DOCSLIB.ORG

Coal-Bed Methane in New Mexico

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coal-Bed Methane in New Mexico Goal-bedmethane in NewMexico by NeilH. Whitehead,///, NewMexico Bureau of Mines& MineralResources, Socorro, NM 87801 What is coal-bedmethane? Why is coal-bed methane important to 1989 for all reservoirs in the New Mexico Coal-bed methane or coal-seamgas is New Mexico? part of the San Juan Basin was approxi- natural gas found associated with coal The coal-bedmethane resourcebase for mately 15.3 TCF. In 1988, the first year beds. The gas is a product of the coalifi- the San Juan Basin of New Mexico and production recordsfor the BasinFruitland cation process whereby, through time, Colorado is estimated to be between 65 pool were kept, coal-bed methane pro- peat-like muck is converted to coal by the and 83 trillion ft3 (TCF) for the Fruitland duction from the San Juan Basin of New application of heat and pressure.After the and MenefeeFormations. The Raton Ba- Mexico was 14 billion ff (BCF, : 0.014 energy crisis of t973, geologistsbegan to sin of New Mexico and Colorado is esti- TCH from a vear-end total of 77 wells. look seriously at coal-bed methane, not mated to contain between 8 and 18 TCF Annual production in 1989 inceased to just as an explosive gas to be vented from of gas in the Raton and Vermejo Forma- 55 BCF from 323 wells and in 1990 was coal mines but as an enormous resource tions. The combinedresource base for these 131BCF from 734wells. In December1990, of high-quality, pipeline gas. In the last two basins is between 73 and 101 TCF. Fruitland coal-bed methane production five vears, vast amounts of methane have The percentageof gas produced from a made up aboul 3l% of the monthly gas been developed by drilling hundreds of well is called the recovery factor. This fac- production from the San Juan Basin and wells in coal beds too deep to mine in the tor for coal-bed methane is not well es- 1Zn of the monthly gas production from San fuan Basin and the Raton Basin of tablished becauseof the unconventional New Mexico. By the end of March 1991, New Mexico (Fig. 1). nature of these reservoirs.Assuming a 831 wells were producing from the Basin In conventionalgas reservoirs,gas oc- conservative recovery factor of 50Va,be- Fruitland pool. Production during that curs in interconnectedvoids (pores)in the tween 36.5 and 50.5 TCF of gas will be month made up about 38%of the gasPro- rock. Coal-bedmethane is an unconven- produced from these coal beds over the duction from the SanJuan Basin and22Va tional gas in that the methane is adsorbed next 20 to 40 years. of the total gas (associatedand nonasso- or attached to internal surfaceswithin the To place these amounts in perspective, ciated) production from New Mexico. coal. As the reservoir pressureof the coal natural gas consumption in the United Many additional wells are waiting to be is decreasedby removing water or gas, States in 1989 was 19 TCF. The annual connected to pipelines. Thus, the deliv- more gas desorbs from the coal and is production from New Mexico in 1990was erability of coal-bed methane is expected available to flow to the well bore. 0.95 TCF. Cumulative production through to increase. 107' 105' Walsenburg | . lff:) lgnacio COLORADOF o ! 37" - - .---= -NE 370 c"_o3l-a.#-Hin_{ierd -Btancounir ";" '. _ tj- t;ool Farmington Bloomfield .\ I I SAN JUAN BASIN ,J ) l-_ ;Y ,l- I SANDoVAL I ,o*JUAN 36' 36" MCKINLEY Crownpoint a a Gallup Thoreau SANTA FE SAN MIGUEL a ---J1 - l, BERNALTLLo 0 10 20 3omi I craoLn \- t- - l-r# I oGrants 1 \ Albuquerque I 0 10 30 50km 107' 105' FIGURE l-Index map showing that part of the San Juan Basin underlain by the Fruitland Formation (Dane and Bachman, 1965) and the Raton Basin underlain by the Vermeio Formation (Dane and Bachman, 7965;Tweto,7979). November 7991. Nrw Mexico Geology Nonconventional fuel tax credit in sandstones. Additionally, strong gas TABLE l-Operators of producing Fruitland coal-bed