by surrounding
rocks or chemically bound by active compounds of grout (hydration of cement or fly as.), which are
able to significantly reduce the range of filling. In case of UCG evaporation of water in contact with
high temperature environment is a problem, which must be solved prior application of the technology.

Flow of grouts in injection pipes
Before being injected in to voids, grout mixture must be delivered to the injected point via a
transport pipeline inside a well. When UCG operation at large depths is to be considered, length of
wells could easy exceed length of 2000m.
Flow of slurries at such distances in pipes generated significant head loss, especially when
diameters of pipes in wells are limited and flow rates must be adequate to requirements of technology.

123

0
5
10
15
20
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time of flow t [s]
F
l
o
w

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

v
m

[
m
/
s
]
OS200
OS240
OS280
OS160

Fig. 85. Flow velocity change with time of flow for flow mixtures.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0, 0 0,1 1,0 10,0 100,0 1000,0 10000,0
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
L
[
m
]
Time of flow t [s]
OJ-280
10,87
FS-280
10,12
OS-280 9,96
Slurry: L
max
:

Fig. 86. Flow of slurries of the same spread diameter (D
s
= 280 mm) in a single rectangular fracture. See the text
for details.

Fig.87 presents head loss values calculated per 1000m of pipe of 8cm diameter in relation to
flow rate of the grout mixture in a range between 0 and 150 m
3
/hour and type of grout. Differentiation
of grouts is represented here by variable table spread value between 160 and 280mm and type of fly ash
used for its preparation (see table 31).
As it can be seen from data presented in fig.87 transportation of grout slurry with a flow rate of
25m
3
/hour generate head loss between round 0,3 1,2MPa (average 0,65MPa per 1000m pipe of 0,08m
diameter. Velocity of flow in pipe equals 1,38m/s. By increasing the flow velocity up to 8,32m/s
volumetric flow of grout slurry increases up to 150m
3
/hour, however the head loss is also significantly
increasing up to a range between 2,47 and 3,60 MPa per 1000m of pipe length with an average value of
2,89MPa for considered group of grout mixtures.

Pressure by grouting in UCG operations
By large depth of UCG operation grouting of the voids could be substantially powered by the
forces of gravity, even case of presence of high pressure in the voids. This results from a difference
between hydrostatic pressure of water at depth H, which limits the pressure of gases in UCG voids, and
hydrostatic pressure of the grout mixture at the same depth, which enables gravitational flow of the
grout in injection pipe. This pressure difference is proportional to relative density of grout mixture.
In potential shallow UCG of lignite deposits hydrostatic pressures are significantly smaller, Also
pressure of gases in voids will be adequately limited. Injection pressure must be controlled to avoid
exceeding value of rock mass pressure at given depth, what could result in development of fractures and
creation of discontinuities instead of their elimination.
124

Filling of voids by UCG in eventual shallow deposit processing could be much simpler due to
low costs of drillings and presence of much denser network of wells as in UCG of deep deposits.

0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Volumetric flow rate of grout mixture Qm [m
3
/hour]
H
e
a
d

l
o
s
s

p
l
,

M
P
a
/
k
m
OJ 160
OJ 200
OJ 240
OJ 280
OS 160
OS 200
OS 240
OS 280

Fig. 87. Head loss of grout slurries in a pipe of 0,0m diameter for grout mixture of variable table spread and type
of fly ash as described in table 31

Grout composition considerations
Grout compositions considered (table 31) represent most simple approach, where fly ash from
coal combustion are used as a fill material, which exhibits certain level of pozzolanic properties. Main
components of grouts used for improvement of mechanical conditions of grounds, are mainly different
types of cements.
In dependence of application and expected properties of grout mixture, grouts can contain different
additives, as for example:
Bentonite - used generally up to 2% by weight of cement to improve stability under pressure and
reducing shrinkage and bleeding of the grout,
Superplasticizer- normally a napthalene sulphonate admixture used as a dispersing agent to
reduce the viscosity of the grout. Typical addition rates are 0.5 1% by weight of cement.
Silica Fume - used up to 10% by weight of cement to produce a stronger, less permeable grout
with enhanced stability and resistance to pressure filtration.
Accelerators - normally used during cold weather grouting operations or wherever faster setting
times are required.
Sodium Silicate - a flash setting additive used under high inflow/high pressure conditions.
Thixotropic Modifier- used in flowing water conditions to produce a cohesive, water repellent
grout that resists washout.
For use in high temperature conditions, use of so called Thermocell grout can be considered. This is an
engineered products, which contain, additionally to certain composition of cement and fly ash with
additives, which create a temperature resistible structure. Such a grouts have been developed to cope
underground coal fires in mines.

VI.2.1.2. Task 5.2 UCG process impact on life standards
All methods of processing of primary energy into electricity have advantages and disadvantages
in terms of environmental impact, safety, human health and security of energy supplies. Although there
are no absolutely risk-free methods, new technologies offer possible solutions to environmental
problems, and their further development would allow the reduction of hazards and emissions from
power plants, aiming at climate change mitigation.
One of the most important factors determining the development of clean coal technologies,
including the underground coal gasification is its social acceptance. This is a very important factor,
showing an increase in support to this idea with the level of education (decisions made by people with
lower education degree are more often driven by emotions and subconscious associations).
The UCG technology offers the possibility of utilization of off-balance deposits, thick, thin,
deeply inclined coal beds of high-density of displacements as well as deep, residual deposits with an
increased labor safety and comfort of work; often without human intervention. Elimination of mining
disasters leading to fatal accidents or disability of miners, minimization of the need for hard work
125

underground, reducing occupational diseases leading to shorter life and of work in potentially high-risk
areas have significant economic and social benefits. New technologies offer miners higher
qualifications and life standards, high wages and bonuses, creation of elite group of technicians -
operators in borehole mining, as well as processing of coal into hydrogen and its derivatives at
industrial scale.
The high level of technology of coal gasification in in-situ conditions and the versatility of this
technology offer:
opportunity to mechanize the technical operations, automation and remote control of the process
possibility to adapt to changing geological and mining conditions
the effectiveness of existing monitoring and mitigation of natural hazards,
minimum losses in reserves and easy adaptation of the mining system to the form of deposits
opportunities for selective mining
minimum share of the costs of preparatory works in the cost of production when compared to
other technologies of coal production.
Implementation of new technological solutions, like in-situ coal gasification, particularly related
to carbon sequestration and geothermal energy is associated with:
development of the energy sector
promotion of the region in which UCG technology is implemented
increasing the number of new investments and obtaining additional financial resources by local
authorities
employment growth in the industrial, construction, scientific and processing sectors, mainly in
production, assembling, operation and maintenance of the equipment, as well as in the legal,
financial and consulting services - thereby increase in the wealth of the local society
reduction of the environmental pollution, mainly in terms of greenhouse gas emission, resulting
in improving the health of the residents
increase in miners work safety - no need to work at great depths in mines,
creation of an environmentally conscious image of the region
increasing the need for knowledge, training, and creation of greater development opportunities
promotion of the region in the country and abroad
increase in the energy security reduction in dependence on imported fuels in case of possible
disruption in the energy supply.
In case of projects contributing to environmental protection the non-financial benefits, although
hard to be evaluated, often constitute the high value of the project and generate the social demand for
the project outputs. The non-financial benefits are related to the increase in tourist and landscape
attractiveness of the area and contribute to the growth of the investment attractiveness and improvement
in life quality.
Reducing the greenhouse effect resulting from the use of UCG technology has an impact on the
national economy through:
reduction of the probability of occurrence of anomalies in climate and weather, causing losses in
agriculture (droughts, floods) and in the economy (floods)
limitation of the pace of the sea and ocean level as a result of the increase in average temperature
on Earth: lower risk of flooding of low lying coastal areas.
Operation of the UCG technology also indirectly contributes to the competitiveness of economy. Its use
will allow reduction in the cost of power generation, which will have an impact on the reduction of
production costs. Increasing competitiveness of enterprises will facilitate creation of new jobs, and the
reduction of unemployment.
The innovativeness of the UCG technology in comparison with technologies of coal extraction
results also in a lack of reliable information in terms of technological, economic and social aspects,
including those related to environmental safety. However, the UCG technology should be regarded as
environmentally and human friendly because of the work safety aspects, the possibility of using coal
deposits unminable with conventional methods, as well as effectiveness and versatility of the
technology.
Geological, hydro-geological conditions and potential risks must be carefully managed like in
all extraction processes. Control of operating conditions in georeactor, ensuring active groundwater
flow and preventing gas leakage is the most important criterion that should be met when conducting the
gasification process in situ. Site selection is also very important for achieving insulation of georeactor
126

using natural impermeable strata allowing for separation from groundwater and migration routes of the
pollutions generated.
Strict control should include combustion by-products produced under the ground. The risk of
migration of impurities and gases must be taken into account to assess the environmental and economic
constraints of potential locations for underground coal gasification. From previous observations, it
seems that keeping the process in deep coal seams, offers the possibility of meeting the requirements of
present and future European regulations regarding environmental impact. Security for the environment
increases with increasing distance from the gasification zone to the surface due to the existence of many
barriers posed by rock layers and aquiferous layers creating brines. In addition, the presence of high
pressure allows for higher process temperature and the safe storage of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the
concept of deep gasification associated with increased range and depth of the process seems to be more
advantageous for the environment in relation to the gasification technology of shallow coal seams.
However, there is a necessity of theoretical and practical mastering all the technology related
problems. This will undoubtedly require years of research and trials, international cooperation with
organizations already working on the underground gasification. This is also a prerequisite for the
adoption of research priorities for the scientific and research base in the near future. These
circumstances, including consideration of the impact of technology on the quality of life, may cause the
implementation of the underground gasification technology on a wider scale to be feasible only in the
long term.

127

VII. WP6
WP Leader: UCGP
WP Contractors:
T 6.1 Technical criteria; KOMPWEG, BOTGiE, TUSIL
T 6.2 Technological criteria; CMIPL, TUDT
T 6.3 Environmental criteria; CMIPL, HUGEPL, TUSIL
T 6.4 Safety criteria ; ISSP, CMIPL
T 6.5 Economic criteria ; UCGP

VII.1 WORKPACKAGE WP6 OBJECTIVES
The target of the PDU-scale UCG test facility construction and testing of technological options
was verification of the selected concepts and collecting data essential for the implementation of the
shallow seams coal gasification process in hard coal mines under liquidation.
These data, in form of criteria, were to be applied in pilot or demonstration scale experiments
planning.

VII.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES
The commercial aims of the HUGE project were to explore new routes to hydrogen production
from coal using underground coal gasification, and to assess the opportunities for in-situ capture and
storage of CO
2
produced. The project has been successful in showing that two streams, one rich in
hydrogen and the rich in CO
2
can be produced from underground coal gasification. Furthermore, the
streams are produced from the same underground process by cycling the injectants, firstly oxygen alone
and then steam in a manner which is not dissimilar to the water gas shift process used to make industrial
gases in the past.
Thus, the same underground equipment as used in conventional UCG provides the two streams,
which are then processed separately to produce the required purity. The costs of conventional UCG are
already highly competitive against surface gasification for the production of syngas, so one which has
partially provided the separation into hydrogen and CO
2
should be very cost effective indeed.

VII.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results
Development of the georeactor construction and operation criteria, which will ensure safe
operation on the one hand and cost minimization on the other hand, are necessary in order to reach the
expected economic effect. The rules presented below refer in main to a specific case of UCG location in
coal seams remaining after mining operation, which are accessible from the existing underground
infrastructure (shafts, galleries, headings) of coal mines under operation or liquidation. Assessment of
the factors influencing construction and operation of the georeactor was based on the literature data and,
in particularly, on the experience gained during the ex-situ and PDU-scale UCG experiments.

VII.2.1.1. Task 6.1 Technical criteria
The technical criteria cover:
1. methods of opening up the coal seams
2. methods of underground generator insulation
3. technical solutions for feeding and product collecting systems

1. Methods of opening.
In general, two methods can be applied in opening out of the coal seam to be gasified. These include:
a borehole method, consisting in drilling vertical, inclined or directional boreholes from the
surface; this method is applicable particularly in case of virgin coal seams.
a shaft method, consisting in a development of new or adaptation of old headings, from which
boreholes are drilled in the part of coal seam to be gasified. Depending on a technology applied
and coal seam characteristics, gasification may be performed in passage borehole, blind hole or in
a system of a few parallel boreholes, part of which constitute gasification agent supply system
and part product gas collection system. The system may be operated in a reverse mode, that is
the boreholes functions may be changeable.
In case of coal seams of a low thickness and almost horizontal, the gasification agent supply
boreholes are drilled in its lower part, close to the floor.
129

One passage hole of a diameter of 15 cm and length of about 15 m was used in the installation
developed in EM Barbara. The length was limited by a distance between galleries enclosing the part
of the coal seem to be gasified. The diameter was selected based on kinetics calculations and the results
of calculations of gasification agent flow rate.

