DOCSLIB.ORG

LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LLNL Underground Coal Gasification: an Overview of Groundwater David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na- tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful- ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE- AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi- gating groundwater contamination issues. Gas sampling recommendations benefitted from research funded by the DOE Basic Energy Sciences Program. vii Preface All energy production technologies produce environmental impacts, and create environ- mental risks. It is always difficult to weigh the benefits of additional energy production against the risks of that activity. Further, if a venture is approved, it is difficult to balance the trade-offs between environmental protection and costs. The main purpose of this report is to provide information and understanding so that these difficult decisions can be made as well as possible. The hazard of groundwater contamination by underground coal gasification (UCG) op- erations is real and must be addressed seriously by all projects. In the past, some UCG projects have unacceptably contaminated groundwater resources, while others have been carried out safely. The goal of this work is to provide an understanding of specific con- tamination hazards and mitigation best practices. This report describes how UCG can work without contaminating groundwater. It also describes things that can go wrong. The under- lying goal is to identity mitigation strategies and best practices to minimize groundwater risk. The audience for this report is regulators, project developers, and stakeholders with a wide range of expertise in UCG. The emphasis is education and information, not prescrip- tion. The phenomena are too complex and the range of possible specifics are too wide for specific prescription. Each case will be unique and require detailed assessment and analy- ses, using this document to guide appropriate questions and critical review. ix Summary Underground coal gasification is the in situ conversion of coal into an energy-rich product gas. It takes place deep underground, using chemical reactions to consume the coal and grow a cavity. Gas wells, drilled into the coal seam, inject reactant air, oxygen, and/or steam to sustain the reactions. Production wells then extract the product gas. Preventing groundwater contamination during a UCG operation requires care at many steps. Key requirements include: • Selecting a favorable site • Analyzing failure modes • Careful and conservative design, construction, and testing • Conservative operations • Quality-assurance and operational controls • Monitoring, by a combination of measurements and modeling • Early detection and correction of unwanted conditions or escaping gas • Proper closure procedures • Post-closure monitoring and management During normal UCG operation contaminants are continually generated, destroyed, and removed, leaving only small amounts confined locally. The gas within parts of the UCG cavity during operations will contain many organic contaminants, including those formed by pyrolysis of the coal. These species will include aliphatic and, especially, aromatic hydrocarbons—including benzene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and phenols. In proper op- eration virtually all of this gas will be converted to a more benign composition, produced out of the ground within contained piping, and properly separated above ground. At termination of a properly operated module, a small inventory of contaminant species will be present in the cavity and its walls and rubble zone. Post-burn module cleaning operations—such as nitrogen sweep, steam sweep, and/or gradual steam-producing wa- ter infiltration—can greatly reduce the local inventory of these contaminants. These post- burn cleaning operations—coined “Clean Cavern” by the Rocky Mountain 1 team—were demonstrated during the Rocky Mountain 1 test and are being evaluated in recent Australian UCG panels. Thus, a properly operated and cleaned UCG module will terminate with a small quantity of organic contaminants present in the immediate vicinity of the cavity. xi Preface Transport of contaminants outside the local confinement zone is abnormal, either during operations or after closure. It will occur if there is an outward pressure gradient and a pathway for flow. Whatever the amount and distribution of residual contaminants, their impact is dependent on the proximity and value of nearby groundwater resources, and the transport barriers (or hydrologic gradients) between the contaminants and protected waters. UCG should be avoided within some keep-out distance of a high-value ground water resource. Site-specific geomechanical and hydrologic studies, coupled to the UCG designs being considered, will be needed to set this keep-out distance as a function of various fac- tors. Qualitatively, one wants to avoid having open pathways