Hydrogen-Oriented Underground Coal Gasification for Europe (HUGE)

8/13/2019 Hydrogen-Oriented Underground Coal Gasification for Europe (HUGE)

1/166

Hydrogen-oriented underground coal

gasification for Europe (HUGE)


2/166

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 copyor free subscription can be obtained from:

Directorate-General for Research and InnovationInformation and Communication UnitEuropean Commission1049 Bruxelles/BrusselBELGIQUE/BELGIFax +32 229-58220E-mail: [email protected]: http://ec.europa.eu/research/rtdinfo.html

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDirectorate-General for Research and InnovationResearch Fund for Coal and Steel Unit

Contact: RFCS publicationsAddress: European Commission, CDMA 0/178, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGI

Fax +32 229-65987; e-mail: [email protected]


3/166

European Commission

Research Fund for Coal and SteelHydrogen-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

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

2012 EUR 25044 EN


4/166

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commissionis 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, 2012Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in LuxembourgPRINTED 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.


5/166

Table of contents:

FINAL SUMMARY ................................................................... ................................................................... ........... 5

I. WP0 ......................................................... .................................................................... ........................................ 17

I.1WORKPACKAGE WP0OBJECTIVES .................................................................. ............................................... 17I.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES ................................................................... ............................................... 17

I.2.1 Descriptions of works undertaken and main results.............................................................................. 17I.2.1.1 Task 0.1 Project coordination........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .. 17I.2.1.2 Task 0.2 Project management and control....................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........ 17I.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.1WORKPACKAGE WP1OBJECTIVES................................................................. ............................................... 23II.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES .................................................................. ............................................... 23

II.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results................................. ............................................. 23II.2.1.1 TASK 1.1 Literature survey ..................... ........................ ........................ ......................... ........................ ..... 23

II.2.1.2 TASK 1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys.............. ........................ ........................ ....... 24II.2.1.3 TASK 1.3 The analysis of the generators insulation....................... ........................ ........................ .............. 24II.2.1.4 TASK 1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor ........................ ........................ ........................ ......... 25II.2.1.5 TASK 1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator........................... ........................ ................ 27II.2.1.6 TASK 1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator ......................... ....................... ................ 28II.2.1.7 TASK 1.7 Construction of the generator............ ........................ ........................ ........................ .................... 31II.2.1.8 TASK 1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator............................ ........................ ........................ ................. 33II.2.1.9 TASK 1.9 Technical approval of the installation ....................... ........................ ........................ .................... 34

III. WP2....................................................... ................................................................... ......................................... 35

III.1WORKPACKAGE WP2OBJECTIVES .............................................................. ................................................ 35III.2PROGRESS 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....................... ........................ ........................ .................. 35III.2.1.2. Task 2.2 Mathematical and thermodynamic modeling of the UCG process ...................... ........................ .. 35III.2.1.3. Task 2.3 Simulation studies based assessment of the correlation between gasification process and rock massmechanics ...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..................... 42III.2.1.4. Task 2.4 Computer simulation of CO2sequestration in beds (main process parameters prognosis includinghazard assessment ........................ ........................ ........................ ......................... ........................ ........................ ...... 44

IV. WP3 .................................................................. ................................................................... ............................. 47

IV.1WORKPACKAGE WP3OBJECTIVES .............................................................. ................................................ 47IV.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES ............................................................... ................................................ 47

IV.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results...................................................... ....................... 47IV.2.1.1 Task 3.1.a Construction of the chromatographic unit ..................... ........................ ........................ .............. 47IV.2.1.2 Task 3.1 b Construction of the tubular reactor......................... ........................ ........................ ..................... 48IV.2.1.3 Task 3.1 c Construction of the pressurized reactor ..................... ........................ ......................... ................. 49IV.2.1.4 Task 3.1 d Preparation of the stand for water migration study ..................... ........................ ........................ 51IV.2.1.5 Task 3.1 e Preparation of the stand for strata samples study.............. ........................ ........................ ........... 52IV.2.1.6 Task 3.2 Preparation of coal blocks from various coal seams ...................... ........................ ........................ 52IV.2.1.7 Task 3.3 Tests carried out ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ..... 55IV.2.1.7.1 Evaluation of texture properties and mass transport parameters through the coal and strata ..................... 55IV.2.1.7.2 Experiments in the ex-situ UCG reactor ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ .... 56IV.2.1.7.3 Tests in the pressurized reactor................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ....................... 74IV.2.1.7.4 Water migration study ..................... ......................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ......... 79IV.2.1.7.5 Tests on strata behavior ....................... ........................ ........................ ......................... ........................ ..... 83IV.2.1.8 Task 3.4 Evaluation of the process background on the basis of experimental results........... ........................ 89

V. WP4....................... .................................................................... .................................................................... ..... 93

V.1WORKPACKAGE WP4OBJECTIVES ............................................................... ................................................ 93V.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES.................................................................. ............................................... 93

V.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results ................................................................... ........... 93V.2.1.1. Task 4.1 Double swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production...................... ............ 93V.2.1.2. Task 4.2 CO2capture method ........................ ........................ ........................ ......................... .................... 101

3


6/166

V.2.1.3. Task 4.3 Monitoring of the process parameters, process gasses concentrations and rock mass changes .... 110

VI. WP5 .................................................................. ................................................................... ........................... 117

