Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 3. The Hanna II, Phase I field test

Abstract

Price: Printed copy A04 Microfiche AOl Codes are used for pricing all publications. The code is determined by the number of pages in the publication. Information pertaining to the pricing codes can be found in the current issues of the following publications, which are generally available in most libraries: Energy Research Abstracts (ERA), Government Reports Announcements and Index {GRA and I); Scientific and Technical Abstract Reports (STAR);

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

“…Only a short phase of water outflow of up to 8 m³/day was determined at days eight to eleven, while water outflow for this field test does not occur in the literature data for the reasons discussed above. [27,55,56] show very good agreement and exhibit a strong pressure-dependency (blue line) [58] of the calculated water in-and outflows. Reactor pressure and temperature (red line) [58] are applied at all reactor elements as inner boundary conditions.…”

“…The Hanna II test was conducted in a 9-m thick subbituminous coal seam with overlying sandstone strata at 83 m depth. A linked vertical wells (LVW) configuration with a distance of 18 m was used, whereby about 1800 tons of coal were gasified in 25 days [49,57,58]. At the Hoe Creek site, the stratigraphic sequence consists of sandstones, claystones, siltstones and two coal seams.…”

“…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]. Cross-sections following the Hanna II and Hoe Creek II field tests, taking into account operational monitoring data and post-burn coring show reactor growths up into the coal seam roof [25,57,58], whereby roof collapse particularly occurred at the Hoe Creek II site. As a consequence of the operational procedure and hydrogeological boundary conditions, product gases migrated from the Hoe Creek II reactor into adjacent aquifers, which became contaminated with UCG by-products such as tars and organic compounds [54].…”

“…Considering the time-dependent coal consumption in each field test, we have integrated a reactor growth model with our simulation runs to account for the increasing interface between the reactor and its adjacent coal and rocks. In this context, constant linear pressure and temperature gradients (Dirichlet boundary conditions) derived from operational data [58] are assigned to grid elements representing the UCG reactor, spatially increasing with each time step (Figure 2). Due to the lack of temperature data for the Hoe Creek field test, a constant temperature of 600 • C [66] is applied here instead.…”

“…Permeabilities were fitted for each layer for both field tests individually; the findings are discussed in the following section. The Camp [55] model data have been time-corrected (time shift of about −3 days), using the operational pressure records [58].…”