methane wells as -An important force in the exploitation shows were encountered in areas where of March 31, 1997 of coal-bedmethane in New Mefucois the there were large volumes of water in the (New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission, 197). *, San producing nonconventional fuel tax credit. This tax coal. In conventional gas reservoirs, high Juan properties sold to Conoco,Inc., April 30,7997. credit, enactedby Congressas part of the water production indicates the reservoir Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act of 1980, is watered out or depleted,another rea- rewards producers faced with high initial son for ignoring the coal-bed reservoirs. Company Wells The first costs in developing unconventional en- well specifically for coal-bed Meridian Oil Inc. 365 ergy sources, such as oil from shale and methane in New Mexico was drilled in Nassau Resources,Inc. 62 tar sand and gas from geopressuredbrine 1977by Amoco Production Co. in the Ce- Blackwood & Nichols Co. 62 and Devonian shale. Coal-bedmethane dar Hill field northeast of Aztec. The ma- Amoco Production Co. 6l development projects in the north-central jor push for coal-bed methane Phillips Petroleum Co. ffi part of the Sanfuan Basinhave been com- development wells began in the mid- Union Oil Company of Califomia 48 pared to offshore venfures in terms of in- 1980's.The prime benefactorsof the boom Southland Royalty Co. (Meridian) 38 itially high capital requirements (e.g., are the original and successorcompanies Giant Exploration & Prod. Co. 26 Marathon pumping units, that drilled wells as much as 30 or 40 years Oil Co. t1 water storageand settling McKenzie Methane tanks, ago and establishedproduction 9 separatorsand other surfaceequip- irom Hallwood Petroleum Inc. 8 ment, gathering lines for both gas and deeper horizons beneath the Fruitland Mesa Operating Limited produced brine, and deep brine-disposal coals. The two largest players by acreage Partnership NW* 7 wells) and long lead times involving plan- are Amoco Production Co., an original Arco Oil & Gas Co. 6 ning, design, and regulatory agenty ap- company/ and Meridian Oil Inc. (a wholly Robert L. Bayless 6 proval. owned subsidiary of Burlington Re- Richmond Petroleum Inc. 6 The nonconventional fuel tax credit had sources), which purchased El Paso Nat- TexacoInc. 6 been scheduledto expire ural Gas in 1983 and Southland Rovaltv Dugan Production Corp. 5 January1,1990, Merrion but was extended in 1985.Amoco's Oil and Gas Corp. 5 to January L, 1991,and position was strength- D. Simmonset al. ened in late J. 5 f9!9ntly was extended again to fanuary 1, 1988when it acquiredfor 9900 BHP Petroleum 4 million 1993.The tax credit for 1990was 90.855/ the Rocky Mountain properties JoeI B. Burr, Jr. 4 MMBTU (million British Thermal Units, (90Voof which are in the San fuan Basin) Northwest Pipeline Corp. approximately1 MCF (thousandft3 of gas)) of Tenneco Exploration and Production. Union TexasPeholeum Corp. 4 as determined by the inflation adjustment In mid-1990 Meridian acquired for 9399 Falcon SeaboardGas Co. factor_andreference price for calendaryear million all the producing leasesof Unicon Maralex Resources,Inc. J 1990(Intemal RevenueService, 1991). The Producing Co. (Union TexasPetroleum), Morgan-RichardsonOperating Co. 2 tax credit will apply to gas produced most of which are in the San Basin. Simmons Engr. & Consulting Co. 2 until |uan Orville l, 20f'3 Table1 listscompanies S. Slaughter,Jr. 2 January from wells drilled before and Fruitlandcoal- Basin Minerals, Inc. |anuary 1,, 7993.The credit is subhacted bed methanewells in operationas of March Conoco, Inc. from the tax liability and must be taken 31, 1991. Other companieswith coal-bed Great Western Drilling Co. in the year of production. The average methane drilling activity in New Mexico Curtis J. Little New Mexico well-head price in 1990wis include: BasinFuel Ltd., BonnevilleFuels, Manana Gas Inc. $1.7344CFof gas (NewMexico Taxation Caulkins Oil Co., Columbus Energy,Fair- |erome P. McHugh and RevenueDepartment, 1991),so al- play Oil & GasCo., Incline Reserves,Koch Total 830 lowing for the costsof lifting gas from the Exploration, Mitchell Energy Corp., Par- well, producers will net by-the tax credit ker & Parsley Petroleum Co., and Quin- a significant part of thefuincome from coal- oco Petroleum Inc. in BCF/mi'z(after Ayers and Ambrose, 1990, bed methane properties. fig. 27) shows the highest values in the Gas in the Fruitland Formation northem part of the basin, reflecting the Fruitland gas: a thirty-year-old Volumetric determination of gas in place presenceof thick coal beds, high thermal discovery is rediscovered in the Fruitland Formation involves mak- maturity, and high reservoir pressures The Fruitland Formation gasplay is un- ing a map of coal thicknessfrom well logs, (which allow more gas to be adsorbedper usual in that this immensereservoir was determining drillable acres,obtaining coal unit of coal). The northwest-southeast "found" about thirty yearsbefore the plav density (tons/acre-foot)values frorn well elongation of gas-in-placecontours (Fig. was "discovered."fhe first thorough, f3'- logs, and measuringthe gas content (ft3l 2) reflects the trend of thick coals that sin-wide subsurface study of thtFruit- ton of coal)from desorptionof coal sam- tended to form shoreward (southwest) of land Formation published n1-9Zt contains ples.These values are multiplied to arrive the northwest-southeast-trending shore- theseprophetif passages: at a gas-in-place(ft3) value. The parameter line sands of the Pictured Cliffs Forma- tion, which underlies the Fruitland Gasshows in theKirtland most difficult to determine accurately is andFruitland Formation and intertongues to the north- are ignoredduring mostdrilling gas content (fPlton). The best procedure in the eastwith the Fruitland (Fassett SanJuan Basin. In partsof thd basin. is to-placewell core,as soonas itis brought and Hinds, however,it has becomecustomarv foi to the surface, in a desorption canister r97r\.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Coal and Oil: the Dark Monarchs of Global Energy – Understanding Supply and Extraction Patterns and Their Importance for Futur
    nam et ipsa scientia potestas est List of Papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which are referred to in the text by their Roman numerals. I Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2008) A decline rate study of Norwe- gian oil production. Energy Policy, 36(11):4262–4271 II Höök, M., Söderbergh, B., Jakobsson, K., Aleklett, K. (2009) The evolution of giant oil field production behaviour. Natural Resources Research, 18(1):39–56 III Höök, M., Hirsch, R., Aleklett, K. (2009) Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world oil production. Energy Pol- icy, 37(6):2262–2272 IV Jakobsson, K., Söderbergh, B., Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2009) How reasonable are oil production scenarios from public agen- cies? Energy Policy, 37(11):4809–4818 V Höök M, Söderbergh, B., Aleklett, K. (2009) Future Danish oil and gas export. Energy, 34(11):1826–1834 VI Aleklett K., Höök, M., Jakobsson, K., Lardelli, M., Snowden, S., Söderbergh, B. (2010) The Peak of the Oil Age - analyzing the world oil production Reference Scenario in World Energy Outlook 2008. Energy Policy, 38(3):1398–1414 VII Höök M, Tang, X., Pang, X., Aleklett K. (2010) Development journey and outlook for the Chinese giant oilfields. Petroleum Development and Exploration, 37(2):237–249 VIII Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2009) Historical trends in American coal production and a possible future outlook. International Journal of Coal Geology, 78(3):201–216 IX Höök, M., Aleklett, K. (2010) Trends in U.S. recoverable coal supply estimates and future production outlooks. Natural Re- sources Research, 19(3):189–208 X Höök, M., Zittel, W., Schindler, J., Aleklett, K.