VI.1WORKPACKAGE WP5OBJECTIVES .............................................................. .............................................. 117VI.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES ............................................................... .............................................. 117

VI.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results........................................................................... 117VI.2.1.1. Task 5.1 UCG process impact on the natural environment... ........................ ........................ ..................... 117VI.2.1.2. Task 5.2 UCG process impact on life standards ..................... ........................ ........................ ................... 125

VII. WP6 ................................................................ ................................................................... ............................ 129

VII.1WORKPACKAGE WP6OBJECTIVES ............................................................. .............................................. 129VII.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES .............................................................. .............................................. 129

VII.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results ......................................................................... 129VII.2.1.1. Task 6.1 Technical criteria ....................... ........................ ........................ ......................... ....................... 129VII.2.1.2. Task 6.2 Technological criteria ....................... ........................ ........................ ......................... ................ 133VII.2.1.3 Task 6.3 Environmental criteria ....................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ................. 137VII.2.1.4 Task 6.4 Safety criteria................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........... 139VII.2.1.5 Task 6.5 Economic criteria............ ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ............ 144

VIII. WP7................. ................................................................... .................................................................... ...... 149

VIII.1WORKPACKAGE WP7OBJECTIVES............................................................ .............................................. 149

VIII.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES............................................................. .............................................. 149VIII.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results .............................................................. .......... 149VIII.2.1.1. Task 7.1 Project website development...................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ...... 149VIII.2.1.2. Task 7.2 International conferences, meetings and seminars.......... ........................ ........................ .......... 149VIII.2.1.3 Task 7.3 Workshop ...................... ......................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........... 150VIII.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


7/166

FINAL SUMMARY

Introduction

The aim of the research was verification in real conditions of new technological concepts for in situproduction of hydrogen-rich gas applying underground coal gasification process.

The aim was achieved through an integrated series of laboratory experiments and process developmentunit trial in experimental mine as well as by modeling the carried out UCG process within the workpackages presented below.

Work Package 0: Project management, reportingT0.1 Project co-ordinationT0.2 Project management and controlT0.3 Communication and disseminationThe progress of works was continuously monitored and coordinated. Seven Consortium Meetings wereorganized and several (about ten) working meetings targeted on particular technical aspects of therealization of the project took place as well.

Work Package 1: In situ test facility concept, design and construction of the facility to be used fortesting of various options of Underground Coal GasificationT1.1 Literature survey

ObjectiveLiterature survey based on various available resources on technical solutions for the construction andoperation of the UCG systems.Results and applicationDue to the broad range of scientific, engineering and technological aspects of the UCG, the literaturesurvey was carried out on two levels of the project matter: a detailed level, performed separately byindividual 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.

ConclusionsThe thorough literature survey, particularly patent descriptions, was found to be a fairly rich source ofinformation on the subject and significantly helped in preparation of the PDU georeactor concept.

T1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys

ObjectiveSelection of the potential locations for the PDU generator.Results and applicationIn accordance with the design basis of the PDU-scale underground coal gasification reactor, thegenerator was localized in the Experimental Mine Barbara in Mikolw. The required studies in terms ofgeological and mining conditions as well as surface conditions for the site specifications were done.

ConclusionsThe location of the georeactor and coal opening seam were performed according to the selection criteriaand preceded by geological and tectonic tests.

T1.3 The analysis of the generator insulation

ObjectiveAnalyses of the selected generator location tightness and gas and water migration.Results and applicationAccording to the location conditions specified in T1.2, the PDU-scale generator was to be located in thecoal seam no. 310 at the depth of about 20 m underground in the EM Barbara in Mikow. Based onthe analysis of the hydro-geological and geological documentation, it was stated that the coal seam wassurrounded by highly permeable formations. The filtration coefficients of the quaternary overburdenwere at the level of 110-2110-3m/min. The generator was located in a coal seam isolated within avertical and tight concrete gallery. The fire hole was drilled in the lower part of the 1.5 m thick coal

5


8/166

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

1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor

ObjectiveDevelopment of the concept of the PDU-scale test facility.Results and applicationOn the basis of the location conditions presented in Task 1.2 and the construction requirementsresulting from the planned experiment, the final concept of the insitu underground coal gasificationreactor in the process development unit scale was elaborated. Series of tests performed before thegasification process experiment included seismic measurements (refraction method and surface wavemethod). Also a blind test of gas concentration was conducted. The measurements included theconcentrations of CH4, CO2, CO, O2and a sum of hydrocarbons as well as a barometric pressure. Thepresence of CH4, CO and hydrocarbons was not detected in any of the measurement points. Taking intoaccount 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 ofNational Mining Academy from Ukraine gained during their own research activities on the UCG wereused in the development of the concept and in the construction of the PDU-scale reactor.ConclusionsTechnological basis for the technical design was done. The work performed in Task 1.4 enabled tospecify the basic data for equipment and piping selection to be used at the stage of the installationdesign.

1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator

ObjectiveDesigning the process of the PDU scale experiment.Results and applicationThe required studies in terms of geological and mining conditions as well as surface conditions for thesite specifications were conducted. The process design of the PDU scale generator was based on theresults 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 Barbaraand, 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 atmosphericpressure in a laboratory scale installation. The calculations were done in order to assess the relationbetween temperature, pressure and amount of carbon reacted. The amount of gasified coal and gasifyingmedium (oxygen, air, steam) was defined. All detailed process assumptions for the technical design ofthe PDU scale generator were done.

