Groundwater quality near an underground coal gasification experiment

Campbell, J. H.; Wang, F.T.; Mead, S.W.; Busby, Jonathan

doi:10.1016/0022-1694(79)90134-3

Cited by 31 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At the Hoe Creek site, the stratigraphic sequence consists of sandstones, claystones, siltstones and two coal seams. The deeper coal seam with a thickness of 8 m at 38 m depth was the target seam here [12,17]. The Hoe Creek II test was conducted for 58 days and consumed a similar amount of coal as the Hanna II Phase 2 one, also using a LVW configuration with an identical well distance [54].…”

Section: Field-tests Hanna II and Hoe Creek Iimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This re-emerging technology could provide a relevant contribution to the development of Clean Coal Technologies, if accompanied by carbon capture and storage, e.g., in the reactor cavities generated in the coal following the cease of operation [4][5][6]. Apart from its high economic potentials [7][8][9], UCG may induce environmental impacts such as freshwater aquifer pollution by synthesis gas and/or by-product leakage [10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction of Steam Jacket Dynamics and Water Balances in Underground Coal Gasification

Otto

Kempka

2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Underground coal gasification (UCG) converts coal to a high-calorific synthesis gas for the production of fuels or chemical feedstock. UCG reactors are generally operated below hydrostatic pressure to avoid leakage of UCG fluids into overburden aquifers. Additionally, fluid flow out of and into the reactor is also determined by the presence of the steam jacket, emerging in close reactor vicinity due to the high temperatures generated in UCG operation. Aiming at improving the understanding of the substantial role of the steam jacket in UCG operations, we employ numerical non-isothermal multiphase flow simulations to assess the occurring multiphase fluid flow processes. For that purpose, we first validate our modeling approach against published data on the U.S. UCG field trials at Hanna and Hoe Creek, achieving a very good agreement between our simulation and the observed water balances. Then, we discuss the effect of coal seam permeability and UCG reactor pressure on the dynamic multiphase flow processes in the reactor's vicinity. The presented modeling approach allows for the quantification and prediction of time-dependent temperature and pressure distributions in the reactor vicinity, and thus steam jacket dynamics as well as reactor water inand outflows.

show abstract

Section: Field-tests Hanna II and Hoe Creek Iimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of Steam Jacket Dynamics and Water Balances in Underground Coal Gasification

Otto

Kempka

2017

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An intensive and broad investigation of the environmental aspects of UCG was carried out during the field scale experiments in Hanna and Hoe Creek, Wyoming. Hoe Creek was the most studied area; poor site characterization and operation led to cavity roof collapse and gas loss into the local groundwater system (Friedman et al, 2009) (Campbell et al, 1979). Prior to gasification, LLNL installed six dewatering wells radially and five monitoring wells downgradient of the proposed chamber.…”

Section: Groundwater Contaminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The six dewatering wells were used as monitoring wells once gasification was complete. Groundwater samples were collected from all the wells prior to, during, and after 3, 83, 182, and 280 days following gasification (Campbell et al, 1979).…”

Section: Groundwater Contaminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Situ Coal Gasification: An Emerging Technology

Brown¹

2012

JASMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A literature review was conducted on in situ coal gasification with particular attention to environmental effects, benefits and process controls of this emerging technology. In situ coal gasification also known as underground coal gasification (UCG) appears to be both technically and economically feasible and exhibits many potential advantages over the conventional mining methods. The resource for UCG is principally un-mined coal seams. The gasification process creates synthesis gas that can be used as fuel, or feedstock for further chemical processes such as NH3 production or liquid fuels. An oxidant (usually air, oxygen, or steam) is injected into the coal seam and reacts with the coal and water present in the seam to produce syngas that is extracted through a production well. As the gasification process proceeds, the cavity grows radially outward and upward from the injection well. UCG has some environmental benefits relative to conventional mining including (1) no discharge of tailings, (2) reduced sulfur emissions (3) reduced discharge of ash, Hg and tar, and (4) the additional benefit of carbon capture and sequestration. Hydraulic control is the most important feature of UCG. It controls the gasification process and prevents groundwater contamination. Contaminants from the UCG process can affect water quality making sources for human and wildlife consumption unusable. Coal resources that are not suitable for conventional mining are ideally suited for UCG. Ultimately, UCG will compete in the marketplace with conventional and innovative gasification technologies to provide syngas for fuel and power applications, which will in turn compete against other fuels such as biodiesel and gasoline. In the coming years, these technologies will compete not just on an economic basis but on the costs and difficulties of managing CO2 emissions.

show abstract

“…This risk results directly from the coal gasification process, during which solid, liquid and gas products are generated. These products contain significant concentrations of organic and inorganic substances, including substances that are toxic and hazardous to the environment [7][8][9][10][11][12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%