International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmst

An analysis of new generation coal gasification projects

Kreynin Efim Vulfovich ⇑
Joint Stock Company Gazprom Promgaz, Moscow 117420, Russia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 12 November 2011
Received in revised form 15 November 2011
Accepted 17 January 2012
Available online 12 July 2012
Keywords:
Underground coal gasification (UCG)
UCG technology of the new generation
Stability and controllability
Clean coal technology
The global trends of increasing oil and gas costs have compelled coal possessing countries to start long
term underground coal gasification (UCG) projects. These enhance national energy security and are
among the cleanest, ecologically safest coal utilization technologies. This paper delineates the major
characteristics of such technologies and analyzes technical solutions. Highlighting the desire to develop
large scale industrial UCG plants, pilot level projects are presented using a new UCG method developed in
Russia by Joint Stock Company Gazprom Promgaz. This method is distinct for its high controllability,
stability, and energy efficiency. New, efficient technical solutions have been developed over the last
10–15 years and are patented in Russia. They guarantee controllability and stability of UCG gas produc-
tion. Over one hundred injection and gas production wells have been operated simultaneously.
Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

1. Introduction A 10 m thick coal seam at a depth of 140 m was gasified in

Underground coal gasification (UCG) can potentially guarantee
the energy independence of a country or region having sufficient
coal resources. Commercial scale UCG may become a way to dis-
pense with the importing of gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons that
continually rise in price.
Although 75 years have elapsed since the first UCG field exper-
iments industrial UCG is being practiced nowhere in the world. A
major reason for this is the complexity of the UCG physical and
chemical process, which takes place deep underground and is
influenced by numerous factors and conditions including mining,
technical, hydrodynamic, hydro-geological, and chemical ones. A
controllable and stable technology is possible only once these
numerous influences are taken into account.
We formulate, substantiate, and principle technical solutions
for a new generation UCG technology based upon an analysis of
international UCG practices. This is intended to provide for stable
industrial production.
2. Experimental
2.1. Characterization of gasified coal seams
A description of coal seams developed using UCG methods in
the former USSR, and Russia, is presented in Table 1 [1,2].
A description of some coal seams developed using two-stage
UCG methods in China is presented in Table 2 [3].
⇑ Tel.: +7 495 5044259.
E-mail address: E.Kraynin@promgaz.ru
Australia. The gasified coals had the following parameters: a mois-
ture content of 6.8%; an ash content of 19.3%; a volatile content of
40%; and, a combustion value of 23 MJ/kg.
2.2. Characterization of UCG methods
In the USSR and Russia coals were gasified using the ‘‘flow’’
method that envisages gasification within a channel. The four sides
were the bottom and top of the formation, loose rock, and the com-
bustible coal face [1]. As injection penetrates the channel hydro-
carbon and coal volatiles burn to produce carbon dioxide and
water. These then react with hydrocarbons of the coke residue
and are converted into combustible carbon monoxide, hydrogen,
and methane that pass through the channel to the surface.
The principal scheme for a gas generator module used in tradi-
tional UCG technology is shown in Fig. 1.
The principal scheme for a gas generator module used in the
new generation of UCG technology is shown in Fig. 2. This scheme
was developed by JSC ‘‘Gazprom promgaz’’ over the period from
1996 to 2011.
The gas generator is in the plane of the coal seam, which is
either inclined or horizontal. The injection well is cased lengthwise
and the gas producing well is cased up to the point of coal seam
penetration. The lower parts of both these wells are interconnected
in single hydraulic system. The combustion face is located at the
injection well and the injection supply point moves up the well
as the coal seam yields gas. Thus the oxidizer is supplied in a con-
trolled manner directly to the reacting coal face. An active hetero-
geneous reaction within the channel involving the coal walls

2095-2686/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2012.01.012
510 E.V. Kreynin / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515

Table 1
General characteristics of coal seams developed by UCG (traditional technology).

