DOCSLIB.ORG

Underground Coal Gasification Technology Impact on Coal Reserves in Colombia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Underground Coal Gasification Technology Impact on Coal Reserves in Colombia ISSN 0121-1129 Underground coal gasification technology impact on coal reserves in Colombia Impacto de la tecnología de gasificación bajo tierra sobre las reservas de carbón en Colombia Fecha de Recepción: 16 de septiembre de 2013 John William Rosso Murillo* Fecha de Aprobación: 18 de octubre de 2013 Abstract Resumen In situ coal gasification technology (Underground La tecnología de gasificación in situ (Gasificación Coal Gasification–UCG–) is an alternative to the de Carbón Subterránea –UCG, en inglés–) brinda traditional exploitation, due to it allows to reach la alternativa de consumir carbón de forma the today’s inaccessible coal reserves’recovery, to diferente a la tradicional y permite una explotación conventional mining technologies. In this article de reservas inalcanzables con tecnologías de I answer the question on how the today’s reserves minería convencional. Este artículo responde la available volume, can be increased, given the pregunta sobre cómo aumentan las reservas de possibility to exploit further and better the same carbón disponibles para explotar, y su impacto en resources. Mining is an important wealth resource el beneficio del país. La minería es un importante in Colombia as a contributor to the national GDP. According with the Energy Ministry (Ministerio de recurso de riqueza para Colombia, contribuye Minas y Energía) [1] mining has been around 5% con cerca del 5% del PIB. Lo significativo de este of total GDP in the last years. This is a significant hecho se debe a la existencia de un considerable fact due to the existence of a considerable volume volumen de reservas (6.700 millones de toneladas) of reserves not accounted for (proved reserves y al futuro rol del carbón en la producción mundial at year 2010 were 6.700 million of tons. Source: de energía. INGEOMINAS and UPME), and the coal future role’s prospect, in the world energy production. Palabras clave: Carbón, Recursos exhaustibles y desarrollo, Energía, Tecnología de UCG. Keywords: Coal, Exhaustible Resources and Development, Simulation, Energy, UCG Technology. * Ph.D. Management Student (Finance), Universidad de Los Andes. Assistant Professor at Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Co­ lombia (Colombia). [email protected] Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, UPTC, Julio - Diciembre de 2013, Vol 22, No. 35. pp. 9-24 - CEDEC 9 . pp. 9-24 Underground coal gasification technology impact on coal reserves in Colombia I. INTRODUCTION became three fold during the last 30 years (Fig. 1). Together over 73% of the world coal production is According to the World Coal Institute –WCI–, consumed by countries like China, India, United coal is one of the world most important energy States, Russia and Germany [3]. Colombia’s resources. Near to 40% of world’s energy is consumption is only 0.1% of the total, in spite of produced by using coal [2]. The coal consumption being one of the world biggest coal producers [4]. FIG. 1. World coal consumption by year (millions of Short Tons) Source: Data from United States Energy Information Administration [5]. Own elaboration The latest new coal uses and the technologies cheapest, as it requires lower capital and operating development, such as coal liquefaction or costs [7]. Therefore it is possible to consider some gasification in situ, suggest a high future industrial UCG potential projects in Colombia, in order to demand. In particular, the UCG is a technology improve the national coal resources amount and that has a clear impaction the exploitable reserves’ the energy production efficiency. Since UCG volume. This implies that it is necessary to allows to mine the coal resources that today are estimate the new coal national reserves inventory, impossible to extract by traditional mining [6- given the possibility to implement the UCG 9], the question is: ¿How much will change the technology in Colombia. efficiency and the proved coal reserves’ amount in Colombia, under the UCG project scenario? Recent studies show that the UCG projects around the world have not had any development II. UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION in Latin America [6] in spite of being a potential development for the region. According to Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) or in situ Friedmann et al. [3], Latin America could gasification, is a process that converts coal into be considered one of the regions with highly a synthetic gas, called syngas (this term is used prospective for future UCG projects development. to summarize the mix of gases obtained by the process. The produced gases are primarily H , Current development of UCG has shown an 2 CO, CH4, and CO2) [7]. This procedure differs advanced efficiency, making this process the from the surface coal gasification, due that with 10 - CEDEC Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, UPTC, Julio - Diciembre de 2013, Vol 22, No. 35 John William Rosso Murillo the UCG, the un-mined coal seams, are injected controlled pyrolysis and the evaporation