1. Method of generator insulation.
The natural insulation of a floor and roof of a coal seam to be gasified constitute the rock mass
sourounding the coal seam. The side insulation may be ensured by faults of a suffiecient amplitude, or
tight timbering in case when the process is performed in the coal seams remaining after production of
coal with conventional mining methods.
The methods of a georeactor roof insulation considered in case of gasification of shallow coal seams
include injection of a clay slurry into the overburden through additional horizontal boreholes. Thermal
reactions results in creation of a layer of low gas permeability. The tightness of a georeactor depends on
the type of the rock mass surrounding a georeactor, temperature induced change of their
characteristics, the volume of the cavern created and a thickness of the overburden.
Any kind of underground extraction of mineral beds results in a loss of stability that previously
existed in the rockmass, which leads to increase in stresses and strains in surrounding rocks.
The scale of these changes, and finally also on stability of voids, is influenced by several
factors, which could be gathered into two groups:
Natural factors, as types of rocks, physical mechanical properties of these rocks, structure of
geological strata, tectonics, ground waters relations, and many others. In case of the UCG,
thermal properties of rocks adjacent to gasifies coal bed are of especially great importance and
Large group of technical factors that depend on adopted mining technology. In case of the UCG
here should be mentioned such factors like arrangement of a well system, dimensions and shape
of reaction zone, temperature of the process, rate of advance of reaction front, process
efficiency (percentage of coal substance that remains in a bed after UCG processing). In case of
the UCG operation at a site where previously traditional mining operations took place,
additional factors related to the previous mine activities may be important for considerations,
especially presence of existing or abandoned workings, shafts, and wells, presence of cavings
and/or fractured and weakened rock strata, etc.
By the UCG operations, stability control of operational space of the generator is highly reduced,
while in contrary to standard mining procedures, there is no support exist, which could provide
satisfactory space and time for optimal processing of coal. So, by design of the UCG, the most
important questions in terms of rockmass mechanics are how large could be surface of opened roof over
a generation zone and at what distance from the reaction front it will broke.
Additional questions, related mostly to the environmental aspects of the UCG, are also how the
caving zone will propagate behind a moving generation front, and what height will achieve a caving
zone and fractured zone above a gasified seam.

The analyses show that strength of roof strata differs significantly for different coal beds and
depend on depth of the deposit, even in case of rocks being very similar mineralogically. Additionally
the UCG operation results in intensive heating of the strata adjacent to the processed seam and this
particularly important for properties of the roof. Thus, thermal influences of the UCG on the roof rocks
will also result in propagation of caving zone.
Fig.88 presents relation between compressive strength of rocks and their temperature for direct
roof strata from USCB coal mine at 800m depth, from roof strata in EM Barbara mine in situ
experiment site (depth 30m), and from lignite bed at the depth of 50m. Two of the rocks represent
claystone, the roof in EM Barbara is a mudstone, however, claystone and mudstones are rocks of
rather similar properties and mineralogical composition.
Except for lignite beds roof rocks, all previously tested Carboniferous rocks represent more or
less similar relation between compressive strength and temperature. Growing temperature of the rock
until round 600
o
C results in increasing compressive strength (up to round 200% of its value in natural
conditions). Further growth of temperature leads to slight decrease of compressive strength, but under
temperature of more than about 1000
o
C tested rocks tend to melt and lose their mechanical strength
(except sandstone, which exhibited strength in temperature 1120
o
C comparable with that one in natural
conditions).
130

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature,
o
C
U
n
i
a
x
i
a
l

c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
i
v
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

M
P
a
Claystone -
800m
Lignite roof -
50m
KDB UCG
site -30m

Fig. 88. Compressive strength in dependence to temperature for selected rocks from direct roof strata in hard coal
and lignite beds.

Due to rather low thermal conductivity of sediment rocks, it would be rather hardly possible
that the roof strata will achieve such a high temperature (~1000
o
C) at significant depth (except for a
relatively thin layer of external surface). Thus, it can be expected that the direct roof strata will achieve
moderate temperature, what will result in compressive strength of this strata higher than in low
temperatures. Thus, height of full caving, which depends on the strength of direct roof strata will be
positively influenced reduced, by the temperature resulted from emission of the heat from the UCG
process. Example of a calculation of full height caving for three analyzed Carboniferous rocks and roof
strata from EM Barbara mine was presented in fig.89.
As it can be seen from the data presented in the fig.89 in case of temperature of roof strata
increased to 600
o
C, height of full caving will be lowered by 25 35% than in natural conditions.
However, it should be kept in mind that, as showed experiments, acting of such a temperature
on the rocks, which contain laminas of organic matter, will result in destruction of structure of the
rocks, thus disintegration of the roof strata formation will be more intensive by its collapsing than in
normal temperature of rocks at given depth.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
H
e
i
g
h
t

o
f

f
u
l
l

c
a
v
i
n
g
,

m
20 600 900
Temperature of rocks,
o
C
Mudstone Claystone Sandstone KD Barbara

Fig. 89. Height of full caving for exemplary roof strata from Carboniferous beds in relation to temperature.
Thickness of actual extraction h = 3m, depth of a seam H = 300m, density of rockmass = 2600kg/m
3
.

Considerations on propagation of caving zone relate in most extent to conditions of underground
mining at depths, being enough for development of subsidence basins on the ground surface and whole
vertical structure of subsidence (full caving zone, fractured zone and continuous deformations zone). In
practical conditions such a situation occurs by minimal depth of about 200m below the ground surface.
In case of shallow deposits their extraction must be arranged either as open pit mining or as
underground mining with full protection of ground surface to avoid appearance of situation described
above. By mining operation such a level safety is ensured by use of room and pillar systems with tight
backfilling of created caverns.
131

The problem of roof control by shallow underground mining is additionally exposed by the fact
that, as have show research of rock properties in this project, geologically young and not influenced by
acting of high pressures rocks in shallow strata of the rockmass exhibit often poor mechanical
properties. This is a case both for roof strata from EM Barbara mine and for rocks from the lignite
bed.
Rocks from lignite bed roof exhibit extremely small compressive strength of an average value 1.3
MPa in wide range of temperatures, up to round 800
o
C. A little bit better mechanical properties exhibit
floor rocks from the lignite, however this is of minor importance for stability problem of UCG caverns.
In such a situation conducting of UCG operations is at least controversial if possible at all. It
seems obvious that at any approach, UCG in such conditions must be scattered, it means points of the
UCG operations must be distributed on large area with significantly limited dimensions of open caverns
and tight backfill of the finished ones.

2. Technical solutions for feed and product collection equipment
The following gasification agents are used depending on the expected product gas quality and
way of utilization: air, oxygen, steam and their mixtures. For safety reasons, in case of installation
operated in shaft method mode, especially in regions where conventional coal mining methods are in
use, nitrogen should be used as an inert gas.
Technical solutions for a feeding system supplying air, oxygen, steam and nitrogen (in emergency) to
the georeactor are based on conventional systems of their generation. The selection of a specific
solution is based mainly on economic criteria.
Oxygen and nitrogen are generated by cryogenic or membrane air separation. There are also PSA
methods in use. Since the purity of oxygen and nitrogen supplied to the process are of secondary
importance, it is the scale of the needs which determines the method of their generation. The following
guidelines are to be followed in these terms (acc. to the Messer company):
the demand for up to a few m
3
/h (test facilities): gasses in gas cylinders
100 200 m
3
/h (test facilities at larger scale): liquid gas in cryogenic tanks
up to 1000 m
3
/h (pilot plants): membrane installation generating gasses at site could be used
up to a few ths m
3
/h PSA or VSA may be applied
industrial scale requires construction of cryogenic air separation installation by the UCG plant.
Steam involved in reactions in the UCG generator comes principally from the natural moisture
content of coal and from water inflow. In case of coal of high moisture content (e.g. lignite) and
location of the georeactor in strata of high water content, the excess water constitutes a technological
problem. Water inflow can be controlled by maintaining an appropriate pressure level in the georeactor
in relation to hydrostatic pressure.
In case of gasification of coal in coal seams remaining after coal production with conventional
mining methods, disturbances in water balance in rock mass may result in the need for water supply to
the reaction zone by injection of a controlled amount of water into gasification agents stream through a
solenoid valve.
Selection ctriteria in terms of products collection system construction should take into account a
balance of product components, that is moisture (water) content in product gas and amount of tars as
well as the required purity level for product gas, depending on a specific utilization way assumed.
One of numerous schematics of the UCG product gas based energy production complex, including gas
treatment (B) is preented in fig.90.

132

Fig. 90. Exemplary schematic of UCG product gas based energy production complex
1 production well, 2 injection well, 3 inclined linkage well, 4 ignition well, 5 drainage well, 6 water removing
well, 7 inspection well, 8 air blower, 9 heat exchanger, 10 centrifuge, 11 separator, 12 Venturi scrubber, 13
hydrogen sulfide utilization unit, 14 CO2 utilization unit, 15 clarification tank, 16 ammonia water utilization unit,
17 phenol utilization unit, 18 wastewater utilization unit, 19 compressor, 20 gas turbine, 21 electric generator, 22
steam turbine, 23 steam boiler, 24 condenser, and 25 chimney; (I) air, (II) UCG gas, (III) mechanical impurities,
(IV) tar and condensate, (V) hydrogen sulfide for utilization, (VI) carbon dioxide for utilization, (VII) tar for
storage, (VIII) condensate for utilization, (IX) ammonia for storage, (X) phenol water, (XI) cycle water, (XII)
purified gas, (XIII) water from treatment plant, and (XIV) thermal energy (hot water); (A) underground gas
generator, (B) chemical plant for gas purification and processing, and (C) thermal power plant with a combined
steamgas cycle.

VII.2.1.2. Task 6.2 Technological criteria
The technological criteria cover:
range of the reagent feed parameters (flow rates, compositions, pressure, temperature) for
generation of gas of required characteristics in the generator,
range of the parameters specific for particular options (for example rate of CaO delivery).
The technological criteria determining the results of the gasification process, that is product gas output,
composition and heating value and process efficiency include:
1. coal characteristics (carbon, ash, moisture content and permeability)
2. coal seam parameters (thickness, inclination angle, depth)
3. parameters of the surroundings (kind of strata, water content)
4. gasification process parameters (temperature, pressure in the georeactor)
5. gasification agents (composition, flow rate).
The basic relations between gasification process results and above mentioned criteria, based on
literature and experimental data gained in the course of the project realization are presented below. It
should be emphasized that there are multilateral relations between particular criteria and process results.

a. Coal characteristics.
Lignite, hard coal and anthracite have been used in the UCG research so far. Most of research
works were performed in lignite and younger hard coal seams of higher permeability. Swelling and
cocking coals were reported to block gas flow through the coal seam, which results in reaction
hindering. These kinds of coal may be gasified with a use of hydro fracturing. Anthracite is
characterized by very low permeability, which makes the gasification process start up difficult.
The use of low rank coals is beneficial for their higher reactivity and stronger tendency to shrink and
crack when heated up as a result of water and volatiles release.
133

The dependence between coal characteristics influencing its suitability for gasification is
presented in fig.91 [10].

Rank
liquids tars
plasticity
water content
Cleat spacing
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
Reactivity
Steam
requirements

Fig. 91. Dependence between coal characteristics influencing its suitability for gasification

Ash content in coal to be gasified influences the gasification process. It stems from the fact that
higher ash content implies lower content of carbon, which at a specific georeactor volume, results in
lower gas production. Furthermore, the ash content should not be too high as it accumulates in the
georeactor space and hinders flow of gasification agents. It has been proved experimentally that higher
ash content decreases heating value of product gas and hinders the gasification process. Ash derived
metal oxides may catalytically effect the process and increase product gas heating value, with a
moderate ash content in coal.
Ash melting and softening points are also important. The influence of ash content of coal on
product gas quality is presented in fig.92.