ConclusionsThe 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

ObjectiveDesigning the required appliances and equipment for the UCG generator.Results and applicationThe basic elements of the technical design of the PDU scale generator were developed. Thespecification of required apparatus and equipment was prepared. The arrangement of the installationelements 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. Theschematic of the boreholes spacing and the layout of the elements in the underground part of theinstallation were drawn. The process monitoring system was also prepared.

6


9/166

ConclusionsThe technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator was crucial stage before the georeactorconstruction, taking into account also the monitoring system of the installation.

1.7 Construction of the generator

ObjectiveTo construct the generator and its infrastructure.Results and applicationThe construction of the generator and its infrastructure was done. The following works wereaccomplished: 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 andits inlet and outlet insulation and explosion-proof dams.ConclusionsThe reactor was constructed according to the concept and the developed technical design. The designedinfrastructure enabled to safely perform the experiment.

1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator

ObjectiveTo start-up the reactor and obtain the official permission for starting the trial.Results and applicationThe preliminary start-up of the reactor was performed as well as the official permission for starting thetrial was obtained. The startup included: tests of pipelines flowability, degreasing and defeating ofoxygen pipe, system tightness test - with air under the pressure of 3 atm and measurements ofventilation air propagation in generator zone with the main fan switched on and off, respectively.ConclusionsThe start up of the installation proceeded properly without any serious problems. All required officialpermissions were obtained.

1.9 Technical approval of the installation

ObjectivePlant commissioning in terms of the requirements and regulations.Results and applicationThe State Mining Authority stated that the underground gasification experiments in the EM Barbarado not require permission for generation of open fire in headings, as the test was a scientific-researchexperiment and the EM Barbara comes under mining and geological regulations regardingunderground works applying mining techniques and focused on scientific and research or experimentaltargets.ConclusionsAll formal requirements and regulations were fulfilled before the UCG plant start up.

Work Package 2: Mathematical and thermodynamic modelling of the proposed technological solutions2.1 Analysis of various options of coal gasification technologies with different gasification media,process parameters (pressure, temperature), coal types.

ObjectiveTo analyze various coal gasification technology options.Results and applicationThe work was focused on the confirmation and evaluation of the role of reactive sorbents to enrich theproduct gas in hydrogen, either by passing up the process equilibrium of water gas shift reaction to thehydrogen side, or by removing carbon dioxide from the product gas. The process required locatingsubstantial 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 spaceof coal mines as geo-reactor vessels with shafts and communication ways playing the role of large scalepipelines for reagent and product transport of underground gasification installation was analyzed.

7


10/166

The underground coal gasification process with CaO injection was investigated from thethermodynamic point of view. The major problems were identified and added to the thermodynamicmodel as two inequalities, and the model was solved using Matlab code. The optimum conditions forthe georeactor were found. Also an exergy analysis of the system was performed.ConclusionsThermodynamic analysis of various coal gasification technology options (steam/water injection, CaOinjection) 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 theproduced CaCO3, which is greater than the volume of the carbon consumed in the underground cavity.

2.2 Mathematical and thermodynamic modeling of the UCG process

ObjectiveDevelopment of mathematical and thermodynamic model of the UCG process.Results and applicationThe compilation of constitutive equations related to the intensity of mass flux to mass flux drivingforces for an appropriate model of gas/solid system corresponding to the complicated nature of theporous 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 findthe amount of heat which can be stored in each zone was done. Calculation of possible conversion ofroof 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 transferfrom coal surface to the coal layer) were analyzed.ConclusionsMathematical and thermodynamic model of the UCG process was developed enabling calculation of thetemperature, conversion rate and process limiting steps. The applied programs Matlab and Comsol usedfor 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 mechanicsObjectiveFinding the correlation between gasification process and rock mass mechanics.Results and applicationThe constitutive equations related to the intensity of mass flux to mass flux driving forces for anappropriate 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 andthe 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.ConclusionsFinding 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 foundthat the pressure increase influences the speed of the gas front movement more significantly than thetemperature increase, which is almost negligible.

2.4 Computer simulation of CO2sequestration in beds (main process parameters prognosisincluding hazard assessment)

ObjectiveSimulation of CO2sequestration in beds.Results and applicationMathematical model of CO2 adsorption in packed beds was developed enabling to calculateconcentration profile of CO2in 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 pureCaO for CO2sequestration in beds during coal gasification was performed.

8


11/166

ConclusionsThe results proved the usefulness of the developed mathematical model. The exergy analysis revealedthe process of the application of pure CaO for CO2sequestration in beds to be unfeasible.

Work Package 3: Ex situ laboratory testing of concepts3.1 Construction of the ex-situ experimental units

ObjectiveConstruction of special testing units for examining different aspects of the UCG process in a laboratoryscale.Results and applicationVarious laboratory scale experimental units, useful for critical evaluation of the literature data and forthe preparation of the demonstration scale ex situ and next in situ works were developed to theoperational stage.

a) Construction of the chromatographic unit for testing mass transfer parameters in coal and stratasamples(measurement of diffusion and permeation rates of gases through coals and strata usingthe 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 simulatedboth 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 mixturein different ratios. In order to control the temperature profiles of the gasification process, 25thermocouples was built in along the reactor in various zones of the simulated coal seam andthe rocks layers. Gasification products were directed to the cleaning system and afterwards thegas composition was analyzed on-line with the gas chromatography (GC).