Gasification site and coal seam Coal seam depth (m) Development depth (m) Coal technical content (%) QH
p (MJ/kg)
P C
W A VU

Bituminous coals
Lisichanskaya station of Podzemgaz (1948–1963)
R8 1.8–2.0 150 14.5 7.9 39.0 22.6
K4 1.21 200–250 12.1 8.0 40.0 22.8
K7 0.44 60 15.0 10.4 40.0 21.4
K8 0.88 75 15.0 17.0 39.5 20.1
K6 0.60 150 15.5 7.6 39.0 22.3
K5 0.80 200 4.5 9.8 40.0 23.0
Yuzhno-Abinskaya station of Podzemgaz (1955–1996)
IV internal 8–9 50–300 6.0 5.2 32.3 29.1
VIII internal 2.2 130–140 8.0 2.3 32.0 28.9
VII internal 2.06 210 6.0 2.3 32.0 30.6
Burned 3.8 200–230 4.3 4.3 27.0 30.7
Lignites
Podmoskovnay station of Podzemgaz (1947–1962) 2.5 30–80 30.0 34.3 44.5 11.8
Angrenskay station of Podzemgaz (1962–1989, operation continued) 3–20 120–200 35.0 12.2 33.0 15.1
Shatskaya station of Podzemgaz (1965–1974) 2.6 30–60 30.0 26.0 38.1 11.0

Table 2
General characteristics of coal seams developed by UCG (two-stage gasification).
1
Mine Commencement Coal type Depth Thickness Angle of
(m) (m) incidence 2
(°)
Xinhe 1994 Rich 80 3.5 68–75
bituminous
Liuzhuang 1996 Gas 100 2.5–3.5 45–55
bituminous
Xinwen 2000 Gas 100 1.8 25 3
bituminous
Xiyang 2001 Anthracite 190 6 22–27

4
6
5
4
5
Fig. 2. A schematic of a new UCG gas generator. (1) Air injection well cased in the
coal seam; (2) Production well without casing in the coal seam; (3) Coal seam; (4)
Reaction channel; (5) Slag and collapsed roof formations; (6) Initial gasification
channel; (7) Points of air injection moving along the well.

3 1
6
2 ermore Laboratory [4].
Fig. 1. A schematic of a traditional UCG gas generator. (1) Coal seam; (2) Slag and
collapsed roof formations; (3) Reaction channel; (4) Air injection well cased in the
coal seam; (5) Production well without casing in the coal seam; (6) Initial
gasification channel.
ensures a high temperature on the surface and minimum heat
emission to the surrounding rocks.
The underground gas generator consists of many modules, as
illustrated in Fig. 2, that are connected in single, hydraulically
intertwined system. This provides a stable UCG process within
the reaction channel that ensures maximum efficiency and avoids
gas after burning by providing an oxidizer free exit flow.
Multiple experiments in the USA and Europe have been con-
ducted under different geological conditions that used the CRIP
technology. The CRIP technology was developed by Lawrence Liv-
Two approaches have been developed in China for UCG: cham-
ber gasification (under the surface gasification), two-stage gasifica-
tion (long tunnel, large section, two-stage).
Chamber gasification consists of placing coal chambers, where
the coal was first softened by means of explosions, between the
injection and gas production wells. These Chinese experimenters
sought to ensure sealing of every chamber of the underground
gas generator.
The two-stage gasification employs a two-stage implementa-
tion of the UCG process. The first stage has air injected into the
underground gas generator, which is brought to a temperature as
high as 1300–1500 °C, where a gasification reaction occurs. The
reaction produces gas at a rate of 2500–4600 m3/h that has a com-
bustion value of 4–6 MJ/m3. This gas was directed above ground
after a second stage where steam was injected into the under-
ground gas generator. This steam interacted with the red hot coals
 E.V. Kreynin / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515 511