Fig. 92. Influence of ash content of coal on product gas quality

Gasification process development depends also on water content in a coal seam. Water present
in the georeactor zone may originate from: natural moisture content of coal and surrounding strata,
natural water inflows, steam supplied with gasification agent and combustion process in the gasification
zone, resulting in generation of so called pirogenic water.
Water may influence gasification process in various ways. The effect is positive when the
amount of water in the process is limited. It enables maintaining the temperature at the level sufficiently
high for coal devolatization and for reaction increasing the content of combustible components in
product gas. The negative effect is observed when an excessive amount of water causes high heat
losses, related to water evaporation and endothermic steam decomposition, which results in significant
temperature decrease in oxidation zone and deterioration of gasification process parameters.
Experimental data show that gasification of coal of natural moisture content of 40-45% results
in product gas generation of a heating value of 3.0 MJ/m
3
. Drying of coal to the moisture content of 10-
12% increased the heating value of product gas even to 8.0 MJ/m
3
. Heating of coal results in partial
134

evaporation of moisture, which creates fractures in coal structure, improving gasification process
conditions.

b) Coal seam parameters.
It has been proved experimentally that usable gas can be produced in coal seams of at least 1 m
thickness. Such or greater thickness of coal seams ensures process stability and avoidance of
operational problems in preparation stage. Coal seams of a thickness below 0.6 m are commonly
considered to be unsuitable to the underground gasification process. Suitability of coal seams of a
thickness between 0.6 and 1.0 m is controversial. Gasification of coal seams of a thickness below 0.6 m
results in fast exposure of floor and roof rocks, which results in heat losses. Under such circumstances
gasification agent may by-pass the reaction front and combust product gas, decreasing its heating value.
Higher heating values of product gas are reached in coal seams of high thickness since product gas is
enriched in combustible components from coal devolatization. Time of roof and floor exposure is
significantly longer and the reaction takes place on the entire surface of a channel.
The feasibility of underground coal gasification increases for inclined, thin coal seams. In
Lischansk (FSU) a coal seam of an inclination angle of up to 60
0
and thickness from 0.44 m was
gasified to product gas of a heating value from 1250 kJ/m
3
.
Previous gasification trials were performed in coal seams at depths of 50-1200 m. Experiments
at greater depths were realized mainly in Europe. Increase in the depth results in the need for higher
process pressures.
It is generally assumed that coal gasification in virgin coal seams at the depth of over 700 m
ensures tightness of a georeactor resulting from plasticity of carbonaceous shales under such conditions.
The situation is different in case of areas affected by mining operation, where the UCG process
performance requires mining preparation works to be done, irrespectively of the process depth,
including sealing of a georeactor. Based on previous experience coal gasification at depths of over 60 m
is considered to be feasible in terms of the effects on the surface and possible gas leakages.

c) Parameters of the surroundings.
The influence of natural water inflow on the UCG process is considerable. Presence of aquifer
layers directly by the gasified coal seam may result in intensive water inflows, and consequently, in
hindering or termination of the gasification process. When the pressure in the georeactor is too low
great amounts of water may rush in the georeactor and terminate the process. Therefore control of water
inflow is essential by means of gas pressure control in a georeactor.
An appropriate pressure balance facilitates slow water migration in a reaction zone direction,
ensuring sufficient amount of steam to the process and preventing gas leakages.
Based on the literature review a strict correlation between water inflow (in m3 per tone of gasified coal)
and LHV of product gas may be claimed. Water inflow of 2 m
3
/tone of coal gasified implies product
gas heating value of max 3.8 MJ/m
3
. When water inflow is about 1 m
3
/tone of coal gasified, product gas
heating value of 4.2 MJ/m
3
may be expected. With a water inflow limited to 0.5 m
3
/tone of coal
gasified, product gas of a heating value of 5.8 MJ/m
3
may be generated.
Influence of water inflow and seam thickness on product gas quality is presented in fig.93 [11].

d) Gasification process parameters.
Pressure in the underground georeactor is influenced by the conditions of the surroundings,
including the depth and hydrostatic pressure. The pressure in a georeactor should be maintained at a
level slightly below the hydrostatic pressure level. This reduces product gas losses and contamination of
underground water and enables control of water inflow into a georeactor.
In case of OEA coal gasification pressure increase positively influences process development
and product gas quality. This is illustrated in fig.94 [12].
135

H
e
a
t
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
,

k
c
a
l
/
m
3
Seam thickness, m
1 m
3
of water per tone
of coal gasified
H
e
a
t
i
n
g
v
a
l
u
e
,

k
c
a
l
/
m
3
Seam thickness, m
1 m
3
of water per tone
of coal gasified

Fig. 93. Effect of seam thickness and the specific water inflow into gasification zones on the heating value of gas
obtained by UCG.

Fig. 94. Influence of pressure on composition of product gas. Data for the UCG pilot plant at Zhong-Liang-Shan,
China.

Increase in pressure improves product gas heating value since methane content increase as a
result of the methanation reaction. The effect of the temperature on product gas composition is
presented in fig.95 [13]. It should be emphasized that the temperature control in a georeactor is much
more limited than in case of precisely defined reaction zone of a surface gasifier.

5. Gasification agents
The following gases are used as gasification agents: air, oxygen enriched air, oxygen, steam or
their mixtures. A kind of gasification agent used has a decisive impact on composition and heating
value of product gas.
Average product gas compositions from various UCG installations worldwide vs gasification
agent used are presented in table 32.
To sum up it should be emphasized that realization of coal gasification process in the undefined
and changeable environment effects the results which are resultant of many factors considered above.
The example may constitute the empirical relation developed by Kreinin [14] based on the experimental
data (FSU).

136

Fig. 95. Example of an equilibrium calculation for coal gasification

Table 32. Product gas composition vs gasification agent used.
Gasification agent
Gas component
Air Oxygen Water Oxygen/ Water
H
2
5.5 16.7 32.7 51.2 44.5 45.0 40.0
CO 6.5 16.1 10.8 31.5 9.0 14.0 30.0
CO
2
11.8 15 23.1 33.4 23.8 31.0 27.5
CH
4
0.7 5.4 3.2 10.6 5.8 12.0 6.0
C
2
+C
4
0.3 0.6 0.2 1.2 n.d. n.d.
N
2
48.8 73.0 0.0 1.4 4.0 11.8 2.0
HHV MJ/m
3
4.8 9.6 8.1 10.5 8.6 12.0 9.8

Analysis of the obtained experimental and technological data has allowed determination of a
quantitative relationship between the gas heating value, coal heating value, gas yield, seam thickness,
water inflow rate and coal gasification rate. The obtained empirical equation is:

(36)

where: I is the gasification rate, ton/hr, v is the water inflow rate, m
3
/h; Qg is the gas heating value,
MJ/m
3
; Q
c
is the coal heating value, MJ/kg; V
g
is the gas yield, m
3
/kg; h is the coal seam thickness, m;
and 0.506 is an empirical coefficient, m
-1
.

VII.2.1.3 Task 6.3 Environmental criteria
The environmental criteria related to the UCG process include mainly groundwater and air
protection. Fullfilment of the criteria, including keeping the standards resulting from regulations in
terms of environmental protection is related mainly to the aspects of a georeactor tightness, described in
details in T6.1. This part of research was aimed at application of solutions to potential environmental
UCG-related problems on the basis of the experience gained in underground mining engineering.
137

Analogical solutions can be proposed with respect to the differences between underground mining and
the UCG, resulting mainly from the impact of high temperatures.
Frequently underestimated in most UCG applications are the questions of rock subsidence, and
the collapse of voids created by the chemical processing of coal. An important part of the research was
an analysis of thermally induced changes in rocks surrounding coal beds, exposed directly on high
temperature.
Significant and differentiated changes of mechanical properties of selected sediment rocks have
been identified. Mechanisms of roof collapsing and development of subsidence, resulted from thermal
influences of UCG voids in a coal seam have been compared with traditional mining techniques
In contrary to classical mining approach, where the phenomena of rocks collapse is considered mainly
in the form of mine subsidence and protection of ground surface requirements, collapses in UCG are
considered as potential routes of gas escapes and contaminants migration. Also the isolation of highly
toxic residues and by-products of reactions being involved in UCG seems to be thoroughly addressed in
respect to protection of ground waters.
Removal by UCG of a mass of coal from the seam by UCG, results in the creation of open roof
surface, which starts very narrow and continues in a gradual widening of the gasification channel and
development of unsupported roof surface leading to a balance of forces in the rockmass above the
cavern (or channel), accordingly to the pressure vault theory. Further lateral expanding of the width of
UCG caverns results in both vertical and lateral expanding of the unstable zone of rocks over the open
cavern and their collapse intensifies.
As result of this process more and more mass of the roof rocks falls down to the space of the
cavern and gradually fill it up.
Finally, at a certain maximal width of the UCG cavern, the volume of collapsed rocks from the
roof completely fills the void generated within the coal seam. Further gradual movement of the voids
occurs upwards in the roof rocks. The process stops however, in the moment when collapsed rocks will
create natural support for above lying strata, accordingly to propagation of caving zone process.
The model of roof collapse over an UCG cavern assumes that collapse of roof rocks occurs
linearly with expanding width of a cavern. At each cavity width, a certain volume of rocks is falling
down on its floor and reduces the open surface in a cross-section of a cavern. In the two-dimensional
approach there is a relationship between the percentage of open cross-section (free for flow of gases)
and the width of this cavern.
Under assumption that UCG cavern is expanding to the full thickness of the coal seam, the
relation depends on, the current width of the cavern, l, thickness of coal seam, w, and the mechanical
properties of direct roof strata. Calculation of the volume of rocks falling into the space of the cavern at
each stage of its expanding can be made using the design methods of Protodiakonow and Saustowicz.
An example of of roof collapsing in relation to width of an UCG cavern is shown in fig.96 for
at two temperatures using measured mechanical properties of clay from previous research. It shows that
an unsupported cavern of 3m height would be fully filled up with collapsed roof rocks by width of
4.4m at ambient temperature and by width of 5.4m when the roof rocks achieve temperature of 600
o
C.
If the assumption is made that an UCG channel can be considered as free for undisturbed flow
of gases when collapsed roof rocks will not cover more than 1/3 of cross-sectional surface of a channel,
then width of such channel should not exceed about 2,5m (by temperature 600
o
C)
In the case of very weak roof strata above lignite beds, the possibility of keeping of UCG
caverns in stabile conditions are much more limited than in the case of deep hard coal deposits. In the
case considered in fig.97, complete destruction of the cavern will occur by a width of abut 2,5m.
Relatively advantageous conditions for gas flow in UCG cavern will be met until its width reaches 1m.
No temperature influence has been shown, while the change of compressive strength in the range of
temperatures up to 1000
o
C is too small to exhibit significant influence on cavern stability behavior.

138

0
20
40
60
80
100
0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0
Width of cavern [m]
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

f
i
l
l
e
d

w
i
t
h

c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
d

r
o
o
f

r
o
c
k
s

[
%
]
Claystone 20C
Claystone 600C

Fig. 96. Results of calculation of roof collapsing into UCG cavern for claystone in temperature 20
o
C and 600
o
C.
Thickness of actual extraction h = 3m, depth H = 800m, density of rockmass = 2600kg/m
3
, R
c
= 40MPa in t =
20
o
C, R
c
= 86MPa in t = 600
o
C

0
20
40
60
80
100
0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5
Width of cavern [m]
C
r
o
s
s
-
s
e
c
t
i
o
n

s
u
r
f
a
c
e

f
i
l
l
e
d

w
i
t
h

c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
d

r
o
o
f

r
o
c
k
s

[
%
]

Fig. 97. Results of calculation of roof collapsing into UCG cavern for lignite roof rocks. Thickness of actual
extraction h = 3m, depth H = 100m, density of rockmass = 2600kg/m
3
, R
c
= 1,4MPa.

VII.2.1.4 Task 6.4 Safety criteria
The safety criteria will cover:
the required scope of water, air and ground surface monitoring at each stage of the generator
construction, operation and after its shut down, in relation to a fire hazard, human health and life
hazard and surface infrastructure hazard,
required level of the generator insulation,
limits regarding carrying out others activities in the generator surroundings.