c) Pressurized, large scale (80 liters), high temperature reactor (5.0 MPa,


12/166

temperature on rock behavior. The assessment of real risk related to the rock behavior during and afterin-situ experiments was performed for sandstone and mudstone.Tests of heavy metals migration in samples (brown coal, silt) before and after brown coal gasificationwere 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 samplesin 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 realunderground conditions were simulated both in respect to the coal seams and the surrounding rocklayers. The reactor was equipped with apparatus which enabled to analyze the temperature profiles andgas composition. Very large blocks of coal (proper for coal seam simulation) were prepared for thereactor by the industrial partner of the project. In the ex-situ reactor 6 experiments were performed oncoal blocks. The main aim of these experiments was enabling to perform simulations of the basicexperimental 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, andtested the methodology of the experiment (like burning of coal, media dosing, temperaturemeasurement). 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 pressurizedreactor adapted to the purpose of the project, during which the influence of high pressure on theproducts concentration was tested.ConclusionsAll experiments performed on different testing units (for examining different aspects of the UCGprocess in a laboratory scale) were very useful and prepared the proper background for the trial inProcess Development Unit. The experiments were also helpful in the development of thethermodynamic model of the process.

3.4 Evaluation of the process background on the basis of the experimental results

ObjectiveComprehensive analysis of the experiments, based on the product analyses and data monitoring.

Results and applicationBased on the results obtained from the series of simulations of lignite and hard coal undergroundgasification in the ex-situ conditions, indications and conclusions were drawn and used as thebackground for hydrogen-oriented in-situ gasification tests. Based on the results the following elementswere 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 aswell 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.ConclusionsThe results of experiments performed on testing units enabled to design the underground georeactor andmonitoring system in the EM Barbara.

Work Package 4: Testing of selected concepts of Underground Coal Gasification aimed on hydrogenproduction

4.1 Double swing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production

ObjectiveTesting of the technological options of the process, based on the results of the modelling studies: doubleswing reactor method aiming at hydrogen-enriched gas production.

Results and applicationAfter 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


13/166

problems related to the UCG process operation. The most important issue identified in these terms wasthe need for the application of an advanced monitoring system enabling to undertake actions adequateto the changes in the composition of the explosive gas mixture generated in the georeactor. Futureworks 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 UCGprocess. The security systems used for headings in the georeactor surroundings, existing ventilationsystem 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 thedetermination of secure zones, behind which the gas hazards is minimized.ConclusionsThe in-situ experiment performed in the EM Barbara proved the feasibility of combustible gasproduction under real underground conditions. The UCG process can be successfully applied inhydrogen-rich gas production and thereby generation of gas of high heating value. The undergroundexperiment enabled also to identify potential problems related to the UCG process operation. The mostimportant issue identified in these terms was the need for an application of an advanced monitoringsystem enabling to undertake actions adequate to changes in composition of an explosive gases mixturegenerated in the georeactor.

4.2 CO2capture methodObjectiveTesting the influence of addition of CaO and Ca(OH)2 sorbents to the georeactor space forimprovement temperature conditions of gasification and increasing of hydrogen content in the products.Results and applicationIt was confirmed that addition of stoichiometric amount of CaO and Ca(OH)2 to the bed of coalincreased the hydrogen content from 50-60% to over 80%. However experiments carried out with coalblock did not confirm the increase in hydrogen concentration. In such large scale majority of heatevolved during hydration and carbonation of CaO was consumed for dewatering and evaporation ofwater contained in the coal bed. It was found that small amounts of CaO, Ca(OH)2,and CaCO3havepositive catalytic influence on the gasification performance by increasing the ratio of H2to CO (from

1.3 to 2), decreasing the amount of tars in the product and accelerating the hydrogen generatingreaction.ConclusionsAddition of CaO is attractive option of coal gasification because offers the way for production ofhydrogen reach product. The experiments have shown that substantial increase of H2 contentrationrequires the very precise control of temperature inside the georeactor space. This could be doneeffectively 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

ObjectiveDevelopment of comprehensive monitoring system for the process.Results and applicationThe created comprehensive process monitoring system consisted of two parts, i.e.: monitoring of thegasification parameters for the thermodynamic process controlling and monitoring of the UCG siteenvironment 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: H2, CO2,

CO, CH4, C2H6and N2.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 ofescapes of contaminants to the groundwater environment. For the purposes of monitoring of the UCGcavity development, a number of geophysical techniques were applied, i.e.: geothermal method, verticalelectroresistance sounding, georadar method, gasometry, radon radiometry.

11


14/166

Georadar surveys, vertical electroresistance sounding as well as geothermal method proved their greatusefulness in the controlling of the process development, indicating probable special directions of theprocess development and geometries of the underground cavities and channels. Underground waterquality monitoring, performed in 5 sampling points over the period of 6 months after processtermination indicated only small penetration of the UCG contaminants to the underground water with atendency 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 UCGsite environment both on the surface and underground was properly chosen and enabled to properlycontrol the process. Observation of underground water quality (flow rate an composition) and surfaceensured 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

ObjectiveThe aim was the assessment and identification of potential hazards of the UCG process and its impacton the natural environment.