to produce blue gas having a combustion value of 9–12 MJ/m3 in a
quantity of 1200–2900 m3/h. This process continues until the tem-
perature in the gas generator falls to 700 °C; after that the process
returns to the first stage activity.
Linc Energy Ltd. launched its first UCG project in Australia
implementing the eUCG technology developed by Canadian Ergo
Exergy Inc. The Australian activity occurred in the Surat Basin near
Chinchilla, Queensland. This facility used an air injection method.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. UCG in the former USSR
Table 3 presents a summary of data from five operating lignite
and bituminous coal UCG enterprises collected from 1947 to 1996
[1]. The process normally uses air injection. Only at the Lisichans-
kaya station of Podzemgaz was the injection of 28–38% oxygen
implemented.
The Soviet practice of gasifying coal in reaction channels, the
flow method, was on the whole successful despite certain
drawbacks.
These drawbacks include, first of all, a low chemical and energy
efficiency because the process produced low combustion value gas
and suffered from relatively high underground losses of some 20%.
Only 35–40% of the gasified coal energy finds its way to the con-
sumer in this approach.
The processes using seam pre-development and gasification
lacked controllability.
UCG at shallow depths is fraught with the risk of gases leaking
above the surface through the rock mass. To prevent gas leaks a
minimal pressure should be maintained within the gas generator.
The traditional technology controls the process by modifying
the injection and gas production volumes along with the number
of engaged/disengaged wells and/or the channel length or inter-
channel distance. The goal is to keep the gas combustion value at
3.0 MJ/m3 or higher and the generated gas quantity within the
specified range.
Over a 50 year period an extensive and varied practical knowl-
edge related to implementing underground gasification of coal
seams having different properties and in different conditions was
built up. This domestic UCG technology is based on the method
of gasifying coal in channels. The process of gasifying coals to a
depth of 250–300 m was developed to the extent that practicable
application of in-channel coal gasification could be considered,
even at depths from 800 to 1000 m.
As depths increase applying higher pressures for steam and
oxygen injection becomes more realistic. This provides for aug-
mented methane content and gas combustion value.
The UCG method used allowed a number of techniques to be
tested with some with negative results.
In particular, methods requiring assisted coal breaking as well
as those requiring gas and injection filtration into the pores and
crevices of the coal were found to be impracticable. The viability
and practicability of in-channel gasification by the flow method
was convincingly demonstrated. The creation, introduction, and
commercial application of traditional UCG technology involved
considerable theoretical and practical effort toward studying and
improving the process.
Since reserves of cheap gas and oil were abundant the UCG
method failed to gain a noticeable share of the national fuel con-
sumption despite the overall positive results and rather decent
economic indices (at the period of peak production in 1965–
1968). This failure was partially caused by the drawbacks of the
old UCG methods.
The major drawbacks of the traditional UCG technology include
instability, excessive variability, and sluggish process control, as
well as the low combustible value of the produced gas (3.2–
3.6 MJ/m3), the low gasification efficiency (50–60%), the consider-
able loss of gas and coal underground (15% and 20% accordingly),
and the imperfect environmental friendliness.
A desire to overcome these drawbacks stimulated development
of new technology. An industrial consumer of gaseous energy is
first interested in process stability; thus, the main goal was to im-
prove this characteristic.
Traditionally, during most of the operation injection occurs far
from the combustion face. Contact with the fire face after injection
comes about only after the introduced gas stream has been filtered
through a layer of sheet, ash, and water. It is impossible to control
the shape from the injection site as the flame front moves. How the
forced collectors are spaced in the gasified area will determine the
shape of the burn. This results in a low intensity heat-mass ex-
change between the oxidizer and the reaction face and the free oxi-
dizer inevitably contacts some of the combustible gas and causes
its after-combustion.
The low intensity reaction in the gasification zone goes hand in
hand with low temperatures and, consequently, with a low CO/CO2
ratio in the produced gas.
It has been proved by practical observation in Russia that only
targeted and active mass exchange between the oxidizer and the
combustion face will raise the temperatures in the combustion
area and, thus, the CO/CO2 ratio.

Table 3
Some major characteristics of UCG operations in the USSR.

No. Enterprise (operation Coal Gas Gas content (%) Gas Gasification Gas Gas
years) treated produced combustion efficiency yield loss
H2S CO2 CnHm O2 CO H2 CH4 N2
with UCG (106 m3) value, (MJ/m3 (%) (%) (%)
(kt) (kcal/m3))
Lignites
1 Podmoskovnay station of 2781.8 4753.5 1.3 17.6 0.2 0.6 5.8 14.3 1.5 58.9 3.0 (720) 43.6 71.9 27.7
Podzemgaz (1947–1962)
2 Shatskaya station of 1000 2102,2 1.8 18.1 0.2 0.2 5.5 16.7 1.3 56.2 3.3 (790) 52.0 114.6 29.6
Podzemgaz (1965–1974)
3 Angrenskay station of 2350 6300 0.6 19.0 0.2 0.7 5.0 16.8 1.7 56.0 3.5 (839) 61.0 89.0 14.0
Podzemgaz (1962–1989,
operation continued)
Bituminous coals
4 Yuzhno-Abinskaya station 2450 10,000 0.03 14.3 0.2 0.2 10.6 14.1 2.3 58.3 4.1 (970) 55.4 91.2 13.6
of Podzemgaz (1955–1996)
5 Lisichanskaya station of 750 2400 Oxygen content of the injection varied between 28% 3.0–3.5 (700– 57.0 90.0 14.8
Podzemgaz (1948–1963) and 38%, the produced gas content varied accordingly 830)
512 E.V. Kreynin / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515