    [Show full text]
  • New Carbon Emissions Allowance Allocation Method Based on Equilibrium Strategy for Carbon Emission Mitigation in the Coal-Fired Power Industry
    sustainability Article New Carbon Emissions Allowance Allocation Method Based on Equilibrium Strategy for Carbon Emission Mitigation in the Coal-Fired Power Industry Qing Feng 1, Qian Huang 1, Qingyan Zheng 2 and Li Lu 1,2,* 1 Business School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China; [email protected] (Q.F.); [email protected] (Q.H.) 2 Tourism School, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610064, China; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-028-85996613 Received: 18 July 2018; Accepted: 17 August 2018; Published: 17 August 2018 Abstract: The carbon emissions from coal-fired power have become an increasing concern to governments around the world. In this paper, a carbon emissions allowances allocation based on the equilibrium strategy is proposed to mitigate coal-fired power generation carbon emissions, in which the authority is the lead decision maker and the coal-fired power plants are the follower decision makers, and an interactive solution approach is designed to achieve equilibrium. A real-world case study is then given to demonstrate the practicality and efficiency of this methodology. Sensitivity analyses under different constraint violation risk levels are also conducted to give authorities some insights into equilibrium strategies for different stakeholders and to identify the necessary tradeoffs between economic development and carbon emissions mitigation. It was found that the proposed method was able to mitigate coal-fired power generation carbon emissions significantly and encourage coal-fired power plants to improve their emissions performance. Keywords: carbon emission allowance allocation; emission mitigation; coal-fired power generation; cap and tax mechanism 1. Introduction Because of their major contribution to global climate change, there has been increased research to determine the best ways to reduce carbon emissions, which have been exponentially increasing due to the increased demand for energy [1–3].
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Characteristics
    CCTR Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research COAL CHARACTERISTICS CCTR Basic Facts File # 8 Brian H. Bowen, Marty W. Irwin The Energy Center at Discovery Park Purdue University CCTR, Potter Center, 500 Central Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907-2022 http://www.purdue.edu/dp/energy/CCTR/ Email: [email protected] October 2008 1 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL FORMATION As geological processes apply pressure to peat over time, it is transformed successively into different types of coal Source: Kentucky Geological Survey http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/images/peatcoal.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coalform.htm&h=354&w=579&sz= 20&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=NavOy9_5HD07pM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=134&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcoal%2Bphotos%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX 2 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR COAL ANALYSIS Elemental analysis of coal gives empirical formulas such as: C137H97O9NS for Bituminous Coal C240H90O4NS for high-grade Anthracite Coal is divided into 4 ranks: (1) Anthracite (2) Bituminous (3) Sub-bituminous (4) Lignite Source: http://cc.msnscache.com/cache.aspx?q=4929705428518&lang=en-US&mkt=en-US&FORM=CVRE8 3 Indiana Center for Coal Technology Research CCTR BITUMINOUS COAL Bituminous Coal: Great pressure results in the creation of bituminous, or “soft” coal. This is the type most commonly used for electric power generation in the U.S. It has a higher heating value than either lignite or sub-bituminous, but less than that of anthracite. Bituminous coal
    [Show full text]
  • Coal Gas Origins and Exploration Strategies ©