Results and applicationThe assessment of potential hazards and the UCG process impact on the natural environment waspresented. In particular the balance of water in the underground coal gasification with hydraulic fillingof voids was discussed. The technical solutions like a distribution of injection wells by remote filling ofvoids were analyzed.ConclusionsGeological deposits accompanying coal beds and forming walls of underground gasification reactormay reduce migration of harmful contaminants. Application of sorption-bonding materials would berecommended for this purpose. Filling of voids is recommended for surface protection by use ofsuggested grout composition.

5.2 UCG process impact on life standards

ObjectiveThe aim was the assessment and identification of potential social hazards of the UCG process and itsimpact on life standards.Results and applicationWithin 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 likeinflammability and explosiveness concepts were discussed. In conclusions the threat of the UCGmethod to the environment was described.Conclusions

Elimination of mining disasters leading to fatal accidents or disability of miners, minimization of theneed for hard work underground, reducing occupational diseases leading to shorter life and of work inpotentially high-risk areas have significant economic and social benefits offered by the UCGtechnology.

Work Package 6: Elaboration of the implementation criteria for the selected technological option

6.1 Technical criteria

ObjectiveVerification of the selected technical solutions essential for the implementation of tested gasificationtechnology concepts for shallow coal seams.Results and applicationThe analysis of methods of coal seams opening, methods of underground generator insulation andtechnical solutions for feeding and product collecting systems was done. Any kind of undergroundextraction of mineral beds results in a loss of stability that previously existed in the rockmass, which

12


15/166

leads to increase in stresses and strains in surrounding rocks. The scale of these changes, and finallyalso the stability of voids, is influenced by several factors, which were determined and analyzed. Theproposal of measures aiming at neutralization of such influence was presented. Also technical solutionsfor the feeding system supplying air, oxygen, steam and nitrogen (in emergency) to the georeactorbased on conventional systems of their generation were presented.ConclusionsThe 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 theunderground generator insulation as well as technical solutions for feeding and product collectingsystems.

6.2 Technological criteria

ObjectiveVerification of the selected technological solutions essential for the implementation of testedgasification technology concepts for shallow coal seams.Results and applicationThe 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 onliterature and experimental data gained in the course of the project realization were presented. It shouldbe emphasized that there are multilateral relations between particular criteria and process results.ConclusionsThe literature survey, the ex-situ experiments and the in-situ trial enabled to establish technologicalcriteria of the UCG process. Analysis of the obtained experimental and technological data has alloweddetermination 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

ObjectiveDetermination and formulation of criteria essential for the implementation of tested gasificationtechnology concepts for shallow coal seams from environmental point of view.Results and applicationThe environmental criteria include mainly groundwater, air and surface protection. Fulfillment of thecriteria, including keeping the standards resulting from regulations in terms of environmental protectionis related mainly to the aspects of a georeactor tightness, described in details in Task 6.1. This part ofthe research was aimed at application of solutions to potential environmental UCG-related problems onthe 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 mainlyfrom the impact of high temperatures. The questions of rock subsidence, and the collapse of voidscreated by the chemical processing of coal are frequently underestimated in most of the UCGapplications. The analysis of thermally induced changes in rocks surrounding coal beds, exposeddirectly to high temperature was an important part of the research. Significant and differentiatedchanges of mechanical properties of selected sediment rocks were identified. Mechanisms of roofcollapsing and development of subsidence, resulted from thermal influences of the UCG voids in a coalseam 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 andprotection of ground surface requirements, collapses in the UCG are considered as potential routes ofgas escapes and contaminants migration. Also the isolation of highly toxic residues and by-products ofreactions being involved in the UCG seems to be thoroughly addressed in respect to protection ofground waters.

13


16/166

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

6.4 Safety criteriaObjectiveDetermination of essential safety problems in a form of criteria for the implementation of testedgasification technology concepts for shallow coal seams.Results and applicationThe determined safety criteria covered the required scope of water, air and ground surface monitoring ateach 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 andlimits regarding carrying out others activities in the generator surroundings. Multilateral risk assessmentin relation to existing legislation is crucial in the UCG process. The risk assessment based on thehydrological data and model testing enable to estimate the possible contamination in the georeactor area

and surface installation of gas cleaning and processing.ConclusionsEssential safety problems of the UCG were determined by use of the best practices for riskmanagement.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

ObjectiveElaboration of the main economic data characterizing tested gasification technology concept in a formof criteria.

Results and applicationThe economic criteria covered evaluation of the commercial plant cost, the O&M costs and thehydrogen RSP. The objective of the economic analysis was to make the first estimate of the likelycapital and operating costs of the UCG syngas production process based on the results of the HUGEstudy, and to compare them with the previous results for the UCG. These results would then beavailable for use in proprietary economic models to estimate the likely costs of syngas production fromthe UCG and more sophisticated assessments, like internal rates of return. The HUGE study, above allelse is about de-carbonising the gasification process, and thereby generating a syngas which is rich inhydrogen and/or methane and low in carbon gases, i.e. carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Theresults show that capital costs for CO2separation process based on the HUGE method are estimated tobe 23% lower than conventional pre-combustion capture of CO2from the UCG syngas. On the samebasis, the operating costs are reduced by about 16%.

ConclusionsThe project identified a method of the UCG operation which produces two gas streams, one rich inhydrogen and the other rich in CO2. 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 withoutexpensive separation and capture stages.It is concluded on the basis of this initial economic assessment, that the HUGE process of alternatecycling of oxygen and steam, offers a significant improvement in capture costs from the UCG, andfurther investigation to refine these costs are recommended.