5.0 The required air consumption gives

LT ¼ 57=79 ¼ 0:72 m3 =m3

4.0 (1) Allowing for gas leakage from the underground gas genera-
η =0.5 tor the actual injection rate, L, would be
L ¼ LT =0:85  0:85 m3 =m3
3.0
v / I (m3 /t)

Hence gasification of 1 ton of Yuzhno-Abinskaya station coal re-

quires the following quantity of air:
0.6
2.0 V C  L ¼ 4:2  1000  0:85 ¼ 3570 m3 =t
0.7
Production of gas with combustible value of 4.19 MJ/m3 requires an
0.8 air injection, in the first case, of
1.0
3:12  3750 ¼ 11700 m3 =h

and in the second

1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0
h (m)
Fig. 3. Gasification efficiency versus specific water flow and coal seam thickness.
Soviet theoreticians and hands-on experts have contributed to
studies of the process and subsequent refinement of it during the
development and commercialization of traditional UCG technology
[1].
For example consider the Yuzhno-Abinskaya station of Podzem-
gaz. The UCG heat and energy efficiency depend on such factors as
the coal seam thickness, the underground water flow path in the
gasification area, and the intensity of air injection. In Fig. 3 each
curve stands for a specific value of gasification chemical efficiency,
g = QH.U.VU/QHy, plotted against the specific water flow, q = t/I.
Consider the concrete example of the Podzemgaz Yuzhno-
Abinskaya coal seams. Assume the need to produce UCG gas with
a combustion value of about 4.19 MJ/m3, QH.U., by gasifying coal
seams 2 or 9 m thick. Assume the absolute water influx in the gas-
ification zone, t, is 5 m3/h in each seam. The required intensity of
the gasification process must be determined. The Yuzhno-Abinskiy
coal has a QHy around 29.3 MJ/kg and so gas production may be cal-
culated as:
C Py  22:4
Vr ¼ P  4:2 m3 =kg
C r  12:
where C Py is the carbon content of the coal, 75 weight percentage;
nRCU the total carbon-bearing gaseous components, 33 weight
percentage.
In the present case the gasification efficiency is calculated as
g ¼ Q H:C: V C =Q Hy ¼ 4:19  4:2=29:3 ¼ 0:6
The relevant curve (g = 0.6) in Fig. 3 shows that a 2 m thick coal
seam, at the specific water influx assumed, will produce 1.6, and a
8 m thick layer 2.6 m3/t. Hence, in the first case the required gas
yield intensity will be
I ¼ 5:0=1:6 ¼ 3:12
and in the second
I ¼ 5:0=2:6 ¼ 1:92
which is in units of tons per hour. The quantity of air injected into
the underground gas generator to provide this required gas yield
may be calculated from the theoretical volume of air required for
gas production:
LT ¼ NC =NB
where NU and NB are the nitrogen content of the gas, and the air, in
volume percentage.
9.0
1:92  3750 ¼ 7200 m3 =h
(2) The gas generator balance is periodically updated and at that
time the absolute water influx is determined for each UCG
process intensity specified.
One half a century of experience applying UCG technology to
the gasification of lignites and bituminous coals under different
geological conditions has made possible the commercial use of this
gas for a number of consumers. The maximum gas output was
150–170 thousand m3/h with a gas combustion value as high as
4.2 MJ/m3.
Considerable practical knowledge has been accumulated about
ways to enhance stable and controllable UCG gas production at
rates up to 1.0–1.5 million m3/h. Production in such volumes re-
quires the simultaneous operation of several hundreds wells.
3.2. Experiments in the USA and Europe (1975–1995)
The worldwide increase in UCG interest dates to the energy cri-
sis of the 1970’s [5]. Experiments in natural conditions were exten-
sively carried out in the 1980’s and 1990’s in the USA. In Europe,
France, Belgium, and northern Spain, the first goal was developing
methods for deep (as deep as 1000 m) coal formations.
Multiple experiments in the USA proved the applicability of
UCG technologies, including controlled retraction of the injection
point with a moving combustion zone, the so called CRIP method.
The experiments in Europe failed because of difficulties related
to interlinking the wells at great depths. Among the difficulties
encountered the rock pressure influence was considered the most
critical. These experiments covered a limited number of operating
wells, typically 2 or 3 wells.
Despite the beneficial effects observed by controlled movement
of the injection point along the reaction channel to follow the com-
bustion face, CRIP technology as developed by the Lawrence Liver-
more Laboratory does have certain drawbacks, including: (1)
Increased hydraulic resistance to the gas moving toward the verti-