    COAL GAS ORIGINS AND EXPLORATION STRATEGIES © Andrew R. Scott Altuda Energy Corporation San Antonio, Texas USA [email protected] A LTUDA Mid-Continent Coalbed Methane Symposium Tulsa, Oklahoma November 7-9, 2004 © 2004 A.R. Scott EARTH AT NIGHT Page1of1 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 Year Data from U.S. Bureau of the Census; ftuture growth estimates from U.S. Census Bureau publication NP-T1, February 2000; website www.mnforsustain.org/united_states_population.htm World view problems 1. Energy 2. Water 3. Food 4. Environment 5. Poverty 6. Terrorism & War 7. Disease 2. Education 9. Democracy 10. Population Tinker (2004) after Smalley (2003) U.S. ENERGY COMPARISON To Produce 20% of US Energy Demand (20 Quads per year) 1 million kg biomass/km2* 16,000 BTU/kg = .02 Q/4,000km2 after loss 20 ac/turbine 175,000 Kwh/yr/turbine 33 million turbines Solar Wind Biomass According to Pimentel et al. (BioScience Sept. 1994), Tinker RMS AAPG Keynote (2004) A LTUDA NATURAL GAS DEPLETION RATES 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Rocky Texas Oklahoma Offshore Lower 48 Mountain GOM Kenderdine (2002) 1990 1999 A LTUDA COALBED METHANE PRODUCTION IN U.S. 2,000 1,800 1614 1600 1,600 1562 1379 1,400 1252 1194 1,200 1090 1003 956 1,000 851 800 752 600 539 400 348 196 200 91 10 17 24 40 0 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 2003 Energy Information Year Administration (1992, 1995,1999, 2002, 2004) A LTUDA COALBED METHANE EXPLORATION MODEL Permeability Gas content Hydrodynamics CoalbedCoalbed MethaneMethane ProducibilityProducibility Coal rank and Depositional gas generation systems and coal distribution Tectonic and structural setting A LTUDA A LTUDA EVALUATION OF GAS CHEMISTRY • Gas chromatographic analyses provides information about gas chemistry; percentages of hydrocarbons, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 32: Coke Production
    NPTEL – Chemical – Chemical Technology II Lecture 32: Coke production 32.1 Introduction Coal is used as fuel for electric power generation, industrial heating and steam generation, domestic heating, rail roads and for coal processing. Coal composition is denoted by rank. Rank increases with the carbon content and decreases with increasing oxygen content. Many of the products made by hydrogenation, oxidation, hydrolysis or fluorination are important for industrial use. Stable, low cost, petroleum and natural gas supplies has arose interest in some of the coal products as upgraded fuels to reduce air pollution as well as to take advantage of greater ease of handling of the liquid or gaseous material and to utilize existing facilities such as pipelines and furnaces. 32.2 Coking of coal Raw material is Bituminous coal. It appears to have specific internal surfaces in the range of 30 to 100m2/g. Generally one ton of bituminous coal produces 1400 lb of coke. 10 gallons of tar. Chemical reaction:- 4(C3H4)n nC6H6 + 5nC + 3nH2 + nCH4 Coal Benzene Coke Lighter hydrocarbon Joint initiative of IITs and IISc – Funded by MHRD Page 1 of 9 NPTEL – Chemical – Chemical Technology II Process flow sheet: Illustrated in Figure. Figure 32.1 Flow sheet of coking of coal 32.3 Functional role of each unit (Figure 32.1): (a) Coal crusher and screening: At first Bituminous coal is crushed and screened to a certain size. Preheating of coal (at 150-250˚C) is done to reduce coking time without loss of coal quality. Briquetting increases strength of coke produced and to make non - coking or poorly coking coals to be used as metallurgical coke.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter L—Coal-Bed Methane Gas-In-Place Resource Estimates
    Chapter L National Coal Resource Coal-Bed Methane Gas-In-Place Resource Assessment Estimates Using Sorption Isotherms and Burial History Reconstruction: An Example from the Ferron Sandstone Member Click here to return to Disc 1 Volume Table of Contents of the Mancos Shale, Utah By Todd A. Dallegge1 and Charles E. Barker1 Chapter L of Geologic Assessment of Coal in the Colorado Plateau: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah Edited by M.A. Kirschbaum, L.N.R. Roberts, and L.R.H. Biewick U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625–B* 1 U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado 80225 * This report, although in the USGS Professional Paper series, is available only on CD-ROM and is not available separately U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... L1 What Is Coal-Bed Methane? ...................................................................................................................... 