Work Package 7: Dissemination of the results aimed on future participation in hydrogen, fuel cellsprojects7.1 Project Website7.2 International conferences, meetings and seminars7.3 Workshop7.4 Articles and press releases

14


17/166

The prepared web-site; http://huge.gig.eu, served as the platform for exchange of research andorganizational information between Contractors (within the Extranet) and as a dissemination andpromotion 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 theproject duration on the 24th-25thof June 2010.

The results of the project were published in 15 articles in scientific journals. One patent application wasregistered. 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


18/166


19/166

I. WP0

WP Leader: CMIPLWP Contractors: CMIPL

I.1WORKPACKAGE WP0OBJECTIVES

The objective of this work package is the general management of the project elements, in orderto 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.2PROGRESS 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 ofthe Meeting reporting the agreed actions, terms and persons responsible were sent to Partners fordiscussion 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 bygiving 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 wasrealized on regular basis between the project partners.

An electronic platform for the exchange of research study reports and technical data availablein the area relevant to the project subject was used to share the information on the state-of-the-artbetween the project partners.

17


20/166

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 theactual expenditure to the total budget (fig.1) shows that only 83% of resources allocated to the projecthave been spent. That is mainly because of not eligible tax (VAT), acceptance by the Commissionlower 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 ofpartners allocated more than 100% of the project budget (like ISSP, UCGP and NMAUKRAINE) andsome 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 ofcontractor

Total budget EC contribution60%

Totalexpenditure

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


21/166

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

GIG

TUDT

USTU

TT

CSIC

PFIS

SP

KOMP

WEG

BOTG

IE

HUGE

PL

UCGP

TUSI

L

NMAU

KRAI

NE

EU contribution 60%

EU actual

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

19


22/166

I.4ProgrammeBarChart

PROGRAM

MEBARCHART(TASK,PART

NER,DELIVERABLES,MILES

TONES)

Hoursonproject/C

ontractor(s)

1st ye

ar

2ndyear

3rdyear

Work

packages

Workpackagestitle

Deliverables

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

I

II

III

IV

I

II

IIIIV

I

II

III

IV

WP0

Projectmanagement,

reporting

Task0.1

D.0

.1

570

Task0.2

D.0

.2

570

Task0.3

D.0

.3

570

WP1

Insitutestfacility

concept,designand

constructionofthefacility

tobeusedfortestingof

variousoptionsof

UndergroundCoal

Gasification

Task1.1

D.1

.1

300

34

36150

150

150

Task1.2

600

809

Task1.3

D.1

.3

800

1000

Task1.4

D.1

.2

500

350

Task1.5

400

Task1.6

D1.4

1500

150

Task1.7

D1.5

3000

14501500

Task1.8

1700

Task1.9

D1.6

150

WP2

Mathematicaland

thermodynamicmodelling

oftheproposed

technologicalsolutions

Task2.1

400549

400

Task2.2

D.2

.1

10252000

1500

200

Task2.3

400

Task2.4

D.2

.2

1000

WP3

Exsitulaboratorytesting

ofconcepts

Task3.1

D.3

.1

4000

500700

600

300

20


23/166

Task3.2

371

384

Task3.3

3050

30001508

1359

300

Task3.4

1500

22814100

WP4

Testingofselected

conceptsofUnderground

CoalGasificationaimed

onhydrogenproduction

Task4.1

2000

653

768

Task4.2

D.4.1

2000

653

768

Task4.3

1130

600

600

WP5

HUGEprocess

environmentaland

technicalriskassessment

Task5.1

1959

900

Task5.2

D.5.1

855

2208

WP6

Elaborationofthe

implementationcriteria

fortheselected

technologicaloption

Task6.1

185

192

150

Task6.2

425760

Task6.3

600

853

150

Task6.4

D.6.1

400

276

Task.6.5

167

WP7

Disseminationofthe

resultsaimedonfuture

participationinhydrogen,

fuelcellsprojects

Task7.1

D.7.1

300

Task7.2

D.7.2

185400

50

400100

100

110

Task7.3

D.7.3

185

150

Task7.4

185365

55

428

86

92

146

TotalHours

onproject

28500

507425369500552035323840673015429562100

-postponedorprolonged

21


24/166


25/166

II. WP1

WP Leader: CMIPLWP Contractors:T 1.1 Literature survey; CMIPL, NMAUKRAINE, HUGEPL, TUSIL, KOMPWEG, BOTGiET 1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveys; CMIPL, HUGEPLT 1.3 The analysis of the generator insulation; CMIPL, HUGEPL

T 1.4 The concept of the PDU-scale UCG reactor; CMIPL, NMAUKRAINET 1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generator; NMAUKRAINET 1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generator; CMIPL, TUSILT 1.7 Construction of the generator; CMIPL, KOMPWEG, BOTGiET 1.8 Preliminary start-up of the generator; CMIPLT 1.9 Technical approval of the installation;CMIPL

II.1WORKPACKAGE WP1OBJECTIVES

The aim of the WP-1 was the development of a concept and, subsequently, a design of the UCGprocess PDU-scale facility for mining of shallowly buried coal layers in mining areas of coal mines, inwhich the production using underground mining method was ceased for either economic or technicalreasons. 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 andAustralia especially in scope of environmental aspects were employed to work out the concept and thedesign. In particularly, local technical conditions of CMIPLs Experimental Coal Mine Barbara (EMBarbara) in Mikolow were taken into account.