cal gas production well through the layers of broken overburden;
(2) Increased thermal emission into the surrounded rock giving a
consequent loss of heat when the injection point moves through
the layer of broken overburden; (3) The gas yielding area sur-
rounding the injection point cannot exceed 20–25 m.
3.3. Experiments in China, Australia, and the Republic of South Africa
(1998–2010)
Over the past 10–15 years UCG pilot works have been widely
implemented in China, Australia, and the Republic of South Africa.
Despite a scarcity of professional technical data we shall attempt to
provide an overview of some of these experiments.
 E.V. Kreynin / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515
Table 4
Data relating to coal two-stage gasification.
Mine Commencement Blue gas content (%)
H2 CO CH4 CO2 N2
Xinhe 1994 58.3 8.6 9.3 19.6 4.2
Liuzhuang 1996 47.1 13.4 12.4 20.5 6.6
Xinwen 2000 54.8 9.7 8.8 20.8 5.2
Xiyang 2001 54.3 4.1 12.2 20.2 9.1
A distinctive feature of the Chinese projects was the use of gas-
ification channels with a cut of from 3 to 4 m2 and length of up to
200 m. The mining areas were drilled with short injection and gas
production wells.
The support of regional governments and private coal compa-
nies allowed the implementation of six projects using this technol-
ogy from 1998 to 2000. These projects included gasification of
bituminous and anthracite coals at depths reaching 300 m. A low
calorific value gas was produced with a combustion value of 4–
6 MJ/m3. These experiments lasted from 80 to 120 days and invest-
ments required for implementing one project amounted to 90–
450 thousand U.S. dollars.
It should be noted that chamber type gasification was first ap-
plied in the USSR in 1933 to 1934 using the shrinkage method. This
was replicated in the USA from 1976 to 1979 at Haw Creek. The
method was proved, in both cases, to be unsatisfactory because it
was impossible to reproduce in the underground coal layer the
behavior observed in an above ground gas generator.
The period from 1994 to 2001 saw the application of a two-
stage process in the form of 11 different projects. Table 4 shows
data relating to some of these projects.
The two-stage UCG projects implemented in China were pio-
neering. However, considering the impossibility of commercializ-
ing such a discontinuous process, the enthusiasm of the Chinese
experts remains difficult to understand. Furthermore, the second
stage, the stage of blue gas production, is very short lived and
the process control system would require repeated switching from
one stage to the other, especially when air injection is applied at
the first stage.
In 1997 Linc Energy Ltd. launched its first UCG project in Aus-
tralia. Construction of the gas generator included nine vertical pro-
cess wells and was completed on 12 December, 1999. The first gas
was produced on 26 December, 1999, and that product had the fol-
lowing composition (vol.%): H2-22.85; CO-10.37; CO2-18.53; H2S-
0.04; N2-44.92; CH4-2.94; C2+-0.35. The pressure at the well head
was kept at 1.0 MPa and the temperature was 300 °C. The maxi-
mum gas output from the generator was 15,400 m3/h, equivalent
to 80,000 normalized m3/h, at a temperature of 298.14 K and a
pressure of 101,325 Pa. The combustion value under stable gas
production was from 4.5 to 57 MJ/m3. All this gas was flared.
Testing of the underground waters at the final gas generator
stage revealed the presence of benzene, phenol, and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH). Samples taken directly from the gas produc-
tion well exceeded the maximum admissible pollution concentra-
tions (MAC) by 10–1000 times. Two hundred meters from the gas
production well only the benzene concentration was, by a factor of
10, above the MAC. The presence pollutants 1750 m from the gas
generator was below the ambient concentrations. Extremely high
concentrations of benzene, 103–104 times the MAC, phenol, 107–
108 times the MAC, and PAH, 107 times the MAC, were noted in
condensate from the gas stream, which suggests the possibility
that the underground water will become gravely polluted in the
case of considerable gas leakage from the gas generator.
The gas generator was stopped in April, 2003, after 28 months
of operation. During this period 35,000 tons of coal were gasified
and 80 million normalized m3 of gas were produced.
513
The absence of chemical pollution 200 m from the gas generator
proves the practicability of maintaining pressure levels in the gen-
QH (MJ/ erator near those of the subsurface water hydrostatic column at