extend up into a valuable aquifer. Over the years, the UCG community has improved in its understanding and approach to mitigating contamination risks. Some of the general approaches include the following: • The operating pressure of the UCG cavity must be controlled below the surrounding water pressure at the highest gas-connected part of the cavity. • The UCG production wells and their completion must be designed and constructed prop- erly to maintain their integrity despite thermal and mechanical stresses. • As with any industrial operation that produces waste-water, care must be taken to keep it from spilling at the surface. • Careful geotechnical analysis must be carried out on the geomechanical behavior of the open (or rubble filled) cavity, possible extent of roof collapse, and likely fracture extents. • In general, narrower cavities with larger pillars will increase subsidence protection, but at the expense of higher well-placement costs and reduced resource recovery. • Monitoring of the operation, including indications of vertical cavity growth, is important. • Rings of groundwater sampling wells can typically provide early detection of any prob- lems close to the operation, while confirming far-field cleanliness in outer, regulatory- compliance rings. • A method for detecting gas leakage to the formation can be used, as it may detect contamination-spreading conditions earlier and further away. • A proper shutdown and follow-up procedure should be followed, along the lines of the Clean Cavern concept demonstrated at Rocky Mountain 1 and other subsequent field tests. Careful analysis and understanding of likely failure modes will help prevent and minimize impacts. This document provides a general description of the relevant processes, potential failure modes, and practical mitigation strategies. It can guide critical review of project design and operations. xii Contents 1 Introduction to UCG .................................................. 1 1.1 What is UCG?....................................................1 1.2 Major hazards....................................................3 1.3 Physical Processes................................................4 1.4 Gasifier Designs..................................................8 1.5 Process waste and byproduct streams................................. 11 2 Site Selection and Characterization ..................................... 15 2.1 Overview of Site Characteristics..................................... 15 2.2 Regional Structural Geology........................................ 16 2.3 Local Coal Seam Characteristics..................................... 17 2.4 Hydrologic Properties.............................................. 19 2.5 Geomechanical Properties.......................................... 20 2.6 Coal Rank, Properties, and Chemical Attributes........................ 22 3 Contaminant Behavior During Proper Operation ........................ 25 3.1 Generation of contaminants......................................... 25 3.2 Destruction of organics during operation.............................. 31 3.3 Containment and removal of contaminants during operation.............. 33 3.4 Removal of more contaminants during module
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Blending Hydrogen Into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: a Review of Key Issues
    Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5600-51995 March 2013 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Blending Hydrogen into Natural Gas Pipeline Networks: A Review of Key Issues M. W. Melaina, O. Antonia, and M. Penev Prepared under Task No. HT12.2010 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report 15013 Denver West Parkway NREL/TP-5600-51995 Golden, Colorado 80401 March 2013 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐Up
    Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program DRAFT INTERIM PROJECT REPORT DRAFT Comparative Assessment of Technology Options for Biogas Clean‐up Prepared for: California Energy Commission Prepared by: California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis OCTOBER 2014 CEC‐500‐11‐020, TASK 8 Prepared by: Primary Author(s): Matthew D. Ong Robert B. Williams Stephen R. Kaffka California Biomass Collaborative University of California, Davis 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 Contract Number: 500-11-020, Task 8 Prepared for: California Energy Commission Michael Sokol Contract Manager Aleecia Gutierrez Office Manager Energy Generation Research Office Laurie ten Hope Deputy Director Energy Research and Development Robert Oglesby Executive Director DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to the following individuals for their various contributions to the development of this report: California Biomass Collaborative Robert Williams, Project Supervisor Dr. Stephen Kaffka, Project Manager Dr. Bryan Jenkins, Contract Manager American Biogas Council Bioenergy Association of California.