2 Importance of Coal-Bed Methane Production ........................................................................................ 2 How Much Coal-Bed Methane is Available?........................................................................................... 3 How Do Coal Beds Generate and Store Methane? ................................................................................ 4 Details About Coal Cleat....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Producing Fuel and Electricity from Coal with Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    Producing Fuel and Electricity from Coal with Low Carbon Dioxide Emissions K. Blok, C.A. Hendriks, W.C. Turkenburg Depanrnent of Science,Technology and Society University of Utrecht Oudegracht320, NL-351 1 PL Utrecht, The Netherlands R.H. Williams Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey08544, USA June 1991 Abstract. New energy technologies are needed to limit CO2 emissions and the detrimental effects of global warming. In this article we describe a process which produces a low-carbon gaseousfuel from coal. Synthesis gas from a coal gasifier is shifted to a gas mixture consisting mainly of H2 and CO2. The CO2 is isolated by a physical absorption process, compressed,and transported by pipeline to a depleted natural gas field where it is injected. What remains is a gaseousfuel consisting mainly of hydrogen. We describe two applications of this fuel. The first involves a combined cycle power plant integrated with the coal gasifier, the shift reactor and the CO2 recovery units. CO2 recovery and storage will increase the electricity production cost by one third. The secondprovides hydrogen or a hydrogen-rich fuel gas for distributed applications, including transportation; it is shown that the fuel can be produced at a cost comparable to projected costs for gasoline. A preliminary analysis reveals that all components of the process described here are in such a phase of development that the proposed technology is ready for demonstration. ~'> --. ~'"' .,.,""~ 0\ ~ 0\0 ;.., ::::. ~ ~ -.., 01) §~ .5~ c0 ~.., ~'> '" .~ ~ ..::. ~ ~ "'~'" '" 0\00--. ~~ ""00 Q....~~ '- ~~ --. ~.., ~ ~ ""~ 0000 .00 t¥") $ ~ .9 ~~~ .- ..~ c ~ ~ ~ .~ O"Oe) """1;3 .0 .-> ...~ 0 ~ ,9 u u "0 ...~ --.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Energy Uses of Coal
    CCC/ 291 NOVEMBER 2018 NON-ENERGY USES OF COAL DR IAN REID NON-ENERGY USES OF COAL IEA CLEAN COAL CENTR E APSLEY HOUSE, 176 UPPER RICHMOND R OAD LONDON, SW15 2SH UNITED KINGDOM +44[0]20 3905 3870 WWW.IEA-COAL.ORG AUTHOR DR IAN REID IEA CCC REPORT NUMBER CCC/291 ISBN 978–92–9029–614–0 © IEA CLEAN COAL CENTRE PUBLICATION DATE NOVEMBER 2018 3 IEA CLEAN COAL CENTR E – NON-ENERGY USES OF C OAL PREFACE This report has been produced by the IEA Clean Coal Centre and is based on a survey and analysis of published literature, and on information gathered in discussions with interested organisations and individuals. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. It should be understood that the views expressed in this report are our own, and are not necessarily shared by those who supplied the information, nor by our member organisations. The IEA Clean Coal Centre was established in 1975 and has contracting parties and sponsors from: Australia, China, the European Commission, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, the UAE, the UK and the USA. The overall objective of the IEA Clean Coal Centre is to continue to provide our members, the IEA Working Party on Fossil Fuels and other interested parties with independent information and analysis on all coal-related trends compatible with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. We consider all aspects of coal production, transport, processing and utilisation, within the rationale for balancing security of supply, affordability and environmental issues. These include efficiency improvements, lowering greenhouse and non-greenhouse gas emissions, reducing water stress, financial resourcing, market issues, technology development and deployment, ensuring poverty alleviation through universal access to electricity, sustainability, and social licence to operate.