m3) the UCG site.
Another big Linc Energy Ltd. project was another pilot produc-
11.8
12.2
tion enterprise ‘‘UCG-Fischer-Tropsch synthesis’’ put into opera-
11.4 tion at the end of 2008 near Chinchilla. This plant had a liquid
11.9 production output capacity of 795–1590 l/day (33–66 l/h). The
gas generator consisted of nine injection and 10 gas production
wells and used air injection. Gas production capacity was
10,400 m3/h. The produced gas was supplied to the Fischer-
Tropsch plant.
Linc Energy Ltd. has strategic plans that include constructing a
commercial UCG/Fischer Tropsch plant in southern Australia capa-
ble of producing liquid fuels at the rate of 3.2 million l/day that
could be expanded to 16 million l/day. They plan to gasify bitumi-
nous coals with a moisture content of 38%, an ash content of 11%,
and a sulfur content of 1%. Capital costs of this project are esti-
mated to be $150 million U.S.
The general disadvantage of the Chinchilla UCG project was the
exclusive use of vertical wells, which are sure to depressurize in
areas of rock shift, so that new well drilling and environment pol-
lution are inevitable.
For its first 100 day UCG project Carbon Energy Ltd. gasified
high ash bituminous coal. This project occurred at the end of
2008 in Bloodwood Creek, Queensland, Australia. The coal seam
thickness was 10 m and the gas generator consisted of two wells,
an injection well and a gas production well. The wells were drilled
in parallel across the coal seam and interconnected at the bottom
in immediate proximity to the vertical ignition well. The wells
were 30 m distant from one another and their bottom depth was
at 600 m. The above ground complex consisted of oxygen and
steam generators, a gas collector, oxygen and steam pipelines,
and the gas generator control panel. This facility used steam and
oxygen injection and the CRIP method for controlling the retraction
of the injection point. This process had been developed and pat-
ented by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and pro-
vides for control over the moving ignition point and for a stable
quality of the produced gas. When decommissioned the gas gener-
ator was purified from pollutants with a specialized hydraulic cir-
culation system.
The distinct feature of this project was the implementation of
an improved CRIP technology. Two boreholes in the coal seam
were united into a single, hydraulically interdependent system
similar to the Russian UCG technology. One channel is used for
the CRIP application while the other is for discharge of the gas pro-
duced. This design solution is called ‘‘parallel CRIP’’.
At the beginning of 2010 Cougar Energy Ltd. announced the suc-
cessful implementation of an UCG project using air injection in the
Australian state of Queensland. They gasified a coal stratum with a
thickness exceeding 150 m. This project was implemented in part-
nership with Ergo Exergy Inc. of Canada. Future company plans call
for the construction of an industrial scale UCG-CHP plant with a
capacity of 400 MW.
Since 2002 Eskom in the Republic of South Africa has been
implementing a UCG project using the eUCG method of Ergo Exer-
gy Inc. This project is at the Majuba coal field [6]. Here they used
air injection to gasify a 3.5 m thick coal stratum at a depth of
300 m [7,8]. The project included several stages.
The first stage was constructed as a demonstration module and
began operation on 20 January 2007. The gas produced had the fol-
lowing characteristics (vol.%.): H2, 14–18; CO, 7–11; CO2, 16.5–
18.5; O2, 0.2; N2, 44–52; CH4, 2.8–4.5. The temperature at the head
of the gas production well was maintained at 170 °C. The gas gen-
erator production capacity was 5000 nm3/h, and the gas produced
had a combustion value of 4.1–4.8 MJ/m3.
514 E.V. Kreynin / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515
Initially all produced gas was flared. Since the end of May, 2007,
the produced gas is being converted into electricity by a special
100 kW generator.
The second stage included putting into operation a gas genera-
tor with a gas production capacity of 15,000 normalized m3/h
along with equipment to pre-treat the UCG gas and to purify water.
A pipeline for transporting the UCG gas to a coal fired power sta-
tion was built. The gas generator started operation on 10 June,
2010. This stage involves the joint combustion of gas and solid coal
in the steam boilers of the power station. The gas-fired generation
presently accounts for 6 MW, which is 0.5% of the gas scheduled for