    [Show full text]
  • Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas
    DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office (BETO) 2021 Project Peer Review Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas March 25, 2021 WBS: 3.5.1.405 Terry Marker Gas Technology Institute This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 1 Cool GTL for the Production of Jet Fuel from Biogas Project Overview 2 Project Overview Cool GTL to Produce Jet Fuel from Biogas • Goal is to produce 100 gallons of Jet Fuel from Biogas using the Cool GTL Process – GTI will demonstrate a new simple GTL process which converts biogas, CO2, and methane directly to jet, gasoline, and diesel – Show the technology to be significantly lower cost, and more efficient than previous GTL processes- produce jet fuel at < $3/GGE – Also complete modeling, engineering, technoeconomic and LCA for Cool GTL biogas commercial process- advance from TRL 3 to 5 3 3 Cool GTL • Converts CO2-rich methane, ethane and propane to high-quality gasoline, diesel and jet fuel • Works well for any gas containing CO2 or CO • Uses unique CO2/steam reforming catalyst to directly make 2:1 H2/CO synthesis gas • Uses unique combined Fischer-Tropsch and wax-cracking reactor • Simple and compact with unique catalysts in each stage 4 SM Unique Cool GTL Technology Novel Features Beneficial Results • Unique bi-reforming catalyst • Modular, low-cost GTL • Unique wax cracking-FT catalyst • Small footprint • Unique electric reformer design • Great economics • Distributed plant locations Two patents issued Current GTL Cool GTLSM and several others pending 5 SM
    [Show full text]
  • Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor Concept (Left)
    INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM Process Intensification with Integrated Water-Gas-Shift Membrane Reactor Reactor concept (left). Flow diagram (middle): Hydrogen (H2) permeates the membrane where nitrogen (N2) sweeps the gas to Hydrogen-Selective Membranes for High- produce a high-pressure H2/N2 gas stream. Membrane diagram Pressure Hydrogen Separation (right): The H2-selective membrane allows the continuous removal of the H2 produced in the water-gas-shift (WGS) reaction. This allows for the near-complete conversion of carbon monoxide (CO) This project will develop hydrogen-selective membranes for an innovative water-gas-shift reactor that improves gas separation to carbon dioxide (CO2) and for the separation of H2 from CO2. efficiency, enabling reduced energy use and greenhouse gas Image Courtesy of General Electric Company, Western Research Institute, emissions. and Idaho National Laboratory. Benefits for Our Industry and Our Nation Introduction The development of an integrated WGS-MR for hydrogen The goal of process intensification is to reduce the equipment purification and carbon capture will result in fuel flexibility footprint, energy consumption, and environmental impact of as well as environmental, energy, and economic benefits. manufacturing processes. Commercialization of this technology has the potential to achieve the following: One candidate for process intensification is gasification, a common method by which hydrocarbon feedstocks such as coal, • A reduction in energy use during the separation process by biomass, and organic waste are reacted with a controlled amount replacing a conventional WGS reactor and CO2 removal system of oxygen and steam to produce synthesis gas (syngas), which with a WGS-MR and downsized CO2 removal unit is composed primarily of hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO).
    [Show full text]
  • Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production
    Paper ID #12042 Two Phase Flow Water Gas Separation in Biomass Energy Production Prof. Yeong Ryu, State University of New York, Farmingdale YEONG S. RYU graduated from Columbia University with a Ph.D. and Master of Philosophy in Mechan- ical Engineering in 1994. He has served as an associate professor of Mechanical Engineering Technology at Farmingdale State College (SUNY) since 2006. In addition, he has conducted various research projects at Xerox Corporation (1994-1995), Hyundai Motor Corporation (1995-1997), and New Jersey Institute of Technology (2001-2003). He has been teaching and conducting research in a broad range of areas of system identification and control of nonlinear mechatronic systems and vibrations in structures requir- ing precision pointing to eliminate the detrimental effects of such diverse disturbance sources. He has authored or co-authored more than 70 publications. His work currently focuses on the development and implementation of modeling and control of renewable energy systems, characterization of nanomaterials, photovoltaics, and nanoscale integrated systems. He is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) and the Materials Research Society (MRS). Dr. Hazem Tawfik, State University of New York, Farmingdale Prof. Tawfik obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, from University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He has held a number of industrial & academic positions and affiliations with organizations that included Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Stony Brook University (SBU), Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Atomic Energy of Canada Inc., Ontario Hydro, NASA Kennedy, NASA Marshall Space Flight Centers, and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals Around the World