process’ with sufficient oxygen, for a complete combustion create the unburnt gas. This syngas is extracted underground [10]. through the wells drilled down, into the coal seam. The gas is collected and transported into Since the UCG wells have permeable walls, as the surface facilities, for further use in energy water is injected at hydrostatic pressure, the production or others (see Fig. 2). Injection Production Wells Storage and Wells transportation facilities Surface Combustion Zone Coal Seam Ash + Char Flow FIG. 2. UCG process. Source: Own elaboration. Based on [11] The gasification pressure is not an independent the U.S. The R&D, Research and Development, in design variable, in the UCG process. Instead, it is UCG has provided new tools for this technology’s a hydrostatic pressure’s function, which increases better understanding. The knowledge concerning with the coal seam’s depth. The gasification rate the well design, and the gas recovery, between growths with the increasing coal depth, due to an other variables, have given a renewed interest in upsurge in the gasification pressure [10]. This is UCG projects around the world. an important input, for the UCG decision time, in the coal bed selection. One the UCG technology’ pioneers, was the USSR where the research allowed the plant’s There are many designs that have proven to operations since 1930’s. According to Shafirovich successfully operate an UCG project, depending and Varma [7] the Former Soviet Union (FSU) on its characteristics (mainly geological). But as has been one of the coal gas bigger producers, by it has been suggested, the project success, lies on using UCG technology. At that time, there were the coal seam permeability to create gases [6], 15 Mt of coal gasified underground, in FSU, [10]. while just 50 Kt in USA [7]. A. Current Status The FSU has promoted important advances in Klimenko [9] pointed out that there are more than the technology development. The coal seam’s 30 new trials being conducted in Australia, China, hydraulic fracturing by pressurized air or water, India, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, and has led the wells’ linkage between injection and Revista Facultad de Ingeniería, UPTC, Julio - Diciembre de 2013, Vol 22, No. 35 - CEDEC 11 Underground coal gasification technology impact on coal reserves in Colombia production; the coal seam thickness’ learning; - The Composition. The features such as the the mathematical and simulation models on the ash, sulfur and moisture’s amount, also chemical reactions, have been some of the most affect the gas quality, but they can also important results [7]. Also in the US there have inhibit the UCG process [12]. been improvements, since the 1970’s when - The Porosity and permeability. Variables the UCG projects development started. The necessary to improve the gas flow [13]. mathematic models to understand the cavity growth, the combustion reactions and the carbon - The Partings. It refers to the limestone, clay management during UCG, are some of them. layers, shale, or other rocks that locally separate the coal, into multiple layers within In contrast, in Europe the main experiences were a given seam [12]. not successful in Spain, France or Belgium, - The Depth and aquifers, the depth and but they shed valuable learning to the UCG subsidence. It refers to the geologic layers’ technology development. In France, the first structural integrity, above the coal seam. experience, just starting the 80’s, reported a problem with the linkage between the wells and - Hydrology. The water sources are useful the coal ignition. A later test in 1983, failed on the to reach the gasification reaction in the same technical issue [7]. In the middle eighties process. in Belgium there was a project, that also failed - Coal seam thickness and angle. (dip) in the linkage between wells. And in Spain, there - Coal reserves and accessibility. was a problem with the temperature and pressure measurement, which led to an explosion due to C. Criticism the Methane accumulation. Then, the experiment was closed [7]. It has been recognized that the UCG technology presents technical, environmental and economic China is considered to have the world most advantages, against the traditional mining or important UCG programs; they have obtained the alternative technologies like the surface a great number of patents during the last years. gasification. However, as the advantages are On the other hand, Australia has developed one numerous, it still faces some challenges, which of the most efficient UCG projects, from the coal imposes some restrictions, for its implementation. resources recovery’s point of view (95%) and the energy recovery (75%) [7]. From the environmental benefits point of view, the UCG technology allows to control some B. Criteria for an UCG project selection pollutant gases’ emission and it is an alternative for carbon storage and sequestration. However, As has been pointed out above, one of the UCG it can bring negative consequences in the project key factors, is the location selection.
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]
  • 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.
    [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]