use at the power station. This stage will continue until the start of
2014.
The company’s strategic plans for the period up to 2014 include
the construction of a gas generator consisting of 20 vertical wells
capable of producing gas at the rate of 105,000 normalized m3/h.
The gas can be used by the existing power station. A new demon-
stration UCG-CHP plant with electric capacity of 40 MW is also
available to burn this gas.
3.4. New projects for the period up to 2025
Some countries have already implemented UCG projects,
namely China, Australia, and the Republic of South Africa. Others
have plans for implementing such projects [9].
Alaska’s Cook Inlet Region Inc. has launched a project involving
the construction of a combined cycle UCG-CHP plant of 100 MW
capacity in the U.S. This facility will gasify strata with total thick-
ness of 60 m at depths of 200–1000 m. The project has been
launched in partnership with the U.S. Department of Natural Re-
sources, Ergo Exergy Inc. of Canada, and the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory. It is scheduled for commissioning in 2014.
American Energie Future has acquired a well explored site in
Wyoming where UCG projects were implemented in the period
from 1979 to 1995. The company plans construction of an under-
ground coal gasification facility with a daily production capacity
of 8 million liters for the synthesis of liquid fuels from UCG gas.
In Canada the Alberta Provincial Government in partnership
with Swan Hills Synfuels, plans to start construction of a
300 MW UCG-CHP facility in 2011. It will involve gasification of
coal seems at a depth of 1400 m. This project plans for the burial
of carbon dioxide within geological formations, among other
things. Electric power produced by this project will be sold in the
Alberta domestic markets. The investment amounts to $285 mil-
lion U.S.
In Great Britain Clean Coal Ltd. has obtained a license for gasifi-
cation at five coal sites. The first gas generator is scheduled for
commissioning by early 2014.
Scottish Thornton New Energy Limited (a subsidiary of British
Coal Gasification Energy Ltd.) in partnership with Australian River-
side Energy Limited has scheduled the gasification of coal at a
depth of 1000–2000 m at a licensed site in Scotland. These projects
also propose carbon dioxide burial within geological formations
and directional well drilling.
The Vietnamese National Program of supplying the domestic
market with electric power and reducing coal imports is another
example of UCG implementation. The projects covered by this pro-
gram will be implemented by the Vietnamese Vinacomin and the
Indochina Group in the Red River Delta coal fields. Presently the
Vietnamese Ministry of Industry and Trade is working at the coal
field preparing a development schedule for a period running until
2030. It will be submitted for Government consideration at the end
of 2010.
The Indian GAIL, in partnership with the Rajasthan Government
and the Canadian firm Ergo Exergy Inc. has started the implemen-
tation of a UCG-CHP project involving the construction of a
750 MW combined cycle power station fired by UCG gas and
located in the state of Rajasthan, India [10–15]. This project plans
to gasify lignites with a high content of ash, up to 26%, and mois-
ture, up to 40%, lying at a depth of 230–900 m. This coal is unsuit-
able for development by traditional methods. The seam consists of
three interlayers with a total thickness of 22 m. The projects will be
implemented stage by stage. At first, two stages will use two 9E GE
gas turbines made by General Electric each turbine having a capac-
ity of 175 MW electric. The third stage calls for a 9FA GE gas
turbine to be installed with an electric capacity of 400 MW.
3.5. New generation UCG technology
New UCG commercial technology should comply with the fol-
lowing requirements: (1) The injection and gas production holes
of the gas generator should be located beyond the gasified coalbed
overburden shift area. This will ensure their security for the entire
period of operation of the gas generator. In this light, wells direc-
tionally drilled within the seam have a special advantage; (2) The
gas production well coal channel should be extended to provide
for a gas debit of 10–15 thousand normalized m3/h; (3) The injec-
tion supply point to the reaction channel should be moved in a
controlled manner depending on the rate of coal seam gasification.
The simplest way to do this is to use hydrodynamic techniques; (4)