    FUELLING THE FIRE The chequered history of Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals around the world ‘Fuelling the Fire: the chequered history of Underground Coal Gasification and Coal Chemicals around the world’ is a Friends of the Earth International report produced by Friends of the Earth Scotland and published in July 2016. Friends of the Earth International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 74 national member groups and some 2 million members and supporters around the world. We challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalisation, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and socially just societies. Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in which equity and human and peoples’ rights are realised. This will be a society built upon peoples’ sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, economic, gender and environmental justice and be free from all forms of domination and exploitation, such as neoliberalism, corporate globalization, neo-colonialism and militarism. We believe that our children’s future will be better because of what we do. Friends of the Earth International has member groups in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belgium (Flanders), Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curaçao (Antilles), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
    [Show full text]
  • Gasworks and Gasholders Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary
    Gasworks and Gasholders Introductions to Heritage Assets Summary Historic England’s Introductions to Heritage Assets (IHAs) are accessible, authoritative, illustrated summaries of what we know about specific types of archaeological site, building, landscape or marine asset. Typically they deal with subjects which lack such a summary. This can either be where the literature is dauntingly voluminous, or alternatively where little has been written. Most often it is the latter, and many IHAs bring understanding of site or building types which are neglected or little understood. Gas works, or sites where gas was manufactured by thermally decomposing fossil fuels and stored in gasholders, were one of the most ubiquitous and widely distributed industrial complexes of the 19th and 20th centuries. Frequently constructed on the edges of urban areas, close to their customers and adjacent to rivers, canals and railways - reflecting both the inability of the early works to transmit gas over large distances and the reliance Front cover: on a supply of coal – meant that gasworks and gasholders had a The Cheltenham Gas considerable visual impact on the landscape. Beginning with the Light & Coke Company formation of the Gas Light and Coke Company in London in 1812, works from the air in coal gas manufactured at gasworks in towns, cities and on private 1938. Formed in 1818, the company moved to a larger estates was transmitted via England’s first energy networks before site formed by the junction first nationalisation (1949) and the conversion to natural gas (from of Gloucester Road 1967), brought about the end of the industry and the clearance of and Tewkesbury Road.
    [Show full text]
  • The Potential of Sustainable Biomass Producer Gas As a Waste-To-Energy Alternative in Malaysia
    sustainability Review The Potential of Sustainable Biomass Producer Gas as a Waste-to-Energy Alternative in Malaysia Jun Sheng Teh 1, Yew Heng Teoh 1,* , Heoy Geok How 2, Thanh Danh Le 3,*, Yeoh Jun Jie Jason 2, Huu Tho Nguyen 4 and Dong Lin Loo 1 1 Engineering Campus, School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Nibong Tebal 14300, Penang, Malaysia; [email protected] (J.S.T.); [email protected] (D.L.L.) 2 Department of Engineering, School of Engineering, Computing and Built Environment, UOW Malaysia KDU Penang University College, 32 Jalan Anson, Georgetown 10400, Penang, Malaysia; [email protected] (H.G.H.); [email protected] (Y.J.J.J.) 3 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, 12 Nguyen Van Bao Street, Ward 4, Go Vap District, Ho Chi Minh City 71408, Vietnam 4 Department of Mechatronics Engineering Technology, Ho Chi Minh City University of Food Industry, 140 Le Trong Tan Street, Tan Phu District, Ho Chi Minh City 760310, Vietnam; tho.nh@hufi.edu.vn * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected] (Y.H.T.); [email protected] (T.D.L.) Abstract: It has been widely accepted worldwide, that the greenhouse effect is by far the most challenging threat in the new century. Renewable energy has been adopted to prevent excessive greenhouse effects, and to enhance sustainable development. Malaysia has a large amount of biomass residue, which provides the country with the much needed support the foreseeable future. This investigation aims to analyze potentials biomass gases from major biomass residues in Malaysia.