    [Show full text]
  • Next Generation Coal Gasification Technology
    Next generation coal gasification technology Ian Barnes CCC/187 ISBN 978-92-9029-507-5 September 2011 copyright © IEA Clean Coal Centre Abstract Worldwide, a small number of integrated gasification combined cycle power plants (IGCC), based on high-efficiency coal gasification technologies, are operated commercially or semi-commercially, a few more are under construction, and a number of demonstration projects, some including carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), are at an advanced stage of planning. Various coal gasification technologies are embodied in these plants including different coal feed systems (dry or slurry), fireproof interiors walls (fire brick or water-cooled tubes), oxidants (oxygen or air), and other factors. Many of these designs are now several decades old but new cycles and systems are emerging to further improve the efficiency of the coal gasification process. This report draws upon the published literature and commentary from experts in industry and academia working in the coal gasification sector to present and summarise recent developments. Acknowledgements The author is grateful for useful discussions and advice freely given by industry and academic professionals. In particular, the contributions of the following are acknowledged: Dr Kourosh E Zanganeh CANMET Dr Manabu Hirata NEDO Mr John Davison IEAGHG Dr John Griffiths Jacobs Ms Jenny Tennant NETL Mr David Butler Canadian Clean Power Coalition Mr Ronald L Schoff EPRI Acronyms and abbreviations AC air compressor ADT acid gas dewpoint temperature AHAT humid air
    [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]
  • Chapter 7 on Energy Systems Gas (GHG) Emissions
    7 Energy Systems Coordinating Lead Authors: Thomas Bruckner (Germany), Igor Alexeyevich Bashmakov (Russian Federation), Yacob Mulugetta (Ethiopia / UK) Lead Authors: Helena Chum (Brazil / USA), Angel De la Vega Navarro (Mexico), James Edmonds (USA), Andre Faaij (Netherlands), Bundit Fungtammasan (Thailand), Amit Garg (India), Edgar Hertwich (Austria / Norway), Damon Honnery (Australia), David Infield (UK), Mikiko Kainuma (Japan), Smail Khennas (Algeria / UK), Suduk Kim (Republic of Korea), Hassan Bashir Nimir (Sudan), Keywan Riahi (Austria), Neil Strachan (UK), Ryan Wiser (USA), Xiliang Zhang (China) Contributing Authors: Yumiko Asayama (Japan), Giovanni Baiocchi (UK / Italy), Francesco Cherubini (Italy / Norway), Anna Czajkowska (Poland / UK), Naim Darghouth (USA), James J. Dooley (USA), Thomas Gibon (France / Norway), Haruna Gujba (Ethiopia / Nigeria), Ben Hoen (USA), David de Jager (Netherlands), Jessica Jewell (IIASA / USA), Susanne Kadner (Germany), Son H. Kim (USA), Peter Larsen (USA), Axel Michaelowa (Germany / Switzerland), Andrew Mills (USA), Kanako Morita (Japan), Karsten Neuhoff (Germany), Ariel Macaspac Hernandez (Philippines / Germany), H-Holger Rogner (Germany), Joseph Salvatore (UK), Steffen Schlömer (Germany), Kristin Seyboth (USA), Christoph von Stechow (Germany), Jigeesha Upadhyay (India) Review Editors: Kirit Parikh (India), Jim Skea (UK) Chapter Science Assistant: Ariel Macaspac Hernandez (Philippines / Germany) 511 Energy Systems Chapter 7 This chapter should be cited as: Bruckner T., I. A. Bashmakov, Y. Mulugetta, H. Chum, A. de la Vega Navarro, J. Edmonds, A. Faaij, B. Fungtammasan, A. Garg, E. Hertwich, D. Honnery, D. Infield, M. Kainuma, S. Khennas, S. Kim, H. B. Nimir, K. Riahi, N. Strachan, R. Wiser, and X. Zhang, 2014: Energy Systems. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R.
    [Show full text]
  • EMEP/EEA Air Pollutant Emission Inventory Guidebook 2019 1
    Category Title NFR 1.B.1.b Fugitive emissions from solid fuels: solid fuel transformation SNAP 040201 Coke oven (door leakage and extinction) 040204 Solid smokeless fuel ISIC Version Guidebook 2019 Coordinator Carlo Trozzi Contributing authors (including to earlier versions of this chapter) Marlene Plejdrup, Jan Berdowski, P. Verhoeve, Chris Veldt, Jozef M. Pacyna, Haydn Jones, Otto Rentz, Dagmar Oertel and Mike Woodfield EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook 2019 1 1.B.1.b Fugitive emissions from solid fuels: solid fuel transformation Contents 1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 3 2 Description of sources .................................................................................... 3 2.1 Process description ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Techniques .................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Emissions ...................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Controls ......................................................................................................................................... 7 3 Methods............................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Choice of method ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]