Injection and gas production wells should be united into a single
hydraulically interconnected system, which will provide for the
complete gasification of coals within the gas generator boundaries;
(5) The maximum use of heat produced by the UCG underground
generator requires UCG gas recuperative cooling within the gas
production hole. This is an efficient solution for this heat exchange
task; (6) Coal gasification should be highly intensive so that a gas-
ification rate of 2.5–3.0 tons of coal per hour per well will be ob-
tained. This will provide a high temperature in the gasification
zone and, thus, maximum recovery of combustible matter, i.e.;
CO and H2; (7) The interconnection of the operating well bottoms
at depths exceeding 400–500 m under the influence of rock pres-
sure is possible only with the application of special technical solu-
tions; (8) The minimization of adverse influences on the rock
formation and subsurface waters is achievable via regulation of
the gas generator pressure dependent on the subsurface water
hydrostatic column within the gasification area; (9) Water pumped
from the gas generator should be purified chemically in an above
ground complex, and biologically directly within the gas generator.
4. Conclusions
(1) An interest in the implementation of UCG techniques for the
production of electricity and synthetic hydrocarbons is grow-
ing worldwide.
(2) A considerable number of UCG projects implemented within
the last 10–15 years has proved the strategic importance of
developing this technology. Hundreds of millions of dollars
have been invested by many countries to ensure their own
energy independence on imported natural gas and oil in a safe
way.
(3) These are pilot projects, however. Pilot works often fail to
attain industrial standards or a level of advanced development
required for the new generation UCG technology. On the other
hand it is possible at the very start to use the highest efficiency
solutions recently designed and patented in Russia (1996–
2010). It is practicable to commence contemporary UCG pro-
jects in Russia and in foreign countries such as the USA, Can-
ada, Great Britain, India, or Vietnam using this best available
technique that will allow bringing projects closer to an indus-
trial scale.
 E.V. Kreynin / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 22 (2012) 509–515
(4) Gazprom promgaz new generation UCG technology has been
described in the recently published monograph Underground
Coal Gasification: Theoretical and Practical Foundations, Innova-
tions and in the Russian patent literature.
References
[1] Kreynin EV. Underground coal gasification: theoretical and practical
foundations, innovations. Moscow: Korina-Offset Ltd.; 2010. p. 400.
[2] Kreynin EV, Fedorov NA, Zvyagintsev KN. Coalbed underground
gasification. Moscow: Nedra; 1982. p. 151.
[3] Li Y, Liang X, Liang J. An overview of the Chinese program on UCG. Data Sci J
2007;6:460–6.
[4] Friedmann J. Recent advances in UCG technology development. In: UCG
conference, Houston; 2008.
[5] Zorya AYu, Kreynin EV. Can the underground coal gasification become an
industrial method? Coal 2009;2:50–3.
515
[6] Van der Reit M. Innovative clean coal technologies (CCT) for power generation.
In: Effective coal mining and techniques conference, Johannesburg; 2007.
[7] Blindermann MS, Saulov DN, Klimenko AY. Forward and reverse combustion
linking in underground coal gasification. Energy 2008;33(3):446–54.
[8] Saulov DN, Plumb OA, Klimenko AY. Flame propagation in a gasification
channel. Energy 2010;35(3):1264–73.
[9] Shafirovich E, Varma A. Underground coal gasification: a brief review of
current status. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009;48:7865–75.
[10] Khadse A, Qayyumi M, Mahajani S, Aghalayam P. Underground coal
gasification: a new clean coal utilization technique for India. Energy
2007;32(11):2061–71.
[11] Zorya AYu, Kreynin EV. Can the coalbed underground gasification become an
industrial method? Coal 2009;3:68–70.
[12] Liang J, Liu S, Yu LL. Method of stably controlling the process of underground
coal gasification. J China Univ Min Technol 2002;31(5):358–61.
[13] Liu SQ, Li JG, Mei M, Dong DL. Groundwater pollution from underground coal
gasification. J China Univ Min Technol 2007;17(4):467–72.
[14] Liu HT, Chen F, Pan X, Yao K, Liu SQ. Method of oxygen-enriched two-stage
underground coal gasification. Min Sci Technol 2011;21(2):191–6.
[15] Liu SQ, Wang YY, Zhao K, Yang N. Enhanced-hydrogen gas production through
underground gasification of lignite. Min Sci Technol 2009;19(3):389–94.