    [Show full text]
  • Syngas Composition: Gasification of Wood Pellet with Water Steam
    energies Article Syngas Composition: Gasification of Wood Pellet with Water Steam through a Reactor with Continuous Biomass Feed System Jerzy Chojnacki 1,* , Jan Najser 2, Krzysztof Rokosz 1 , Vaclav Peer 2, Jan Kielar 2 and Bogusława Berner 1 1 Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Koszalin University of Technology, Raclawicka Str.15-17, 75-620 Koszalin, Poland; [email protected] (K.R.); [email protected] (B.B.) 2 ENET Centre, VSB—Technical University of Ostrava, 17. Listopadu 2172/15, 708 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic; [email protected] (J.N.); [email protected] (V.P.); [email protected] (J.K.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-94-3478-359 Received: 15 July 2020; Accepted: 22 August 2020; Published: 25 August 2020 Abstract: Investigations were performed in relation to the thermal gasification of wood granulate using steam in an allothermal reactor with electric heaters. They studied the impact of the temperature inside the reactor and the steam flow rate on the percentage shares of H2, CH4, CO, and CO2 in synthesis gas and on the calorific value of syngas. The tests were conducted at temperatures inside the reactor equal to 750, 800, and 850 C and with a steam flow rate equal to 10.0, 15.0, and 20.0 kg h 1. ◦ · − The intensity of gasified biomass was 20 kg h 1. A significant impact of the temperature on the · − percentages of all the components of synthesis gas and a significant impact of the steam flow rate on the content of hydrogen and carbon dioxide in syngas were found.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Biogas in Hydrogen Production & Decarbonization
    The Role of Biogas & RNG in Hydrogen Production & Decarbonization Board of Directors Meeting The Role of Biogas in Hydrogen Production & Decarbonization “BayoTech‘s goal is to provide customers access to low-cost, lower carbon hydrogen to accelerate the global energy transition” Mo Vargas BayoTech CEO 3 Hydrogen Facts Hydrogen should be consumed at the point of = Electrolysis uses 2X the H2 Energy Gas production due to low volumetric energy density amount of feedstock process 1 kg 1 gallon water than SMRs + $1.69 per kg Hydrogen produced > using BayoTech has the lowest cost of production 2-3X Fuel cells are 2X-3X more efficient than Industrial gas companies are internal combustion engines accustomed to large onsite off- takers. Not well suited for low = price, low carbon distributed H2 70 miles/kg vs 24 miles/gal H2 Gas + Liquification and transporting H2 from central plants are carbon intense and are up to 2/3rd of price at point of consumption. The only emissions when H2 is used in a fuel cell are water H2 pipelines cost $1MM a mile 4 Hydrogen Applications Fuel Cells Agriculture Industrial Energy Confidential BayoTech On-site Hydrogen Generators The on-site generation system Includes: • Natural gas cleanup system • Water purification system • Steam generator • Furnace and Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) • Water Gas Shift (WGS) reactor • Hydrogen separator & cleaning system Intellectual Property – • • BayoTech holds the exclusive license Process Control System including safety and for the core design from Sandia shut down functions with
    [Show full text]
  • Windsor Street Gasworks ...Through the Years Contents
    Windsor Street Gasworks ...through the years Contents 02 Introduction 03 Early history 05 Leading the world 08 Further growth 10 Gasholder No.12 11 Social activities 12 Diversification 14 The war years 15 Today This publication is adapted with permission from “A History of the Gas Industry in Birmingham” by Professor Russell Thomas. Russell Thomas has a keen interest in the gas industry. He has been working on former gasworks sites since 1997, a subject he has grown to find fascinating. Russell works as a technical director for the International Engineering Consultancy WSP, advising on former industrial sites, with a special focus on former gasworks. “A History of the Gas Industry in Birmingham” can be downloaded from nationalgrid.com/windsorstreet Windsor Street Gasworks | 2021 01 Introduction For over 130 years, the Windsor Street Gasworks soon became a common feature gasholders have dominated the Aston in the heart of the city, with sites at Gas Street, skyline in Birmingham. They are steeped Fazeley Street, Adderley Street and Swan Village. in industrial history, providing a link to However, by the 1840s there was a growing call the pioneering age of gas. However, for them to be located out of the city along the times change, bringing new innovations River Rea. to produce and store fuel. Consequently, the Birmingham Gas Light After being unused for years, the three gasholders and Coke Company constructed a gasworks are now set to be dismantled. This will be the first at Windsor Street and the Birmingham and step towards returning the unused land back to Staffordshire Gas Light Company built their beneficial use.
    [Show full text]
  • Underground Coal Gasification
    David W. Camp Joshua A. White Underground Coal Gasification: An Overview of Groundwater Contamination Hazards and Mitigation Strategies March 2015 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LLNL-TR-668633 Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore Na­ tional Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or useful­ ness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. v Acknowledgements This work was funded by a 2012 Applied Science Grant from the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE­ AC52-07NA27344. The authors wish to thank Duane Matt and other members of the OSM Underground Coal Gasification Working Group for their support and recommendations. We also thank the Clean Air Task Force (CATF) for earlier funding that allowed LLNL to begin investi­ gating groundwater contamination issues.
    [Show full text]