Required scope of water, air and ground surface monitoring at each stage of the generator construction,
operation and after its shut down, in relation to fire hazard, human heath and life hazard and surface
infrastructure hazard
The UCG development proposed accessing the in-situ coal at depth (600-1200m) via boreholes
drilled from the surface. As this is a new concept, no specific safety regulations address the needs of the
UCG, although existing regulations should be capable of satisfying the overall process.
The drilling activities would fall under on-shore or off-shore installations and wells regulations.
The UCG process involves the injection of high pressure gases (O
2
, inflammable gas,
steam/water) through pipes inserted in the injections wells and the gas produced is likely to be under
139

pressure. Surface equipments will be required to store, monitor, control and deliver the gases feedings
with N
2
supply to extinguish the coal burning if required.
The produced gas which contains pollutants and tars will be cleaned up, and depending of the
process optional syngas use, consideration of the existing Healt, Safety and Environment (HSE)
guidance on surface gasifiers will be needed: the Control of Major Accidents Hazard regulations will be
applied and a specific safety report will have to be developed.
The UCG has to meet the environmental regulations and for on-shore applications is likely to
fall under the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) and to request agreement of local
authorities.
Surface and subsurface facilities should be designed to control the process for any combination
of pressure and temperature, e.g. the need for leakage protection and use of double capacity surrounding
principles should be considered. Proven technology should be used for analysis and calculations, with
all data documented and emergency procedures developed.
Information required as part of the design of underground storage facility will include
geological structure, horizontal and vertical strata characteristics, strata thickness, depth and faults,
sealing properties of faults, permeability, porosity and capillarity pressure of any cap rock and reservoir.
Geological specifications, pre-existing minerals works and hydrogeological maps will participate at the
good assessment of the UCG sites.
Facilities can be designed so that there is sufficient depth to ensure hydraulic enclosure of the
stored product.
The potential environmental impact of UCG can be minimized through :
Appropriate site selection and investigation: suitable coal seam description providing
advantageous operational conditions with geological and hydrological characteristics offering
lowest risks of ground water pollution and gas escape, as well as suitable surface location
satisfying the various planning requirements that may be applied to the operation, including
national regulations.
Effective process control for an efficient operation of the gasifier that minimizes the generation
and spreading of potential contaminants : minimisation of gas losses, maintenance of the
thermochemical equilibrium, maintenance of coal conversion/gas production rate, maintenance of
the product gas calorific value. That requires real time gas analysis and the crucial in-situ
phenomena of groundwater ingress/gas losses to strata the data of which can be inputs in the
online models such as the environmental management aspects, the sustainable driving control of
the gasification process and the optional commercial syngas use.
Adoption of an appropriate shut down and switch off procedure : the shut down strategy should
minimize post-burn contaminant generation from pyrolysis products by accelerating the cooling
of the cavities, by preventing post-gasification pressure, by pumping raw water from the cavities
to remove potential organic and inorganic contaminants which should be treated as well as by
keeping hydrostatic gradient towards the reactor areas. During this step, the gas production will
be maintained as long as possible.
Environmental monitoring : UCG requires particular authorization and regulation for power
generation, storage of hazard substances, construction of power facilities. Robust analysis and
assessment based on the geology and hydrology of the site should be carried out to meet
regulatory constraints of the relevant ground water legislation. Gasification reactor which is
located within a permanently unsuitable groundwater zone or which is almost certainly
hydrogeologically isolated from significant aquifers in the overburden is recommended.
Potential impact of ground movement at depth on the permeability of strata and
structures underground will also have to be evaluated. Significant surface subsidence is
not thought to be likely from trial or semi-commercial operation, but this will have to
be evaluated as part of the planning operation. Ground water monitoring both during
and after operations will be in any case required.
Proposed trial design should be based upon site-specific dispersion modelling
incorporating a stack height sensitivity study. Best Available Techniques (BAT) should
be used to minimize impacts of the installations on the environment. Pollution
Prevention and Control regulatory regime should be applied as well as the standard
industrial environment management techniques.
Communication aspects: Strong level of communication strategy covering the environmental
impact assessment between the Authorities for the regulations, the Public for process
140

understanding and Technicians for process management will be the key of broad agreement on
site selection and process criteria.

Risk parameters for the UCG process on site
The main hazards related to UCG process can be summarized as follows:
A) Surface risks during the gasification process:
Explosive risks by the generated and refined gas:
Presence of O
2
in the raw production flow containing high content of H
2
& CH
4
gas
Storage of the gas production, surface facilities of the preliminary treatment and refined
processing gas ; partly on site syngas use and stage of pipeline delivery with counter flows
B) Subsurface risks during the gasification process
The ground water contamination by: the produced toxic metals and metallic salts during the
gasification, tars and others partly soluble hydrocarbons and sulphur species
The cavity roof collapse: contamination of overburden by the by-products.
C) Both surface and subsurface risks
During the extension procedure of the generator:
risks of communication between the running operated generation and the drilling
activities planned for the continuous generator extension:
continuous drilling activities of new injection wells, with included
communication
processing the commutation between the going down generator and the next
prepared coal panel to be gasified
underground explosive risks :
underground communication of reactants and product gas
by-pass of O
2
through the cavity.

Factor increasing leaching risks
Incomplete combustion and inadequate gasification: increase of contaminants production and
accumulation inside the gasifier
CO
2
storage in depleted underground gasifier: increase of mobility of some contaminants
Overpressure in gasifier: liquid phase contaminants pushing out of generator
Firing or explosive agents: cavity disintegration.

Practices reducing leaching risks
Some reaction parameters must be correctly controlled:
High enough reaction temperature: ccomplete combustion decreasing hydrocarbonated products,
volatile heavy compounds converted into syngas instead of remaining into the cavity
Reactor pressure kept closely lower than the hydrostatic pressure: groundwater influx maintained
out the cavity
Optimized gasification agents composition

The best choice of the site and the georeactor includes:
UCG location: far away from valuable underground resources, deep sites more likely away from
drinkable water aquifers
Good knowledge and modelling of surrounding strata: hydrological study of the zone to be
gasified, effect of cavity growth and subsidence, influence of minerals presence.

Best practises for risk management
Managing environmental risk during and after UCG operations consists in:
understanding effects and interactions of UCG processes with groundwater and rock
understanding the evolving physics and chemistry during the life cycle of a burn cavity and
interactions among cavities.
Environmental regulations require constraining technical risks for permitting as :
UCG wells should be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
Existing UIC framework should be designed for the UCG case by focussing on documented cases
of groundwater contamination from fossil fuel recovery operations showing that contamination
comes from combustion by-products and not from injected materials
141

Permitting process should be likely to contain an Area of Review which includes region around
wells affected by the burn cavity and any potential leakage paths which can impact underground
sources of drinking water.
Technical risks are present and must be addressed in all project phases :
Planning and permitting phase: site screening and early characterization, detailed site
characterization facilities and operations planning, economic and legal assessments
Construction and operation phase: facilities construction, well installation and baseline
monitoring will gained the operational and environmental monitoring, modelling and feedback
Post-operations phase and site closure: shut-down operations, cooling, venting and cavity
flushing, well plugging and abandonment, surface facilities decommissioning and post-project
monitoring, remediation and mitigation, and long-term stewardship and site release for re-use,
transfer of site liability and indemnity.
Approach to addressing technical risks focused on developing applied simulations :
Thermal-hydrological model - multiphase heat and fluid flow and combustion, reactive transport
in fractured coal and adjacent environment
Geomechanical model coal/rock failure, relative motion, evolving permeability of coal cleats
and rocks fractures ; prediction of UCG cavity collapse, impacts of collapses of cavities due to
explosion, assessment of behaviour of parallel modules UCG
UCG thermodynamics model coal combustion and cavity growth and environmental
consequences
Real-time process control of all the activities on the surface and subsurface, of the UCG trials
forecasting UCG deployment and optimization operations, especially for the critical operation
conditions.
Others requirements related to the policy risks:
Range of regulations, licenses and permits
IPPC Directive; HSE directive, Water Framework Directive and Grounwater (Daughter)
Directive, Air emission Directive, Control of Major Accident Hazards, Hazardous waste
Directive, Strategic Environmental Assessement (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessement
(EIA) Directives.

Required level of the generator insulation
The environmental management requires some level of the generator insulation to avoid
environmental hazards linked with the UCG process:
Selecting the sites with favourable hydrology to minimize widespread motion of the
contamination to the USDW (Underground Sources of Drinking Water) which typically are at
shallow depth. The great depth (more than 600 meters) generally creates conditions of lower
permeability for gases and liquids mobility. Steam jacket at depth is created to minimize heat
losses and prevent contaminants migration.
Balancing operation conditions to minimize outward transport of contamination from greatly over
pressurized burn zones by keeping the pressure of the affected zone always slightly below the
local litho static pressure
Ensuring that UCG sites are located where natural geological seals sufficiently isolate the burn
zones from the surrounding strata, i.e. deep coal beds where local aquifers consist of saline, non
potable water, with stratigraphic seals and structural integrity with limited cavity roof caving
Sites with natural barriers limiting the subsidence phenomena resulting from low permeability
strata composed of multi-overlying ductile substances with smooth and continuous elasto-plastic
deformation and with high strata relaxation performance
Geomorphology of folded terrain and dome basins can participate in insulation of the affected
zone, even if the sites are exempt from fault zone, thrust and fracture
Using numerical models assessments of the longwall pillars methods to assure the stability of
multi-lateral and parallel modules and pre-existing underground works.

142

Limitation regarding carrying out others activities in the generator surroundings
UCG activities will be always prohibited in numerous cases where major risks hazards exist.
It is especially the case for:
Surface risks: urban agglomeration and large civil infrastructure, industries under control of
SEVESO Directive and Nuclear activities controlled by the Nuclear Energy Agency (AIEA)
Subsurface risks: Mines, wells, geothermal shafts, underground gas storage and other reserved
basins, Underground civil engineering (tunnels, gas storage, nuclear waste disposal), potable
groundwater resources and all hydrogeological reservoirs.

Compilation of safety criteria
Main environmental issues concerning UCG
Surface Impacts
Atmospheric emissions: emissions of CH
4
, CO
2
, CO, H
2
, NO
x
, N
2
, NH
3
, H
2
S and SO
x
;
Surface water: spillage of fluids during drilling and others fluids during site operation,
raw water pumped from the well, tars, condensate, sulphured compounds
Drinking water pollutants: benzene, NH
3
, nitrate, phenols, pyridine
Human impacts: anthropogenic impact during drilling and site operation, noise, dust.
Subsurface Impacts
Groundwater: some essential contaminants might influence ground water quality
(benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, BTX, speciated phenols, tars, aromatic hydrocarbons
and sulphides, NO
x
, NH
3
, boron, cyanide, CO, H
2
S; heavy metals)
Subsidence: roof collapse in the created cavity, depending on rock mechanical
properties, geological and thermal stresses, cavity geometry and depth (at great depth,
subsidence observations dont cause surface instability)
By-products: coal burning processes release in the ground pollutants that can be
removed during post-operation phase (cooling, flushing): benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, BTX, phenols, coal ash and tars, aromatic hydrocarbons & sulphides,
NO
x
, NH
3
, boron, cyanide, CO, H
2
S, heavy metals
CO
2
sequestration: CO
2
separation at high pressure and underground pumping - any
seams in the strata up to 150 m above a caved gasifier could be disturbed, creating so
conditions favourable for CO
2
injection and Enhanced Coal Bed Methane recovery
(ECBM) to be integrated inside UCG power generation.
Monitoring and Control of Environmental Impacts
Hydro-geology: carboniferous succession related to groundwater level, ground water
chemistry and dissolved gases
Lithology: carboniferous multi-layers succession with various permeabilities and
porosities depending of the interbedded nature of rock and coal, gravitational aspects of
the coal seam dip help de-watering without thermal process disturbing,
Fractures: permeability often increases in the zone of deformation surrounding faults,
allowing ground water or gases to move along these deep zones, gas/water loss can be
influenced by their size and pressure in the gasifier can extend the fractures
Lateral extent of aquifers: within the carboniferous seams, both limestone and
sandstone can occur in linear belts with restricted lateral extent; this places a finite limit
on yield from such aquifers, because it is often difficult to measure the actual effective
aquifers thickness and consequently to pinpoint actual yield horizons.
Key Environmental Issues
Models: technical Integrated UCG process model and accounting model
Regulations: environmental regulatory considerations
On-shore or off-shore area: risks assessment process and cost
Process, Operation, Management: design principles Site layout and adjacent land use.

Environmental considerations for UCG processing:
Construction of surface facilities and pipes
Gas clean up, power generation, syngas use
Drilling and well completion
Operation combining surface and in situ management
Underground process control
143

Gas combustion and other operational requirements
HAZOP studies based on the project scale
Environmental Monitoring requirements
Waste water management
Shut down procedure
Venting, cooling and flushing cavity
Well and lagoon closure
Post-gasification monitoring
Site restoration
Quality and reliability of available data.

VII.2.1.5 Task 6.5 Economic criteria
The economic criteria will cover:
evaluation of the commercial plant cost
evaluation of the O&M costs.
The objective of the economic analysis was to make a first estimate of the likely capital and
operating costs of a UCG syngas production process based on the results of the HUGE study, and to
compare with the previous results for UCG. These results would then be available for use in proprietary
economic models to estimate the likely costs of syngas production from UCG and more sophisticated
assessments such as NPV and internal rates of return calculations.
The two phase operation tested in the HUGE study can be viewed as a de-carbonising
gasification process, generating two streams of syngas sequentially. The gas streams produces during
the steam cycle is a low carbon fuel which is rich in hydrogen and methane and low in the carbon gases,
i.e. carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The other steam produced during the oxygen phase is rich in
CO
2
and after processing could be sequestered to CO
2
storage. Thus we have a means of separating the
CO
2
, with minimal acid gas processing.