At further stage the construction of the PDU-scale UCG generator was performed. Thegenerator was used for testing of selected process concepts in conditions enabling use of the results in apilot or a demonstration scale. The assumed programme target: a development of the UCG process, tobe used in gasification of coal deposited in specific conditions (in shallow coal seams - the remains ofthe underground mining areas) required solving problems, which are not common for deep and unminedseams. This related in particularly to the environmental protection and safety aspects.

II.2PROGRESS TOWARDS OBJECTIVES

II.2.1 Description of works undertaken and main results

II.2.1.1 TASK 1.1 Literature surveyDue 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 thesurvey were analyzed only to the extent of their key issues, which means the recommendations forfurther works. However, the full results of literature analysis were attached as Appendix 1A to the firstSix Monthly Report. The survey was further investigated in the light of own experimental dataaquired to verify the sometimes contradictory conclusions of various authors. Due to the fact that thenumerous 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 theoriginal texts into English. The results of these works were made available to the consortium membersin the restricted part of the Project Web Site.

The literature review and analysis of classic character were enriched by the construction of anelectronic data base which constituted an active electronic document, allowing loading the full text ofthe cited documents from the Web when licensed to the Partner. The aim of this activity was to keep thePartners updated with the merit of any new work on the subject. The electronic document was attachedto the first Six Monthly Report as a hard copy (Appendix 1B) and also in an electronic version. The

23


26/166

literature survey was assumed to be fairly complete because the various types of documents werereviewed 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 thosesources was restricted only to the Partners having licenses to those sites;

The European, US and World patent databases (for example: www.freepatentsonline.org ) toremain 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 orderto find a niche for Europe in this emerging area of energy research; and thirdly, because UCG is ofspecial interest in the corporate research of oil and energy giants, which can be illustrated by the factthat in the last five years Royal Dutch Shell has obtained more than 60 US Patents on its coalgasification technology solutions directly or indirectly related to UCG. Moreover, the patentdescriptions was found to be a fairly rich source of information on the subject as some of the patentsdescriptions go into great detail covering more than 300 pages.

II.2.1.2 TASK 1.2 Location terms analysis and supplementary surveysIn 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 studiesin terms of geological and mining conditions as well as surface conditions for the site specificationswere 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 belocated under residential housing, roads and EM Barbara buildings. In that localization morphology,topography, geology and hydrogeology servey was performed. Besides geological and tectonic testsbefore, during and after the completion of UCG trial were done. The series of tests performed before thegasification process experiment included seismic measurements (refraction method and surface wavemethod). 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 toreport 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 insulationBased 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 filtrationcoefficients of the quaternary overburden were on the level of 110-2110-3m/min.

The generator was located in the part of the coal seam isolated with the vertical, tight, concretegallerys lining. The hole was drilled in the lower part of the coal seam of the thickness of 1.5 m. The

24


27/166

experiment was performed under the pressure similar to the hydrostatic pressure in the generatorlocation 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 itsleakproofness. 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 uncontrolledescape through surrounding geological structures), and about possible spread of pollutions resultingfrom the influence of underground water on formation of waste materials of slag and ash, as a result ofthe reaction.

Research consisting in the defining of the coefficient of filtration of raw materials accompanyingcoal deposits (silt, clays, and clay sand) was undertaken. Structures were combusted at 450, 650 and850C in order to define changes which may take place in geological structures surrounding the UCGreactor.

Results clearly indicated that the coefficient of filtration increased. Obtained values were 35units higher for the temperature of 8500C than for row materials. It indicated the considerable crackingof 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 reactorThe 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 assumedtechnical 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 thegeoreactor with one fire channel. Such a solution enabled realization of the gasification processin a central part of the coal block and protection of the concrete galleries walls against the hightemperature.

2. The fire channel was to be developed with a use of a drilling method taking into account thepresence 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. Thislocation ensured the appropriate development of the georeactor and location of the channel in acoal block.

4. Taking into account high permeability of the overburden of low thickness over the georeactor theprocess was assumed to be realized under the pressure of the value close to the atmosphericpressure. The pressure in the georeactor was assumed to be controlled with the pressure ofgasification 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 belocated on the surface for the safety reasons. Only the system of a preliminary gas demethanationwas 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


28/166

Table1.

Parametersofthematerialbalancefo

rtheUCGgeoreactorattheEMBarbara.