Capital Cost Assessment
There are three principal parts to the capital cost assessment:
Estimating the underground costs of drilling and completion
Assessing surface plant costs for supplying the injectants (oxygen and steam) and
processing the raw syngas for sale
Determining the cost of CO
2
extraction from syngas, where required

Drilling and Completion Costs
The UCG process takes place in the coal space between one or more injection wells and the
production well, as shown in fig.98. The gasification zone is created by a series of gasification channels
between the two wells.

Fig. 98. Basic Configuration of the two wells and the gasification zone between them

The commercial arrangement, which has been studied and costed, assumes that one production
well and four injection wells can service a panel of 1MT coal, as shown in fig.99. It is designed to
generate 100MW of raw syngas output (720,000Nm
3
/d oxygen fired) and has a series of parallel
144

gasification channels connecting the injection and production wells. Independent costing of the panel
Reference [15] using up to date drilling and completion costs are in the range 140 - 160 per KW of
syngas output.

Fig. 99 Commercial layout previously costed, see [15]

The boundary conditions assumed for the panel in the capital and operation cost calculation are as
follows:

Table 33 Boundary Conditions and Panel Capital Cost Estimates of Drilling and Completion of panel
Coal Thickness m 3.2
Coal Tonnage in Panel MT 1.03
Syngas Design Output of Production Well MW 100
Extraction Efficiency of UCG process 56%
Cost of drilling and completing Panel (DTI Report 2004) M 9.6M
Cost of Panel corrected for 2010 drilling in M 16,7M

Processing Plant Estimates

Fig. 100 Gasification and Clean-up Plant for UCG

The overall UCG production station for the production of clean syngas is shown in fig.100. The
process assumptions made for the costing criteria are as follows:
Oxygen fired UCG
Air Separation
Unit
Clean Water Stream for
process and discharging
Clean Syngas Stream
for CO
2
capture and
utilisation
145

Clean gas suitable for power generation
Syngas output designed for the equivalent of 450MW power plant
4 year programme from exploration to initial production.
The three cases considered for the economic study were:
UCG No Capture
UCG Conventional CO
2
capture form per-combustion gas
UCG- HUGE CO
2
Capture.

UCG without CO
2
Capture
This is the base case. It assumes that the syngas from the gasification process is compressed and
delivered to the end user by pipeline, after washing to remove soluble constituents, drying and SO
2

removal. No CO
2
is captured.

UCG with normal CO
2
Capture (CCP)
UCG is suitable for the pre-combustion capture of CO
2
which takes place by interaction with a
physical organic solvent such as Selexol. The solvent then passes through a regenerator and reused.
The full capture can be integrated into the gas cleaning process described above. Estimates of
overall CO
2
capture costs from pre-combustion syngas are available from the literature, e.g. CSIRO.

UCG with HUGE type CO
2
capture
The HUGE process effectively produces two streams of raw gas one rich in hydrogen (55%)
and the other rich in CO
2
(60%). Additional processing will be required to further concentrate the two
steams into relatively pure hydrogen and CO
2
, but the intensity of the process, and therefore the cost,
will be considerably lower than even the conventional de-carbonisation of UCG syngas. The following
assessment assumes that the cost of processing will be reduced by 60%.

Total Capital Cost Estimates
The boundary conditions used in the capital cost of the surface plant are shown in table 34 and
the estimates of Plant capital cost in table 35.

Table 34 Boundary Conditions and Assumptions for Capital Cost Estimates
Boundary Condition UCG No Capture UCG- CO2 Capture UCG- HUGE
Syngas design output MW 1000 1000 1000
Life of Plant y 20 20 20
CO
2
Capture Energy losses 0.0% 11% 5.5%
Number of panels operating 11 12 12
Oxygen consumption t/d 2750 3050 2900

Table 35 Capital Cost Estimates for the Three UCG Cases

The capital costs of the three approaches are presented and compared in fig.101. The
comparison is based on a thermal syngas output of 1,000MW, and includes estimates of exploration and
proving test, drilling and completion and the surface plant required to produce clean syngas. For the two
CO
2
capture cases, UCG- CO
2
capture and HUGE capture, the cost of compression and purification of
the CO
2
stream is also included.

Capital Cost Estimates UCG No Capture UCG- CO2 Capture UCG- HUGE
Exploration & Proving Tests 12,353,000 12,353,000 12,353,000
Process well construction 183.948,000 200,670,000 200,670,000
Oxygen Plant & Injection Equip. 57,615,000 63,783,000 61,102,000
Clean-up plant, Pipework, internal
power
53, 803,000 57,897,000 55,971,000
Transmission Costs 25Km 605,000 605,000 605,000
Engineering Costs @10% 29,633,000 32,332,000 31,871,000
Cost of CO2 capture 0 217,289,000 82,609,000
TOTAL 337,957,000 584,929,000 445,181,000
146

Fig. 101. Comparison of Capital Cost Euros/MW of clean syngas output

The results shows that the addition of CO
2
capture to the conventional UCG process increases
the capital cost of production of syngas from 338,000/MW to 585,000/MW of syngas. The HUGE
capture process substantially reduces the increase to 445,000/MW, because of the lower processing
costs of the syngas and CO
2
streams.

Estimates of Total Operating Costs of UCG Process
The boundary conditions used in the operating cost assessment of the surface and underground
UCG plants, are as follows:

Table 36 Boundary Conditions for the Operating Cost Estimates

Operating costs of a UCG plant include the costs of personnel, maintenance, consumables,
utilities and the replacement of plant components. These are calculated as follows:

Table 37 Operating Costs for the Three UCG cases, UCG-No capture, UCG conventional capture, and UCG
HUGE Capture

The above estimates of operating costs in /MW/y of syngas output, for the three processes,
UCG, UCG-conventional capture. UCG- HUGE Capture. are shown in fig.101. Royalties are based on
equivalent coal mined and use a value of 0.8/t of coal extracted, a value proposed provisionally by the
UK Coal Authority.

Boundary Condition
UCG No
Capture
UCG - CO
2

Capture
UCG - HUGE
No of Panels over life of project 42 46 44
No of panels drilled initially 11 12 12
Av no of panels to drill per year 1.6 1.8 1.7
Coal Royalties /tonne equivalent,
based on UK CA Estimate
0.8/t 0.8/t 0.8/t
Plant Maintenance % of plant capital 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Plant Operating Cost % of Capital 3.0% 3.0% 3.0%

UCG No Capture UCG- CO2 Capture UCG- HUGE
New of Panel & Assoc. Pipework
/y (From first table)
25,506,000 28,487,000 26,579,000
Coal license /y (0.4/t - UK CA) 915,000 1,016,000 966,000
Plant Maintenance (1.5%) 4,900,000 8,594,000 6,498,000
Gas Plant Operating Cost (3%) 9,779,000 66,236,000 55,219,000
TOTAL 41,090,000 66,745,000 55,702,000
147

Fig. 102. Operating Costs of UCG plant for the Three Operating Processes

The graph shows that the largest operating cost is the replacement of coal panels for UCG,
which amount to between 42% and 62% of the total operating costs. Royalty costs are a very low share
at 1.5% to 2% of the total cost.
OPEX increases from 41,100/MW/y for the non Capture UCG case, to 66,700/MW/y for
UCG with conventional CO
2
capture and but only 55,700/MW/y for the HUGE capture case. The
difference between conventional and HUGE capture therefore is less marked for the operating costs,
compared with the capital cost estimates above.

Conclusions
The HUGE project has identified a method of UCG operation which produces two gas streams,
one rich in hydrogen and the other rich in CO
2
. The separation takes place underground, by alternating
the oxygen (or air) and steam cycles, and the two streams come to the surface in their concentrated form
without expensive separation and capture stages. It follows, therefore, given satisfactory control of the
HUGE process, the costs of separation and the energy requirements for separation will be much
reduced.
The economic analysis has been undertaken on the assumption that the final polishing of the
gas streams in to pure hydrogen and CO
2
will cost substantially less than the conventional shift reaction
followed by acid gas removal.
Three cases have been considered, UCG without CO
2
capture, conventional CO
2
capture with
shift and acid gas removal and finally the HUGE cycling method.
The results show that capital costs for a CO
2
separation process based on the HUGE method are
estimated to be 23% lower than conventional pre-combustion capture of CO
2
from UCG syngas. On the
same basis, the operating costs are reduced by about 16%.
It is concluded on the basis of this initial economic assessment, that HUGE process of alternate
cycling of oxygen and steam, offers a significant improvement in capture costs from UCG, and further
investigation to refine these costs are recommended.
148

VIII. WP7

WP Leader: ISSP
WP Contractors:
7.1 Project Website; CMIPL
7.2 International conferences, meetings and seminars; ISSP, CMIPL, TUDT, USTUTT, TUSIL,
KOMPWEG, BOTGiE, CSICPF
7.3 Workshop; CMIPL, USTUTT
7.4 Articles and press releases; ISSP, CMIPL, TUDT, USTUTT, TUSIL, KOMPWEG, BOTGiE,
CSICPF

VIII.1 WORKPACKAGE WP7 OBJECTIVES
This work package will consolidate project results and will enable disseminating them to the
wider audience in Europe.

VIII.2 PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES
VIII.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results

VIII.2.1.1. Task 7.1 Project website development

The HUGE Web Module (available at: http://huge.gig.eu/) developed within the task T7.1
aimed at introducing all interested into the underground coal gasification (UCG) technologies,
providing the expertise related to the UCG and information on the main result of the project (including
publications) in the course of the HUGE project realization as well as educational materials targeted on
the UCG. The project website was also used as a platform for the exchange of the research and
organizational information between Contractors providing effective tools for communication and
collaborative environment for project management (extranet). The website served as a management,
dissemination and promotion tool of the project.
To face these challenges, the project website was built on three independent tiers:
Tier 1 - public access providing general information on HUGE project and allowing a controlled
access to other tiers
Tier 2 - extranet ensuring an access to project documents as well as to support from management
tools (access limited to project Contractors). The module was based on Open Source Software
DotProject (http://dotproject.net), which is managed, maintained, developed and supported by a
volunteer group and by the users themselves and which provides all necessary documents
allowing installing and operating project management. The participants of the projects have been
trained in using modules of the HUGE Platform during the Consortium Meeting (September
2008, Prague, Czech Republic). For each participants of the project an extranet account has been
created.
Tier 3 - e-learning module providing tools for dissemination of the information on HUGE project
progress to general public and professionals, based on Moodle Software (Modular Object-
Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment Software) developed on as a free, Open Source
software package designed to use sound pedagogical principles, to help educators create effective
online learning environment for selected communities (http://www.moodle.org/).
and HUGE Public Module.

VIII.2.1.2. Task 7.2 International conferences, meetings and seminars

1. J. Palarski, G. Strozik: Integrating Backfill Technology with Underground Gasification of Coal.
International Conference on Mining with Backfill MINEFILL 2011, Cape Town, RSA.
2. A.A. Eftekhari, H. Bruining, J. Rogut, D. Van Batenburg, Cyclic production of CO
2
rich and
hydrogen rich gas in underground coal gasification, Eighth European Coal Conference,
Darmstadt, November 2010.
3. A.A. Eftekhari, H. Bruining, Exergy analysis of underground coal gasification with simultaneous
storage of carbon dioxide, Eighth European Coal Conference, Darmstadt, November 2010.
149

4. K. Soukup, P. Schneider, J. Rogut, K. Stanczyk, O. olcov, In-situ modeling of gas transport in
the underground coal gasification process. CHISA 2010 7
th
European Congress of Chemical
Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, 28 August1 September 2010.
5. K. Soukup, P. Schneider, O. olcov, Evaluation of gas transport in porous solids transport
parameters determination. Modern Problems of Surface Chemistry and Physics - International
Symposium Devoted to the 80
th
anniversary of Academician O. O. Chuiko , Kyiv, Ukraine, 18
21 May 2010.
6. J. Palarski, UCG Applications in Coal Deposits horizontal and steep seams. 5
th
EU India Coal
Working Group Meeting. Oviedo, Spain, April 2010
7. K. Staczyk, K. Kapusta, A. Kotyrba, M. Wiatowski, J. widrowski, A. Smoliski, J. Rogut,
Polish experience in UCG and the ongoing European project: Hydrogen oriented underground
coal gasification, Global UCG Summit, London, 5-6 October 2009
8. J. Rogut, M. Steen, J. Dubiski, Geological, chemical and processing challenges for successful
direct methanisation of coal, Global UCG Summit, London, 5-6 October 2009.
9. J. Rogut, M. Steen, Surface Versus Underground Coal Methanation, Session 25 Gasification,
Underground Coal Gasification 26
th
Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference, Pittsburgh,
PA, USA, 20-23 September, 2009.
10. J. Palarski, Clean energy from coal without Traditional Mining. 20
th
Annual General Meeting
Society of Mining Professors, Looking to the Future, Sydney, Australia, 27 June 5 July, 2009.
11. K. Staczyk, J. Rogut, K. Kapusta, A. Kotyrba, J. widrowski, M. Wiatowski, A. Smoliski,
Hydrogen Oriented Underground Coal Gasification, 10
th
International Conference on Energy for
a Clean Environment, Lisboa, 7-9 July 2009.
12. P. Castaneda, J. Bruining, D. Marchesin, Analysis of Spontaneous Ignition in Porous Media,
SIAM conference on Mathematical and Computational Issues in the Geosciences, CP14, Leipzig,
15-18 June 2009.
13. J. Palarski, UCG in Poland Research, Progress and Opportunities. EU India Working Group
on Coal Working Group Meeting, Workshop on Underground Coal Gasification, New Delhi,
India, 13-14 March 2009.
14. J. Palarski, Solution to Future Energy Needs - Underground Coal Processing in Poland.
Proceedings of 4
th
International Conference on UCG London, UK, 9 11 February 2009.
15. J. Rogut, M. Steen, Hydrogen Oiented Underground Gasification Of Coal, International
Pittsburgh Coal Conference 2008, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Sept. 29
th
October 2
nd
, 2008.
16. G. de Santi, M. Steen, J. Rogut, J. Dubinski, Environmental, technological and regulatory issues related to CCS and UCG,
GIG Clean Coal Technology Conference: Geological aspects of underground carbon storage and processing, Krakow
Katowice, 17
th
-18
th
March 2008.
17. J. Rogut, Review of European and Russian UCG, 3
rd
International Conference on Underground Coal Gasification, London
5
th
-6
th
February 2008..

VIII.2.1.3 Task 7.3 Workshop

HUGE Workshop was organized on the 24
th
of June, 2010 at Central Mining Institute,
Katowice. The Agenda of the Meeting and list of participants is available at:
http://huge.gig.eu/extranet/. The Workshop programe is included in the Annex A to the Final
Report. The meeting aimed at presentation of the final findings of the project to the invited
representatives of industry, universities, research centers and the EC.
The subjects of the discussion included:
the results of the ex-situ experiments on hard coal and lignite gasification, application of the
georadar technique for monitoring of the ex-situ gasification process and the details of the in-
situ coal gasification trial performed at EM Barbara
the idea and the main results of the tests on simulated underground coal gasification in
pressurized reactor
the findings of evaluation of the mass transport parameters through coal and strata before and
after gasification
the results of experimental works in the field of water migration control for UCG process and
evaluation of qualitative changes of mechanical properties and mineral composition in
selected carboniferous under high temperatures of UCG process
150

the results of mathematical and thermodynamic modeling of the UCG process and
preliminary considerations on economic criteria for implementing the process options.
The final remarks were given by the representative of the EC, Mr. Alan Haigh, who found
the workshop very informative, also highlighting possible new and exciting future developments
and demonstrating a good example of international cooperation and effective dissemination of
project results.

VIII.2.1.4 Task 7.4 Articles and press releases

1. K. Staczyk, K. Kapusta, M. Wiatowski, J. widrowski, A. Smoliski, J. Rogut, A. Kotyrba,
Experimental simulation of hard coal underground gasification for hydrogen production, Fuel, in
press.
2. K. Kapusta, K. Staczyk, Pollution of water during underground coal gasification of hard coal
and lignite, Fuel, 2011, vol. 90, 1927-1934
3. K. Stanczyk, N. Howaniec, A. Smolinski, J. Swiadrowski, K. Kapusta, M. Wiatowski,; J.
Grabowski, J. Rogut, Gasification of lignite and hard coal with air and oxygen-enriched air in a
pilot scale ex-situ reactor for underground gasification, Fuel, 2011, vol. 90, 1953-1962
4. K. Staczyk, A. Smoliski, K. Kapusta, M. Wiatowski, J. widrowski, A. Kotyrba, J. Rogut,
Dynamic experimental simulation of hydrogen oriented underground gasification of lignite, Fuel
89 (2010) pp. 3307-3314.
5. Europes HUGE Project Tests: Encouraging Results, Gasification News, vol 13, issue 10, May
12, 2010.
6. F. Bubel, A. Grzelak, The Content of Chosen Chemical Elements in Raw Brown Coal From
Sieniawa Coal Mine and Gasification Ashes, Grnictwo Odkrywkowe R. LI (2010) No. 6, pp. 81-
87 (in Polish).
7. Issues of Impurities Removal in Underground Brown Coal Gasification Tests, Solutions Concept,
Grnictwo Odkrywkowe R. LI (2010) No. 6, pp. 69-73 (in Polish).
8. Gas Permeability Measurements in Geological Formations Surrounding Brown Coal Deposits,
Grnictwo Odkrywkowe, R. LI (2010) No. 6, pp. 93-98 (in Polish).
9. O. olcov, K. Soukup, J. Rogut, K. Stanczyk, P. 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 90 (2009) pp. 1495-1501.
10. K. Kapusta, K. Staczyk, Uwarunkowania i ograniczenia rozwoju procesu podziemnego
zgazowania wgla w Polsce, Przemys Chemiczny 88 (2009) pp. 331-338 (in Polish).
11. K. Soukup, P. Schneider, O. olcov, Wicke-Kallenbach and Graham's Diffusion Cells; Limits of
Application for Low Surface Area Porous Solids. Chemical Engineering Science 68 (2008) pp.
4490-4493.
12. A. Mikelic, H. Bruining, Analysis of model equations for stress-enhanced diffusion in coal layers.
Part I: Existence of a weak solution, SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 40 (2008) pp. 1671-
1691.
13. K. Staczyk, K. Kapusta, Podziemne zgazowanie wgla, jako perspektywiczna technologia w
polskim grnictwie, Przegld Techniczny 10 (2008) p. 15 (in Polish).
14. J. Dubiski, J. Rogut, K. Staczyk, Wytwarzanie wodoru w procesie podziemnego zgazowania
wgla, Archiwum Spalania 8 (2008) pp.80-91(in Polish).
15. Biuletyn Grniczy 1-2 (2008) pp. 151-152 (in Polish).
16. Information on CMIPL website and other websites:
Euronews TV on Sci-Tec, Futuris series presented short movie dedicated to Huge project: A tale
of underground alchemy, Euronews web: http://www.euronews.net/2010/05/05/a-tale-of-
underground-alchemy/, May 2010.
http://huge.gig.eu/
http://www.warsawvoice.pl/WVpage/pages/article.php/20619/article
http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80353,4455772.html
http://www.wnp.pl/czyste_technologie_weglowe/gig-planuje-kolejne-eksperymenty-
podziemnego-zgazowania-wegla,130217_1_0_0.html
http://www.nauka.gov.pl/nauka/sukcesy-uczonych/sukcesy-badawcze/sukcesy-
badawcze/artykul/gig-planuje-kolejne-eksperymenty-podziemnego-zgazowania-wegla/
http://www.giph.com.pl/biuletyn/151_4.html
151

http://www.ucgengineering.com/
http://www.coal-ucg.com/listofclients.html
http://www.eduskrypt.pl/ruszyly_badania_mozliwosci_podziemnego_zgazowania_wegla-info-
8629.html
http://gospodarka.gazeta.pl/gospodarka/1,33181,4455772.html.

152

IX. EXPLOITATION AND IMPACT OF THE RESEARCH RESULTS

Applications

HUGE project has played the multiple role in development of UCG technologies, the important element
of clean coal technology proposals for Europe:
It has created the centre and background laboratory for identification and independent evaluation
of experimental and modeling results produced in various -from old to very recent- studies of
underground chemical and thermal processing of coal (UCGP, CMIPL).
It has delivered the resources and opportunities for creation (by modeling and simulation) with
experimental verification of various new concepts of in situ gasification of coal aimed on
preferential production of hydrogen rich gaseous mixtures (CMIPL, ISSP, TUDT).
It has put necessary attention on identification and control the elements of potential, intentional and
un-intentional creation of in situ coal processing hazardous performance (generation and
uncontrolled migration of gaseous and liquid pollutants, risk of initiation of explosions, evaluation
of conditions for minimization of subsidence effects) (CSICPF, CMIPL, HUGEPL, TUSIL).
It has organized the group of European experts and gave them the opportunities to produce and
collect the verified knowledge for responsible advising the high level European decision makers in
creation the strategic programs for low emission utilization of coal resources, especially those not
promoted for classic coal mining methods (CMIPL, IE JRC).
The formal and legal restrictions was identified and necessary permissions were obtained for
carrying out the coal combustion-gasification operations in situ in highly urbanized coal mining
area.
On the stage of design, construction and operation of the in-situ installation a number of technical
solutions were elaborated for the underground reactor located in shallow coal seams and in the
vicinity of active mining areas. The solutions concerned in particular:
- monitoring system of the process development and measurements of gas concentrations in soil
air,
- techniques for monitoring of gaseous contaminants dispersion in the underground galleries
- controlling of the georeactor work and minimization of the explosion risk during the
georeactor breakdowns by application of inert gas injection
- controlling of the process termination and cooling down using standard methods for the
underground fires prevention and control
- methods of modification and reconstruction of ventilation systems in the existing, active
mines as an element of human safety assurance policies and explosion risk prevention
- methods of dealing with the highly contaminated coal gasification effluent waters and
treatment technologies.

Technical and Economic Potential for the Use of the Results

In the frame of the project the experimental studies focused on exploration the identified targets and
problems of implementation character have been performed:
The influence of the coal properties on coal-steam hydrogen gasification performance was studied
for various types of coal (from lignite to bituminous one) using the virgin coal blocks delivered
from the locations most prospective for future technology demonstrations.
153

The ex situ experiments were conducted employing various procedures elaborated by modeling
and simulation.
The most innovative gasification procedures, the results of simulations (dynamic and staged
operations, effective use of steam in highly humid environment, rational oxygen and oxygen
enriched air utilization, sorption enhanced hydrogen generation) were assessed on the basis of ex
situ experimental results.
Recognition of the catalytic role of various calcium compounds facilitating the steam -coal
gasification to low tar content- hydrogen rich product, is the important scientific value of the ex
situ research.
The coal fracturing for impregnation, drainage and controlled drying of humid coal seams (using
coal self heating phenomena) as the pretreatment operation in coal gasification was found of
potential practical importance for future industrial tests.
The recommendations for design, construction and safe operations of the in situ, technical scale
hydrogen generator were elaborated and implemented. It gave the opportunities to carry out the
gasification runs under realistic conditions, to produce the complete set of experimental data
required for designing the industrial UCG installations. It especially concerns gasification of post-
mining residual coal seams, which represent a significant part of coal resources in European
countries.
Economic analysis performed for the HUGE two-stage gasification approach indicated that the
alternate production of two gas streams, i.e. one rich in hydrogen and the other rich in CO
2

represents an attractive option for hydrogen production and carbon capture. The results showed
that capital costs for a CO
2
separation process based on the HUGE method are estimated to be 23%
lower than conventional pre-combustion capture of CO
2
from UCG syngas. On the same basis, the
operating costs are reduced by about 18%.
The results from in situ HUGE experiments have been confronted with data from the most
advanced UCG tests carried out worldwide. They were used for elaboration the innovative concept
of hydrogen oriented UCG operation the Sequential in situ Catalytic Combustion Gasification
of Coal (subject of patent applications).
The environmental, risk management and operational questions identified as important for safe
implementation and operation of future UCG plants were used for successful preparation the
HUGE2 project proposal with a new interested industrial partner (Polish private coal company).
This will be co-financed by RFCS.
The project benefited a lot from effective collaboration with industrial partners KOMPWEG,
BOTGiE, which identified potential places for implementation the technologies and delivered the
coal block (samples) for ex-situ tests. Owing to the project industrial companies are prepared for
building demonstration scale plants for ucg in their mines (20 mln euro Polish scientific-industrial
project supported by National Centre for Research and Development).
154