Supplyrate

Productgas

Gasifica

tion

agen

t

m3/t

m3/h

H2

CH4

CO

N2

H2S

CO2

O2

Flowrate

m3/h

Efficiency

%

Heatof

combustion

MJ/m3

Moisture

conte

nt

g/m3

Water

inflow

kg/kgof

coal

14.8

5.05

12.48

51.48

0.60

13.49

1.8

53.4

4.206

205

0.5

16.2

6.2

11.7

49.10

0.71

14.03

2.0

54.9

4.576

286

0.75

15.6

5.1

10.63

51.42

0.75

14.50

2.0

52.7

4.083

334

1.0

Air

2053

287.4

17.3

3.1

8.05

55.30

0.77

13.30

2.2

589.4

50.8

3.754

369

1.25

18.64

5.63

14.25

31.45

0.89

26.48

2.66

54.7

4.630

229

0.5

20.50

6.50

15.08

27.42

1.03

25.80

2.72

56.6

5.296

298

0.75

21.60

5.34

12.20

28.30

1.08

28.63

2.85

53.8

4.431

353

1.0

Air+ste

am

1935

270.9

56.89

134.91

79.11

22.04

4.03

10.04

29.04

1.10

30.79

2.96

561.6

51.2

3.823

405

1.25

32.31

6.18

5.4

20.15

1.05

31.40

2.97

60.1

7.230

245

0.5

27.4

12.48

7.16

20.81

1.15

27.36

3.63

61.7

7.706

296

0.75

33.1

5.38

2.12

24.07

1.18

29.85

4.26

59.4

7.343

351

1.0

Air+oxy

gen

+steam

1721

241.0

130.94

30.06

80.0

34.08

3.42

2.1

23.57

1.25

31.05

4.53

690.3

57.6

7.045

402

1.25

24.12

12.92

23.43

25.10

0.63

10.6

3.20

68.1

9.964

187

0.5

28.54

10.91

21.1

25.02

0.69

10.34

3.40

69.3

10.115

201

0.75

29.41

10.4

20.0

24.15

0.7

11.78

3.56

66.4

9.680

239

1.0

Air+oxy

gen

1886

264.16

153.21

110.95

29.98

9.32

19.75

25.2

0.73

11.42

3.60

742.3

65.7

9.188

262

1.25

26


29/166

II.2.1.5 TASK 1.5 The process design of the PDU-scale UCG generatorThe 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 stagesof 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 theenvironmental 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 wereconducted in order to select the best available option. Calculations of the expected product gascomposition 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 theunderground experiment applying the borehole method in a horizontal gasification channel usingoxygen 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 scalegasification tests on coal samples from EM Barbara and the literature data. Coal samples werecollected 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

Nitrogenbottles

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 theprocess 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 ofother tasks, in particularly those based on the experience resulting from the tests in the ex-situ reactor atEM Barbara (WP3).

27


30/166

II.2.1.6 TASK 1.6 The technical design of the PDU-scale UCG generatorThe 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 thedetailed 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 equipmentThe basic gasification agent for feeding the system elements:

mobile oxygen tank with evaporatoro amount: 15 000 kg of liquid oxygen,o max pressure: 24 bar; max gaseous oxygenflow: 80 Nm3/h.

The air used in the trials of the system tightness and in the generator ignition phase was supplied usingair compressor with the following parameters:

pressure: up to 0.6 MPa capacity: up to 1 m3/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 thecondensation 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 theunderground heading during the experiment.

The design of the boreholesThe 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


31/166

Oxygen

container

Fig. 3. System layout

dam

~16m

generatorno1

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


32/166

c)

d)

Fig. 5.The gas generator constructiona) 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 ofgasification 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 sealingwall, 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 gascollection chamber)

The feeding media (power, water, air, nitrogen, oxygen) were supplied using the existingsystem of galleries from the side of the shaft access.

The gaseous products were directed to the flare via the pipeline in the ventilation gallery andthe ventilation shaft. The exhaust fan of 300-400 m3/h effiecency was applied.

The process monitoring systemSeismic analyses were performed between the surface and headings in the coal bed no. 310 at

the 2ndlevel (below the coal bed no. 310) applying seismic tomography method. The geophones werearranged in the form of a regular square grid with 10 m side length. The points of induction of theseismic waves (applying explosive materials) were located in the underground headings in the coal bedno.310 at the 2nd level, under the coal bed no. 310. The probes for testing the surface area of theexperimental field were arranged in the grid with the dimensions of 30 x 70 m.

The measurements of the concentration of CO2, CO and CH4in the soil and air were conducedon the area of 40 x 40 m located above the generator in the grid of 10 x 10 m. Additional measurementpoints (for safety of CO, H2, CH4, CO2, 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 gaschromatograph Agillent 3000A. The concentrations of the following components were analyzed: H 2,CO2, CO, CH4, C2H6, O2and N2.

The flow rates of the gasification agents and the gaseous products were measured with standardflow meters. The pressure was measured on the inlet and outlet of the generator applying pressuregauges.

The structure of the temperature measurement system was developed at the stage of boreholedriling applying the experience gained during the ex-situ experiments. The infrared mapping methodwas a supplementary method used for controlling the temperature distribution in the reaction zone.

30


33/166

C

EE

E

C

A

D B

B

A

camera

CO, CO2, CH4, H2detector

air velocity measurement

O2detector

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 generatorThe 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 pipefor exhaust gases through the mine and ventilation shaft were prepared

3. The construction of the fire holeThe measurements of the inclination angle of the coal bed were performed at the location siteplanned for the generator. The fire hole of 140 mm diameter and the length of about 15 m wasdrilled at the level of 500 mm above the floor.

4. The construction of the pipelinesFollowing the approved mining plan annex, the preparation works preceding the assembly of thepipelines 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-situexperiment: 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 tothe pit shaft of the EM Barbara and then in concrete lining through galleries to the distance ofabout 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 valveswere led to the inlet of the georeactor. On the water pipeline rectifier was assembled. Therectifier 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 wasinstalled on the pipeline in distance of about 15 m from the outlet of the gaseous products.5. The construction of explosion-proof facilities

31


34/166

The in-situ UCG experiment was performed in the location area of the headings of the formerexplosive 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 asunderground fire. Thus the experimental site had to be equipped with the following safetymeasures: 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 t

Documents

Hydrogen-Oriented Underground Coal Gasification for Europe (HUGE)