List of figures
Fig. 01. Comparison of the project expenditures to the total budget: a) in euros, b) in percents .........................18
Fig. 02. Comparison of the total budget of project partners to their expenditures ................................................19
Fig. 03. Comparison of the EU planned budget to the actual expenditures...........................................................19
Fig. 1. The block diagram including basic equipment required for the process.......................................................27
Fig. 2. Design of the feeding system........................................................................................................................28
Fig. 3. System layout................................................................................................................................................29
Fig. 4. System layout Generator 1.........................................................................................................................29
Fig. 5.The gas generator construction ......................................................................................................................30
Fig. 6 Monitoring measurement points. ...................................................................................................................31
Fig. 7. Scheme of the condensate collection system................................................................................................32
Fig. 8. Scheme of the gaseous products collection system.......................................................................................33
Fig. 9. Formation of passivating layer of silicium oxide shielding the wollastonite from reaction with carbon
dioxide. It is one of the obstacles in obtaining practical conversion rates. .....................................................36
Fig. 10. Panels representing vertical X-sections of the cavity ....................................................37
Fig. 11. Chips or spalls obtained from a heated and stressed rock sample. These spalls constitute the rubble zone
(from MSc thesis of Piet A. Bakker (1992) [3] ..............................................................37
Fig. 12 Different zones in the coal gasification channel ..........................................................................................37
Fig. 13 Net component fluxes from different zones.................................................................................................37
Fig. 14 Temperature profile of a cross-section of the cavity shows the heat diffusion into the roof rock (upper
inclined section) and the coal layer (lower horizontal section).......................................................................42
Fig. 15 a) CO
2
diffusion, profiles of relative CO
2
concentration, b) CO
2
permeation, profiles of relative pressure .43
Fig. 16. Main idea of the dynamic axial pseudo-homogeneous model for a packed bed.........................................44
Fig. 17. Concentration profile of CO
2
in a 2-meter bed as function of time. Each color shows a position in the bed
(blue is 0.4 m and brown is the output). The practical operation time for the adsoption cycle is about 2 hours
per meter depth of fresh sorbent (mineral) in this figure. (One hour is equal to 1800 pore volume of gas) ...45
Fig. 18. Chromatographic setup : (1) tracer gas source, (2) carrier gas source, (3) sampling valve, (4)
chromatographic column, (5) thermal conductivity detector (TCD), (6) digital data logger, (7)
computer, (F) calibrated mass flow-meter/controllers.................................................................................48
Fig. 19 Schematic view of the installation for the ex-situ tests of the UCG process................................................48
Fig. 20. HUGE semi-batch process pilot plants flowsheet .....................................................................................50
Fig. 21. Test stand and method of sampler filling....................................................................................................51
Fig. 22. Scheme of a testing apparatus, sample assembly and servo controlled hydraulic system of a press. .........52
Fig. 23. Changes in the product gas composition during the first UCG simulation.................................................59
Fig. 24. Temperature fluctuations in the coal seam during the UCG simulation due to the two-stage gasification
approach .........................................................................................................................................................60
Fig. 25. Changes in the composition of the product gas between 36 and 50 hours of the experiment .....................61
Fig. 26. Temperature profiles in the seam of hard coal during the two-stage UCG simulation: oxygen stage at 80
hours (a), and the following steam stage at 82 hours (b) ................................................................................62
Fig. 27. Temperature profiles in the seam of hard coal during the two-stage UCG simulation: oxygen stage at 120
hours (a), and the following steam stage at 122 hours (b) ..............................................................................62
Fig. 28. Kinetics of the main gaseous products and heating value during an exemplary oxygen stage ...................63
Fig. 29. Changes in gas composition and gas production rate depending on the oxygen supply rate ......................63
Fig. 30. Temperature in the oxidation zone during ..................................................................................................64
Fig. 31. Kinetics of CH4 production on the background of H2, CO and CO2 in exemplary steam stage ...............64
Fig. 32. Temperature in the steam gasification zone during the steam stage(time between 118
th
and 120
th
h of the
experiment).....................................................................................................................................................64
Fig. 33. Percentage composition of gaseous product mixture during a) oxygen, b) air and c) OEA hard coal seam
gasification phases..........................................................................................................................................65
Fig. 34. Changes in gas production and gasification agents supply rates during hard coal gasification experiment66
Fig. 35. Changes in temperature during air gasification of hard coal: (a) gasification channel, (b) coal seam 0.2 m
above gasification channel..............................................................................................................................66
Fig. 36. Changes in the product gas composition in the particular stages of the gasification ..................................68
Fig. 37. Interdependence between the gas production rates and gasifying agent, oxygen, supply rates during the
gasification of lignite ......................................................................................................................................69
Fig. 38. Percentage composition of gaseous product mixture during a) oxygen, b) air and c) oxygen-enriched air
lignite seam gasification phases......................................................................................................................70
Fig. 39. Temperature profiles in the seam of lignite during the UCG simulation: (a) oxygen gasification at 17.5
hours, (b) air gasification at 18.5 hours, (c) OEA gasification at 30 hours, and (d) OEA gasification at 45
hours ...............................................................................................................................................................71
Fig. 40. Temperature profile 0.4 m above gasification channel recorded between 17.5 and 20 hour of the lignite
seam gasification experiment .........................................................................................................................72
155

Fig. 41. Changes in gas production and gasification agents supply rates during lignite gasification experiment ....72
Fig. 42. Reactor front temperature profile during coal grains steam gasification ....................................................75
Fig. 43. Produced gas composition during coal grains steam gasification...............................................................75
Fig. 44. Steam gasification of coal grains : Specific global production of output gas .............................................76
Fig. 45. Steam gasification of coal grains: H
2
volumetric content in output gas......................................................76
Fig. 46.Steam gasification of coal grains: CH
4
volumetric content in output gas ....................................................76
Fig. 47.Experimental conditions applied during coal blocks steam gasification phase............................................77
Fig. 48.Front temperature profile inside reactor during coal blocks steam gasification...........................................78
Fig. 49. Reactor output synthesis gas composition during coal blocks steam gasification ......................................78
Fig. 50. Steam gasification of coal grains: (CH
4
+H
2
) specific production in output gas ........................................79
Fig. 51. Phenols amount in particular stages of elution tests ...................................................................................82
Fig. 52. Phenols amount in particular stages of elution tests (tests performed on materials from gasification of
brown and hard coal gasification trial conducted by CMI).............................................................................82
Fig. 53. Phenols amount in particular stages of elution tests (tests performed on materials surrounding brown coal
strata) ..............................................................................................................................................................83
Fig. 54. Development of heating temperature of all sandstone, mudstone, and claystone samples. ........................84
Fig. 55. Average uniaxial compressive strength of sandstone, mudstone, and claystone samples at room
temperature and after heating up to temperature: 600, 900, and 1120C........................................................84
Fig. 56. Compressive strength in function of temperature of rock samples from roof and floor of a lignite bed.....87
Fig. 57. Compressive strength in function of temperature of rock samples from roof and floor of a EM Barbara
rocks. ..............................................................................................................................................................89
Fig. 58. CO
2
diffusion; profiles of relative CO
2
concentration and relative molar flux densities ............................90
Fig. 59. CO
2
permeation; time-change of pressure 300 m away from the gas source for the initial source pressure
po=5bar () and 10bar (). .............................................................................................................................91
Fig. 60. Oxygen flow rate vs time ................................................................................................................96
Fig. 61. Air flow rate vs time .................................................................................................................96
Fig. 62. Product gas components variation in time ..................................................................................................96
Fig. 63. Product gas flow rate and water content .....................................................................................................97
Fig. 64. Product gas calorific value..........................................................................................................................97
Fig. 65. Heat generated in product gas combustion .................................................................................................98
Fig. 66. Temperature on the outlet of the georeactor. ............................................................................................100
Fig. 67. Experimental results from: a) laboratory scale sorption enhanced gasification of coal; influence of CaO
and Ca(OH)
2
addition on composition of gasification products, b) CaO carbonation large scale
experiments relevant to HUGE USTUTT contribution. ............................................................................105
Fig. 68. Composition of product gas in CaO enhanced coal gasification versus the scale of experiments. ...........106
Fig. 69. Hydrogen and carbon monoxide content in large scale sorption enhanced experiments ..........................107
Fig. 70. Self-heating phenomena of fractured coal beds ........................................................................................109
Fig. 71. Location of monitoring points and survey lines on the surface above the UCG test site..........................110
Fig. 72. Maps of the coefficient of relative temperature changes of ground at depth 1 m in the area of the UCG site
......................................................................................................................................................................111
Fig. 73. Geoelectrical sections obtained from the electroresistance sounding in the area of the UCG site............111
Fig. 74. Georadar section of the R6 profile performed 2 days after process termination. ......................................112
Fig. 75. Ground level CO
2
......................................................................................................................................................................113
Fig. 76. Ground level CH
4
......................................................................................................................................................................113
Fig. 77. Method of measurement of radon exhalation from soil with application of accumulation chamber -
sampling kit scheme .....................................................................................................................................113
Fig. 78.Conductivity of groundwater in the surrounding of UCG test site: a) background, b) 1 day after
termination, c) 4 weeks after termination, d) 8 weeks after termination, e) 24 weeks after termination......115
Fig. 79. Total organic carbon (TOC) in groundwater in the surrounding of UCG test site: a) background, b) 1 day
after termination, c) 4 weeks after termination, d) 8 weeks after termination, e) 24 weeks after termination
......................................................................................................................................................................115
Fig. 80. Concentrations of temperature indicatory compounds in gas emitted from the post-gasification cavity: a)
ethylene, propane, acetylene, b) carbon monoxide. ......................................................................................115
Fig. 81. Sorption of phenols onto bentonites..........................................................................................................117
Fig. 82. CO
2
permeability changes in geological layers in relation to temperature increase .................................118
Fig. 83. Composition of slurries expressed as solids to water ratio by mass, in relation to spread diameter for
selected types of coal combustion by-products.............................................................................................122
Fig. 84. Flow of selected slurries in a single rectangular fracture in relation to rheological properties of slurry. See
the text for details. ........................................................................................................................................123
Fig. 85. Flow velocity change with time of flow for flow mixtures.......................................................................124
156

Fig. 86. Flow of slurries of the same spread diameter (D
s
= 280 mm) in a single rectangular fracture. See the text
for details. .....................................................................................................................................................124
Fig. 87. Head loss of grout slurries in a pipe of 0,0m diameter for grout mixture of variable table spread and type
of fly ash as described in table 31.................................................................................................................125
Fig. 88. Compressive strength in dependence to temperature for selected rocks from direct roof strata in hard coal
and lignite beds. ............................................................................................................................................131
Fig. 89. Height of full caving for exemplary roof strata from Carboniferous beds in relation to temperature.
Thickness of actual extraction h = 3m, depth of a seam H = 300m, density of rockmass = 2600kg/m
3
. ..131
Fig. 90. Exemplary schematic of UCG product gas based energy production complex ........................................133
Fig. 91. Dependence between coal characteristics influencing its suitability for gasification ...............................134
Fig. 92. Influence of ash content of coal on product gas quality............................................................................134
Fig. 93. Effect of seam thickness and the specific water inflow into gasification zones on the heating value of gas
obtained by UCG. .........................................................................................................................................136
Fig. 94. Influence of pressure on composition of product gas. Data for the UCG pilot plant at Zhong-Liang-Shan,
China.............................................................................................................................................................136
Fig. 95. Example of an equilibrium calculation for coal gasification.....................................................................137
Fig. 96. Results of calculation of roof collapsing into UCG cavern for claystone in temperature 20
o
C and 600
o
C.
Thickness of actual extraction h = 3m, depth H = 800m, density of rockmass = 2600kg/m
3
, R
c
= 40MPa in
t = 20
o
C, R
c
= 86MPa in t = 600
o
C...............................................................................................................139
Fig. 97. Results of calculation of roof collapsing into UCG cavern for lignite roof rocks. Thickness of actual
extraction h = 3m, depth H = 100m, density of rockmass = 2600kg/m
3
, R
c
= 1,4MPa. ............................139
Fig. 98. Basic Configuration of the two wells and the gasification zone between them........................................144
Fig. 99 Commercial layout previously costed, see Ref. below ..............................................................................145
Fig. 100 Gasification and Clean-up Plant for UCG ...............................................................................................145
Fig. 101. Comparison of Capital Cost Euros/MW of clean syngas output.............................................................147
Fig. 102. Operating Costs of UCG plant for the Three Operating Processes .........................................................148

List of Tables
Table 01 Project financing data................................................................................................................................18

Table 1. Parameters of the material balance for the UCG georeactor at the EM Barbara. ...................................26
Table 2. Basic qualitative parameters of a coal seam in a coal bed..........................................................................54
Table 3. Qualitative parameters of lignite in 2008...................................................................................................54
Table 4 Textural properties of samples ....................................................................................................................55
Table 5. Total pore volume (given by the net mercury intrusion volume) and porosities of samples......................55
Table 6 Textural properties of strata and coal samples ............................................................................................56
Table 7 Basic texture information............................................................................................................................56
Table 8. General information on ex-situ UCG trials ................................................................................................57
Table 9. Physicochemical characteristics of coals used in ex-situ experiments .......................................................58
Table 10. Average product gas composition in the particular stages of the first ex-situ experiment, %................60
Table 11. Average gas compositions obtained in the particular time periods of the experiment .............................61
Table 12. Average gas compositions and calorific values of the product gas in oxygen, air and OEA gasification of
hard coal seam................................................................................................................................................65
Table 13. Average composition of the product gas during experiment....................................................................67
Table 14. The average gas composition (% vol.) and the production rates of particular gas components (m
3
/h)
obtained in 54 hours of the experiment...........................................................................................................69
Table 15. Average gas composition and calorific values of product gas in oxygen, air and OEA gasification of
lignite seam.....................................................................................................................................................70
Table 16. Heavy metals elution................................................................................................................................79
Table 17. Migration of heavy metals during elution with distilled water in CO
2
presence (p=10bar).....................80
Table 18. Analysis of water obtained after brown coal gasification and admissible values.....................................81
Table 19. Index of names and chemical formulas of minerals mentioned in text ....................................................85
Table 20. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test of sandstone samples in various temperatures before and
after heating. ...................................................................................................................................................85
Table 21. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test of mudstone samples in various temperatures before.......85
Table 22. Results of uniaxial compressive strength test of claystone samples in various temperatures before and
after heating. ...................................................................................................................................................86
Table 23.Uniaxial compressive strength of rock from the bottom and roof strata of lignite bed in function of
temperature .....................................................................................................................................................87
Table 24. Results of compressive strength R
c
measurements of rocks from direct roof over in-situ UCG
experiment at EM Barbara mine .................................................................................................................88
157

Table 25. Results of analyses of coal samples from EM Barbara taken before and after gasification experiment
........................................................................................................................................................................95
Table 26. Composition and mass of components of product gas. ............................................................................98
Table 27. Balance of elements. ................................................................................................................................98
Table 28. Average concentrations of gas components ...........................................................................................101
Table 29.Technical parameters of product gas in the Ist and II stage of the gasification experiment. ...................101
Table 30. Average composition of post-processing effluents obtained during the Barbara UCG trial ..................114
Table 31. Selected physical parameters of fly ash water slurries used in analysis..............................................122
Table 32. Product gas composition vs gasification agent used. .............................................................................137
Table 33 Boundary Conditions and Panel Capital Cost Estimates of Drilling and Completion of panel...............145
Table 34 Boundary Conditions and Assumptions for Capital Cost Estimates .......................................................146
Table 35 Capital Cost Estimates for the Three UCG Cases ..................................................................................146
Table 36 Boundary Conditions for the Operating Cost Estimates .........................................................................147
Table 37 Operating Costs for the Three UCG cases, UCG-No capture, UCG conventional capture, and UCG
HUGE Capture .............................................................................................................................................147

List of References
1. A.A. Eftekhari, J. Bruining: Exergy analysis of underground coal gasification with simultaneous storage of
carbon dioxide, Presented in 8th European Coal Conference, Journal paper in preparation.
2. A. Peksa, Carbon dioxide adsorption on naturally occurring calcium silicate minerals, Report for HUGE
(October 2010).
3. M.H.H. Hettema: The thermo-mechanical behavior of sedimentary rock (Ph-D thesis Delft 1996),
http://repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:8f733adc-9765-4005-94e8-
84d190295cf1/ceg_hettema_19960423.PDF).
4. A.A. Eftekhari, J. Bruining, J. Rogut, and D.W. van Batenburg, Cyclic production of CO2 rich and
hydrogen rich gas in underground coal gasification, GeoDarmstadt, October 10-13 (2010).
5. S. Mazumder, F. Vermolen and J. Bruining: Anomalous diffusion behavior of CO
2
in the macromolecular
network structure of coal and its significance for CO
2
sequestration, accepted for SPERE (2010).
6. O. olcov, K. Soukup, J. Rogut, K. Stanczyk, P. Schneider: Gas transport through porous strata from
underground reaction source; the influence of the gas kind, temperature and transport-pore size. Fuel
Process. Technol. 90(12), 1495-1501 (2009).
7. O. olcov, K. Soukup, P. Schneider: Diffusion coefficients and other transport characteristics of
peculiarly shaped porous materials in the single pellet-string column. Micro. Meso. Mat. 91, 100-106
(2006).
8. T. Kempka, T. Fernndez-Steeger, D.Y. Li, M. Schulten, R. Schlter, B.M. Krooss: Carbon Dioxide
Sorption Capacities of Coal Gasification Residues. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1719-1723 (2011).
9. J. Palarski J.: Design of backfill and grouting systems used as support in Polish mines. MINEFILL -
Canada, Montreal, Quebec, April 29 May 3, 2007.
10. Ryan B.: Underground Coal Gasification UCG or In-Situ Coal Gasification ISCG. The 3rd B.C.
Unconventional Gas Technical Forum, 2009.
11. E. Shafirovich, A. Varma: Underground Coal Gasification: A Brief Review of Current Status. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 48, 78657875 (2009).
12. X. Wang, Z.T. Wang, B. Feng, V.R. Jiao: Semi-industrial tests on enhanced underground coal gasification
at Zhong-Liang-Shan coal mine. Asia-Pac. J. Chem. Eng. (2009). DOI:10.1002/apj.337.
13. D.R. Stephens: An Introduction to Underground Coal Gasification. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore, CA. UCRL-18801 (1980).
14. E. Shafirovich, M. Mastalerz, J. Rupp, A. Varma: The Potential for Underground Coal Gasification in
Indiana Phase I Report to the Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research (CCTR) (2008).
15. Directional Drilling in Coal Technical Status Report TSR024 Mar 2006 DTI Publication, URN 05/657.

158

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AIEA - Nuclear Energy Agency
BTX - benzene-toluene-xylene
CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
CSRG - Central Mine Rescue Station
DTI - Department of Trade Industry
ECBM - Enhanced Coal Bed Methane recovery
EIA - Environmental Impact Assessement
EM Barbara Experimental Mine Barbara
G - gasometry
GPR - Radar Method
GT - Ggeothermal Method
HSE - Health and Safety Executive
ICC - In-Situ Coal Combustion
IPPC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IR - Infrared
MTPM - Mean Transport-Pore Model
NPV Net Present Value
OEA - Oxygen Enriched Air
O&M - Operating and Maintenance
OPEX - Operating Cost Estimate
PSE - Vertical Electro Resistance Sounding
Rn - Radiometry
RSP - Recommended Selling Price
SEA - Strategic Environmental Assessment
SPSC - Single Pellet String Arrangement
UCG Underground Coal Gasification
UK CA UK Coal Association
US DOE - United States Department of Energy
US EPA - US Environmental Protection Agency
USDW - Underground Sources of Drinking Water
USGS - US Geological Survey
XRD - X-ray diffraction

159

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
RESEARCH DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
Directorate K Energy
Research Fund for Coal and Steel

ANNEX A WORKSHOP PROGRAM

Agenda of the Underground Coal Gasification Workshop
Central Mining Institute, Katowice, 24
th
of June, 2010

Organized in the Frame of the Project:
Hydrogen Oriented Underground Coal Gasification for Europe - HUGE
Contract No. RFCR-CT-2007-00006

09:00-09:15 Welcome and Introduction by Central Mining Institute
09:15-09:35 Experimental simulation of hard coal underground gasification for hydrogen production, Presented
by Central Mining Institute
09:35-09:55 Dynamic experimental ex-situ simulation of hydrogen oriented underground gasification of lignite,
Presented by Central Mining Institute
09:55-10:15 Application of GPR technique for monitoring of simulated Underground Coal Gasification on large
scale model, Presented by Central Mining Institute
10:15-10:50 In-situ underground coal gasification - trial in Experimental Mine Barbara, Presented by Central
Mining Institute
10:50-11:15 Discussion
11:15-11:30 Coffee break
11:30-11:50 Simulation of hard coal underground gasification in a pressurized reactor, Presented by Institut
Scientifique de Service Public, Liege, Belgium
11:50-12:10 Evaluation of the mass transport parameters through coal and strata before and after gasification
process, Presented by Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals, Prague, Czech Republic
12:10-12:30 Water migration control for UCG process, presented by Instytut Gornictwa Odkrywkowego
Poltegor Instytut, Wroclaw, Poland
12:30-12:50 Evaluation of qualitative changes of mechanical properties and mineral composition in selected
carboniferous rocks from Upper Silesian Coal Basin under the influence of high temperatures of
underground gasification process, Presented by Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
12:50-13:20 Discussion
13:20-14:20 Lunch
14:20-14:40 Mathematical and thermodynamic modelling of the UCG process, Presented by Delft University of
Technology, the Netherlands
14:40-15:00 Justification of technological schemes and parameters of underground gas-generator for the
Experimental Mine "Barbara" and concept of further industrial researches, Presented by National
Mining Academy, Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine
15:00-15:20 Economic criteria for implementing the process options - Preliminary considerations, Presented by
UCG Partnership Ltd, London, UK
15:20-15:40 Innovative values of HUGE project, Presented by CMIPL
15:40-16:10 Discussion, Conclusions and final remarks, Central Mining Institute

17.30
About 23:00
Departure to the Historic Guido Coal Mine in Zabrze from Qubus hotel
Come back to Katowice, Qubus hotel

160
European Commission
EUR 25044 Hydrogen-oriented underground coal gasification for Europe (HUGE)
K. Staczyk, J. widrowski, K. Kapusta, N. Howaniec, K. Cybulski, J. Rogut, A. Smoliski, M. Wiatowski,
A. Kotyrba, E. Krause, A. Tokarz, J. Grabowski, M. Ludwik-Pardaa, J. Bruining, A. A. Eftekhari, A. Schuster,
O. Solcova, K. Svoboda, K. Soukup, P. Landuyt, D. Garot, T. piewak, M. Szarafiski, M. Niewiadomski,
P. Budynek, J. Bednarczyk, A. Marek, S. Rzepa, B. Rogosz, M. Green, J. Palarski, G. Strozik, V. Falshtynky,
R. Dychkowsky
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
2012 160 pp. 21 29.7 cm
Research Fund for Coal and Steel series
ISBN 978-92-79-22151-4
doi:10.2777/9857
ISSN 1831-9424
Interested in European research?
RTD info is our quarterly magazine keeping you in touch with main developments (results,
programmes, events, etc.). It is available in English, French and German. A free sample copy
or free subscription can be obtained from:
Information and Communication Unit
European Commission
1049 Bruxelles/Brussel
BELGIQUE/BELGI
Fax +32 229-58220
E-mail: research@ec.europa.eu
Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo.html
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Research Fund for Coal and Steel Unit
Contact: RFCS publications
Address: European Commission, CDMA 0/178, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI
Fax +32 229-65987; e-mail: rtd-steel-coal@ec.europa.eu
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
at the European Unions representations or delegations. You can obtain their
contact details on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax
to +352 2929-42758.
Priced publications:
via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Priced subscriptions (e.g. annual series of the Official Journal of the
European Union and reports of cases before the Court of Justice
of the European Union):
via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

K
I
-
N
A
-
2
5
0
4
4
-
E
N
-
N
An analysis of various options of coal gasification technologies with different gasification
media, process parameters and coal types, as well as mathematical and thermodynamic
modelling of the planned trials, have been conducted. Moreover, a pseudo-homogene-
ous mathematical model for the adsorption of CO2 on the CaO-rich minerals was devel-
oped.
For the purpose of the experiments an ex situ reactor was constructed. The reactor was
used for the simulation of real underground conditions in respect to both the coal seams
and the surrounding rock layers. Large blocks of coal were prepared for the reactor by
the industrial partner of the project. In total, six experiments were performed. The experi-
ments demonstrated the possibility of coal gasification in hard coal block and lignite,
and tested the methodology of the experiment. Tests with smaller coal blocks in a pres-
surised reactor were also performed. Moreover, tests on the migration of heavy metals
to water during the gasification process, as well as tests of the behaviour of the strata,
have been conducted.
The concept of the underground georeactor at a process development unit scale was
elaborated. The location of the georeactor was chosen and an analysis of the surround-
ing space was carried out. The process design, together with the technical design of the
generator and the monitoring system, has been carried out.
After all the necessary infrastructure had been built, an underground trial in the in situ
reactor in the experimental mine was conducted. The trial lasted 16 days. The under-
ground experiment enabled the identification of potential problems related to the opera-
tion of the UCG process.
After the in situ trial, the impact of the UCG process on the natural environment was
analysed, as well as the impact of the UCG process on life standards, and the imple-
mentation criteria for the selected UCG technological option were elaborated.
The results of the project were presented during 17 international conferences, in 15 pub-
lications in journals and one patent application.

Hydrogen-Oriented Underground Coal Gasification For Europe (HUGE)

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydrogen-Oriented Underground Coal Gasification For Europe (HUGE)

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Hydrogen-oriented underground coal

gasification for Europe (HUGE)

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi