ARTICLE IN PRESS

Underground coal gasication: A new clean coal utilization technique for India
Anil Khadse, Mohammed Qayyumi, Sanjay Mahajani, Preeti Aghalayam
Department of Chemical Engineering, IIT Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-76, India

Abstract Energy demand of India is continuously increasing. Coal is the major fossil fuel in India and continues to play a pivotal role in the energy sector. India has relatively large reserves of coal (253 billion tonnes) compared to crude oil (728 million tonnes) and natural gas (686 billion cubic meters). Coal meets about 60% of the commercial energy needs and about 70% of the electricity produced in India comes from coal, and therefore there is a need for technologies for utilization of coals efciently and cleanly. UCG offers many advantages over the conventional mining and gasication process. UCG is a well proven technology. Due to the site-specic nature of the process, possibility of land subsidence and surrounding aquifer water contamination, this technology is still in a developing stage in India. Potential for UCG in India is studied by comparing the properties of Indian coals with the properties of coal that are utilized by various UCG trials. The essential issues are elaborated for starting UCG in India based on the reported information from the successful eld trials conducted all over the world. Indian industries are in the process of initiating pilot studies of UCG at various sites. This study will help to motivate both applied and theoretical research work on UCG sites in India and after detailed analysis it will provide basic data to interested industries.

Keywords: Indian coals; UCG; Modeling; Feasibility

1. Introduction Coal is the major fossil fuel in India and continues to play a pivotal role in the energy sector. Coal meets about 60% of the commercial energy needs and about 70% of the electricity produced in India comes from coal [1]. Hence, there is a need for technologies for utilization of coal efciently and cleanly. Depleting oil and gas reserves can be substituted with abundantly available coal thus prolonging the reserves of all the fossil fuels for use by the future generations. Due to the availability of low price crude oil and natural gas, the coal consumption and process development was slow in the last few decades. But as the oil and natural gas reserves deplete, coal will again emerge as the best option for energy production. Coal usage has been affected by the pollution caused by its transport, storage, and combustion [2]. To deal with

these problems, clean coal technologies have been adopted worldwide [3] such as integrated gasication and combined cycle (IGCC), the pressurized bed combustor (PBC) combined cycle, British coal topping cycle in UK [4], low emission boiler system (LEBS) and high performance power system by the US Department of Energy [2]. Underground coal gasication is a promising technology as it is a combination of mining, exploitation and gasication. The main motivation for moving toward UCG as the future coal utilizing technique is the environmental and other advantages over the conventional mining process. Some of these benets include increased worker safety, no surface disposal of ash and coal tailings, low dust and noise pollution, low water consumption, larger coal resource exploitation and low methane emission to atmosphere [59]. UCG is particularly advantageous for deep coal deposits and steeply dipping coal seams since at these conditions less gas leakages to the surroundings and high pressures favor methane formation. But UCG involves some environmental impacts such as land subsidence and ground

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2062

water reserve pollution, which serve as disadvantages. Thus before the UCG site is selected there is a need for a thorough environmental impact assessment and complete risk analysis. UCG is relatively well developed in countries like the USA, Russia, France, Spain and China [10]. They have performed a number of eld trials and are ready to commercialize UCG technology. With a vast proven reserve of coal, India has the potential to use UCG technology to utilize coal effectively. The possibility of initiating UCG projects in West Bengal and Rajasthan have been indicated by companies such as the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) and the Gas Authority of Indian Ltd. (GAIL), on a pilot basis [11,12]. ONGC have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Skochinsky Institute of Mining (SIM) of Russia and Coal India Limited (CIL) for an UCG pilot study [11]. These pilot projects are being carried out as per the recommendations of the consultant from the SIM of Russia [12]. The UCG site will be selected based on the suitability on various considerations including coal quality, area and environmental aspects. ONGC, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. (GMDC) [13], Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd. (GIPCL) and Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (NLC) have also entered into an MoU for studies in UCG [13]. GAIL (India) is planning to use lignite, which cannot be mined commercially, to produce synthetic gas by employing underground coal gasication technology in Rajasthan. GAIL plans to use the gas so produced to generate 7080 MW of power. It may tie up with Ergo Exergy Technologies Inc., Canada, for sourcing in situ lignite gasication technology for its proposed project [14]. Reliance is also interested to set up a pilot UCG plant. Essar want to use the product gas for their proposed steel plant in Orissa [15]. The objective of this article is to analyze the feasibility of UCG for application to various Indian coal mines based on quantitative information available in open literature. 2. Indian coals 2.1. Indian coal reserves The study of reserves and availability of Indian coal have indicated that a major chunk of the reserve consists of weakly to non-coking variety of bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite coal which are distributed all over India, located at different depths. Coal which when heated in the absence of air forms coherent beads, free from volatiles, with a strong and porous mass called coke, is called coking coal. Coals which do not have coking properties, are noncoking coals. Indian coal is mostly non-coking coal. A large quantity of such non-coking coal is available in India. India has a total of 253 billion tonnes of coal reserves [16]. However, only the states of Bihar and West Bengal

Table 1 Coal reserves in India on 01.01.06 [16] Coal Total reserve (billion tonnes) 32 221 253 Proved reserve (billion tonnes) 17 79 96 Indicated reserve (billion tonnes) 13 106 119 Inferred reserve (billion tonnes) 2 36 38

Coking Noncoking Total

Table 2 Statewise coal reserves in India on 01.01.06 [16] No. State Quantity of coal (billion tonnes) 17.145 0.090 0.376 0.160 41.442 73.898 19.758 9.077 0.459 0.020 61.999 1.062 27.815 253.301

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chhattisgarh Jharkhand Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Meghalaya Nagaland Orissa Uttar Pradesh West Bengal Total

have mineable coal. Table 1 shows the current coal reserves in India. The statewise coal reserves are tabulated in Table 2. 2.1.1. Lignite Lignite, the brown coal, is a potential solid fuel resource available in India. Its quantity is limited as compared to coal. It is distributed in the states of Tamil Nadu, Pondicherry, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Kashmir valley of Jammu and Kashmir. ONGC discovered lignite in North Gujarat, Rajasthan and north parts of the country at depths greater than 700 m while searching for hydrocarbons [17]. In north Gujarat, they discovered coal reserves of 63 billion tonnes at depths ranging from 700 to 1700 m with a seam thickness of 550 m [17]. The statewise lignite reserves are shown in Table 3. Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry have the largest lignite reserve. Gujarat and Rajasthan also have potential quantity of lignite [18]. In later sections the suitability of these lignites for UCG will be discussed. 2.2. Properties of Indian coals Coal deposits in India are of two distinct geological ages. The earliest coal deposits are of the Permian age formed

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2063 Table 3 Statewise lignite reserves in India [17] State 1 2 3 4 5 Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry Gujarat Rajasthan Jammu and Kashmir Kerala Total Reserve (million tonnes) 26 154 1505 1467 128 108 29 362 Table 4 Non-coking coal grading [15] Coal grade A B C D E F G UHV range (kcal/kg) 46200 56006200 49405600 42004940 33604200 24003360 13002400

about 270 million years ago, when South Africa, South America, Antarctica, Australia, India and Madagascar formed a landmass called Gondwanaland. Coals formed in Gondwanaland are known as Gondwana coal. The other deposits are of the Tertiary age (3060 million years age) [19]. Indian coal is mostly of sub-bituminous rank, followed by bituminous and lignite (brown coal). The ash content of coal ranges from 35% to 50%. Indian coal is mostly of the noncoking variety. Grading and pricing of non-coking coal can be done either by GCV (gross caloric value), NCV (net caloric value) or UHV (useful heating value). UHV can be computed by using an empirical formula developed by the Central Fuel Research Institute (CFRI) [20]. UHV in kcal/kg 8900 138 % ash content % moisture content)]. 1

If the moisture content of coal is less than 2% and the volatiles are less than 19%, the UHV calculated by the above formula is reduced by 150 kcal/kg for each 1% reduction in volatile content below 19%. Both the moisture and ash content are determined after equilibrating at 60% relative humidity and 40  C temperature as per the relevant clauses of the Indian Standard Specication No. IS: 13501959. Depending on the UHV, Indian coal is classied as A, B, C, D, E, F or G grade. The grading of non-coking coal based on UHV is given in Table 4. The ultimate analysis of the coal from seven power plants in India shows that the ash content of Indian coals is 3040% [20]. 2.3. Current utilization of Indian coal India is the third largest producer of coal in the world compared with China at rst place and the US at second. The coal in India is under the Government sector. The mining, exploitation and utilization of coal are done by various Indian companies in which CIL and its associated companies are the major ones [16]. In addition to CIL, the NLC operates the Neyveli mines in Tamil Nadu State, Singareni Collieries Ltd. operates the bituminous mines in Andhra Pradesh and Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO) operates mines in Bihar to supply coking coal to their own steel plants. CIL is divided into a number of subsidiaries for operational purposes. These are Eastern Coalelds Ltd. (ECL), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (BCCL), Central Coalelds Ltd. (CCL), Northern Coalelds Ltd (NCL), South Eastern

Coalelds Ltd. (SECL), Mahanadi Coalelds Ltd. (MCL) and Western Coalelds Ltd. (WCL). There is also another principal subsidiary of CIL, the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. (CMPDIL). Currently power sector, defence, railways, fertilizer, steel including sponge iron and pig iron and other metallurgical industries, cement, aluminum industries and paper industry are the consumers of coal in India [16]. Though the coal is a prime commercial fuel in India for power and industry, its distribution and availability is not uniform all over the country causing the problem of long distance transportation and storage. The coal contains high volatile matters (up to 30%) and high ash (up to 40%). Association of the unwanted overburden material in addition to the production of up to 30% nes and slacks has led to an increase in the operational and maintenance cost [17]. Due to its poor quality and uncertain supply, the rate of coal consumption is decreased and it is replaced by petroleum products. For the economic utilization of such coal UCG is a suitable method. In the following section various issues involved in UCG are discussed in brief along with the suitability of UCG for the efcient utilization of Indian coals. 3. Underground coal gasication UCG typically consists of two adjacent bore holes drilled into a coal seam and pressurized oxidant such as air or oxygen/steam are used for ignition of coal seam [6]. The oxidant and the gasifying agent are fed through the injection borehole and the combustion and gasication products are recovered from the production bore hole. Injecting oxygen and steam instead of air produces the most useful product gas, since the dilution effect of nitrogen is avoided. The main constituents of the product gas are H2 , CO2 , CO, CH4 and steam. The proportion of these gases varies with the type of coal and the efciency of the gasication process. Fig. 1 shows a schematic of the UCG process [21]. The successful application of such a process would provide a low to medium BTU gas (100300 BTU/SCF), depending on whether air or an oxygensteam mixture is used. In China, UCG is used to generate low and medium heating value gas for steam raising, domestic cooking, domestic hot water and industrial heating [7].

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2064

Fig. 1. Schematic of UCG process.

The major advantage of gasication is that coal is converted into a gaseous fuel that is easy to handle and is a clean form of energy. The synthesis gas produced from coal gasication has a wide range of applications. It can be used in a combined cycle system for the efcient and clean generation of electric power. It is also suitable for the manufacture of hydrogen and chemicals such as ammonia, methanol, acetic acid and so on [6,8]. It can be used in multipurpose plants as well for the simultaneous production of electric power, chemicals, fertilizers and fuels. The gas produced can also be used to make synthetic fuels by the gas to liquids (GTL) process. Reviews of UCG are given by Gregg and Edgar [25] and in many reports from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) of the UK [7,22,23]. Here we are not giving the details of each of the process parameters. Our main goal is to study efforts in the direction of UCG in India and to compare the Indian coals with the coals used in successful UCG processes worldwide. 3.1. The major issues in the use of UCG technology UCG requires an understanding of various aspects of the selected site. The geology, hydrology, mining, drilling, exploration, chemistry and thermodynamics of the gasication reactions in the cavity are important parameters for successful operation. An exchange of knowledge between the various elds is necessary. Before starting UCG, many issues should be considered. Some of them are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Exploration of the UCG site. Choice of a suitable drilling technique. The gasication process (air blown versus O2 blown). The use of the UCG product gas. Environment and safety. Economics.

In the UK for the UCG site the following selection criteria are used by DTI [7]: (i) Coal seam 4 2 m thick, (ii) depth between 600 and 1200 m, (iii) the availability of good density and bore hole data, (iv) stand off 4 500 m from abandoned mine working license areas and (v) greater than 100 m vertical separation from major aquifers. A good knowledge of the adjacent strata is required to ensure well bore and environmental integrity. The explorations present no exceptional technical problems for the UCG process though there is always a chance that the site may get rejected as the study proceeds, due to the presence of a surrounding good quality water aquifer, low strength overburden or discontinuous coal seam layers. The cost of exploratory drilling and 3D seismic survey is high but is necessary for successful UCG operation [22].

3.1.1. Exploration of the UCG site The potential of the UCG site can be estimated by identifying the geological structure of the coal seam, its depth and thickness, quantity and quality of coal available.

3.1.2. Choice of a suitable drilling technique A good drilling technique is necessary to connect the injection well and the production well. The cavity between these two wells is considered as the gasication reactor. Three methods that have been developed for this purpose are as follows [22]: 1. Air pressurization between two vertical holes: This method is used in the trials of Chinchilla (Australia) and the former Soviet Union (FSU) sites. This has been operated at large scale (4 200 MWe). A recent pilot project (19992003) at Chinchilla was successful and an international company now offers it as a commercial process. 2. Man-built galleries in the coal: This is used in China to utilize remaining coal after mining. 3. Directional drilling in the coal seam with controlled injection: This method is used in the US and European eld trials. Directional drilling is more costly to construct but possesses the advantage that basic drilling and completion technology is available from the traditional oil and gas industry. With this method it is possible to get sustainable gasication over long inseam wells (4 200 m), branch drilling of borehole networks for commercial scale operation, and control of a large gasication process using

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2065

movable injection in simultaneous channels known as Controlled Retractable Injection Procedure (CRIP). These methods have been demonstrated in single channel congurations. The choice of a suitable method is necessary for successful UCG operation. CRIP may be suitable due to the available robust technology and possibility of exercising good control over the process. 3.1.3. Gasication process The product gas obtained in the UCG process depends on the temperature, pressure and gasifying agent used. For a low heating value product gas airsteam may be used, whereas for medium to high heating value gas oxygen steam is used. Chinchilla (Australia) and Chinese trials used air to produce a dry gas of caloric value 35 MJ=m3 , whereas pure oxygen at high pressure in the Spanish trials yielded 13 MJ=m3 of dry gas after gas clean up [23]. Oxygen production has a high energy demand but the benets are improved gasication stability, better cavity growth and 80% reduction in the volume of the injection gases that need to be compressed [23]. Oxygen is required for any high pressure UCG operation for the reason of the cavity growth and pre-combustion CO2 capture. The cavity made using any drilling technique serves as a reactor. The major reactions taking place in the reactor are pyrolysis, combustion, gasication, gas phase oxidation and water gas shift reaction. For obtaining constant gas composition and specic gases in the product, kinetics and thermodynamics of these reactions must be well understood [24]. 3.1.4. The use of the UCG product gas The main uses of the UCG product gas are: 1. Fuel gas used for electricity generation: The UCG operation is optimized to produce a high caloric value product gas for this purpose. The gas turbine (simple or combined cycle) and boiler plant (alone or as supplementary fuel) can be used for power generation [9]. 2. Syngas for synthesis of chemicals or liquid fuels: The conditions in UCG operation may be manipulated to produce high hydrogen content in the product gas, typically a H2 :CO ratio of 2:1 is optimal. The syngas is used for the manufacture of crude oil equivalents (diesel, naphtha and wax), other liquid fuels (DME, methanol), ammonia and methane [9]. The gas obtained by UCG of low grade coal has mostly been used for power generation in the past. The gas produced at Angrensikaya [24] and Chinchilla [6] are used for power generation. The Chinchilla UCGIGCC project is designed for maximum power generation. The byproducts along with power generation favor the economics of the project. The output of the fully developed Chinchilla project will be as shown in Table 5 [6]. UCG operation in Chinchilla is the longest in duration and the largest outside Russia. The UCG technology was provided to Linc Energy by Ergo Exergy Inc. (Canada), and originated from the former USSR [6].

Table 5 The output of the fully developed Chinchilla project [6] Product Electricity Gas Hydrocarbons Phenols Anhydrous NH3 Clean water Output Energy 67 MW 4.4 PJ/annum 0.6 PJ/annum

800 million Nm3 =annum 15 000 tonnes/annum 3700 tonnes/annum 1500 tonnes/annum 200 Megaliters/annum

3.1.5. Environment and safety The various environmental issues associated with UCG are: 1. CO2 emissions: In the UCG process CO2 separation from the product gas and storage are the major concerns. CO2 is produced in signicant amounts during the gasication. CO2 must be captured before venting to the atmosphere and stored or utilized for various applications. The higher pressure of the gas is an advantage offered by UCG for CO2 storage. CO2 sequestration work is under development internationally via the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum [22]. 2. Groundwater contamination: The UCG site should be carefully evaluated for ground water contamination. The UCG site should be away from the water aquifers. Detailed analysis is needed and after UCG start up, regular check up of the water near the UCG site should be done [22]. 3. Surface subsidence: The multiwell technology can be used to reduce the chances of surface subsidence. The bore diameter in UCG is smaller than in usual mining operations. So there are less chances of surface subsidence when compared to conventional coal mining [22]. 3.1.6. Economics The size of the coal resource is a major commercial factor for the development of the underground coal gasication process. The market for the product gas is the second major factor for commercial development of UCG. If the markets for utilizing the gases are located near the gasication site then gas can be economically transported. The power or chemical plant should be nearby to utilize the product so that transportation losses are minimized. Specic economics of UCG for India are discussed in Section 4.6. 3.2. UCG eld trials Various countries have entered into the eld of UCG to utilize their vast reserves of unminable coal. Before undertaking a commercial scale project the technical feasibility of the process should be conrmed by carrying out eld experiments. DTI of the UK have supported the European trials and followed it up with a series of desk studies (19992005) [10]. A fully operational UCG trial at a

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2066

depth of 1200 m was undertaken from 1981 to 1986 in France. An UCG trial at a depth of 860 m was carried out from 1979 to 1987 at Thulin in Belgium [24,26]. An UCG trial at a depth of 500700 m was also carried out at El Tremedal in Spain from 1989 to 1998 [23]. The Commonwealth Scientic and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) has undertaken a number of UCG research projects in Australia [6,7,27]. A commercial trial was started in 1999 at a site near Chinchilla, Brisbane, at a depth of 130 m and a 40 MW power plant was constructed. The UCG engineering research center at the China University of Mining and Technology (CUMT), Beijing, had undertaken several trials at Xinhe mine, Xuzhou in 1994 and Liuzhang mine, Tangshan in 1996 using the developed process and are capable of producing a gas with a heating value of 4:5 MJ=m3 [28]. Other trials are in progress at Xinwen, Suncan, Yilan, Yima, Hebi, Panzhihua, Fuxin and Xiezhuang [5]. Russians began their UCG trials in 1933 and have considerable experience in shallow (o 200 m) UCG technology. They have operated UCG plants having a capacity up to 1000 MW [7,21]. Up to 1979, three commercial scale plants were operated at Shatsky, Angren and Yushno-Abinsk [29]. The USA has conducted more than 30 experiments on underground coal gasication between 1972 and 1989 for depths less than 300 m [22,2931]. The various trials and their details are presented in Table 6. The properties of coals utilized for the UCG eld trials are shown in Table 7. The product gas composition from the UCG trials is shown in Table 8 [32]. In Section 4, comparison of the UCG eld trial coals
Table 6 Summary of UCG eld trials with coal type and thickness [21,30,39,40] Location Coal type Thickness (m) 0.442 2.29 222 2.5 2.64 3.66 810 25 Depth (m)

with Indian coals is made, in order to determine feasibility of UCG for India. 3.3. Theoretical modeling of the UCG process To theoretically support the results obtained from eld trials and to carry out feasibility studies, several modeling and simulation exercises have been carried out in the USA, Russia and China. There have been two aspects of modeling UCG processes, one of which deals with determining concentration, temperature and pressure proles and the other, which deals with determining the cavity growth, subsidence and other such mechanical aspects. All the existing models either consider the UCG channel as a packed bed or a free channel where the reactions only take place at the wall [3340]. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) had carried out extensive modeling and simulation work for more than a decade to support their eld trials [41] in the 1980s. Perkins and co-workers have developed a detailed computational uid dynamics (CFD) model of UCG, which incorporates many complex behaviors like water inux, cavity growth and so on [42]. However, there is room for more work in the theoretical modeling of UCG, particularly aimed at optimization of inlet conditions. 4. Feasibility study of UCG in India In this section, Indian coal and lignite seam properties like depth and thickness are discussed. The previous UCG

Year

Gas produced in 1963 m3 106 220 290 860 155 000 Nm3 =h

Comment

Lisichanskaya Yuzhno-Abinskaya Angrensikaya Podmoskovnaya Shatskaya Sinelnikovsky Chinchilla (Australia) Tremedal (Spain)

Bituminous Bituminous Lignite Lignite Lignite Lignite Subbituminous, lignite Anthracite

60250 50300 120250 3080 3060 80 130 530580

19481965 1999current 1957current 19461953 19631956 19992004 1989-1998

Discontinued due to thin seam Used for heating Used for power generation Coal exhausted in 1953 Abandoned due to technical problems UCGIGCC and multiple wells (8)

France

1200

19811986

Belgium Newman Spinney (UK) USA (Hanna 2) USA (Hoe Creek)

Anthracite Subbituminious Subbituminious Subbituminious

0.75 6.8 7.6

860 75 90120 38

19791987 1959 19731974 19761979

480010 200 kmol/day

Well link by combustion and hydrofracture were unsuccessful Difculties in completing gasifying circuit Four bore holes of 140 m and diameter 0.3 m The best instrumented UCG test. Explosive charges were used to create linkage path

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2067 Table 7 The product composition of UCG gas [20,30] Location UCG gas composition (%) CO2 Lisichanskaya Yuzhno-Abinskaya Angrensikaya Podmoskovnaya Shatskaya Sinelnikovsky Hanna.2 26.728 14.3 19.5 17.6 28.4 16.9 20.5 12.4 CO 68 10.6 5.4 6 15.6 6.1 2.1 14.7 H2 1315 14.1 17 15.2 35 15.1 11.6 17.3 CH4 22.4 2.3 2 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.3 3.3 H2 S 1.61.9 0.03 0.4 1.2 3.5 1.2 0.3 0.1 Cm Hn 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.8 O2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 N2 4649 58.3 54.8 57.8 15.7 58.5 63.6 51.6 3.3 3.8 3.52 3.36 6.39 65%O2 3.35 2.6 1620 kcal=m3 Avg. heating value MJ=m3

Table 8 The properties of the UCG trial coals [21,30,39,40] Country Location Proximate analysis (%) M US Blue Greek seam Hanna no.2 Flix no.2(3) G win Flix no.2(1) Newman Spinney Tremendal Chinchilla Lisichanskaya Yuzhno-Abinskaya Angrensikaya Podmoskovnaya Shatskaya Sinelnikovsky Ash 6.79 26.26 5.8 15.41 6.37 3.4 7.61 16.1519.50 6 14.3 19.3 717 2.35.2 12-20 34.30 26 23.80 VM 36.15 36.07 45.96 20.63 31.9 28.6 23.08 28.6830.01 35 27.5 40 3940 2732 33 44.50 38.10 64.50 FC 57.06 37.67 48.24 63.96 32.90 31.7153.74 53 36 33.9 Ultimate analysis (%) C 76.50 54.81 69.23 74.67 47.41 80.13 72.72 H 5 4.45 5.24 4.25 3.53 4.71 4.71 O 8.64 12.30 17.79 3.38 11.95 6.27 8.32 N 1.71 1.43 1.45 1.11 0.91 1.47 1.13 S 0.7 0.75 0.49 1.18 0.02 0.63 1.33 13 992 9580 11 960 13 323 78.65 28.1429.31 (MJ/kg) 18.1 (MJ/kg) 2023 2830 15.10 11.80 11.10 8.0 Heat value (kcal/kg)

France China UK Spain Australia USSR and Russia

29.2 1.4 4.18 0.020.18 6 22.2 6.8 1215 2.58 35 30 30 55

studies in India are reported along with the current selection of coal blocks for UCG by various agencies. Indian coals are compared with other coals, which are used for the worldwide UCG trials, based on seam depth, thickness, coal properties and quantity of coal available. The government policy for UCG and public issues are mentioned in brief. 4.1. Coal depth, quantity and thickness in India The coal occurrence at various depth levels in India is categorized in Table 9. A total of 62.74% of the coal deposits lie at a depth of 0300 m, 30.07% at 300600 m and 7.19% coal is at a depth of 6001200 m [19]. The coal at greater depths (4 300 m) can be used by UCG technology economically. The coal seams in West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh are suitably deep and have a thickness 4 2 m. The coal quantity proved at these places is also sufcient to start UCG if the mining of the coal seams becomes more

Table 9 Indian coal reserves at various depths (in million tonnes) [18] Depth (m) Proved reserve 54 627.35 18 929.82 1560.58 75 117.75 Indicated reserve 54 242.51 25 694.76 9141.99 89 079.26 Inferred reserve 20 519.91 17 384.94 4137.64 42 042.49 Total reserve 129 389.77 62 009.52 14 840.21 206 239.50 % Total reserve 62.74 30.07 7.19 100

0300 300600 6001200 Total 01200

difcult. The coal seams in Maharashtra, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh are 0600 m deep and also have thickness 4 2 m but the quantity of available coal is less compared to West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh. 4.2. Lignite depth, quantity and thickness in India The lignite reserves in India are compared with the worldwide UCG trials of lignite. Gujarat, Rajasthan and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2068

Tamil Nadu have large lignite reserves [18], which can be economically utilized by UCG. The quantity of lignite is sufcient to start UCG pilot studies (Table 3). In north Gujarat, 63 billion tonnes of lignite is found at a depth of 7001700 m, having a thickness of 550 m. If the same criteria (see Section 3.1.1) for UCG site selection are applied in India as that in the UK, then depth and thickness of these coal reserves are favorable for UCG. Detailed comparison of properties of these coals with eld trial lignites is done in Section 4.5. 4.3. Previous studies for UCG in India UCG studies were undertaken in the 1980s in India as National Projects. Three regions were studied namely Mehsana in Gujarat (deeper lignite 5001700 m), Merta Road in Rajasthan (shallow lignite 100200 m) and Bihar (now Jharkhand) (bituminous coal) [43]. Soviet experts selected two sites South Sayal and Medni Rai blocks, and Merta Road block of Rajasthan for generation of additional data, out of 13 sites. On the basis of additional data, Medni Rai block was rejected. Experts concluded that the lignite deposits at Merta Road are feasible for UCG. However, this area was dependent solely on water aquifers above and below the lignite bed. Due to the possibility of pollution of these water aquifers, pilot studies and further development of this project were restricted. ONGC studied prospects of UCG for deeper lignites (6001000 m) in Gujarat at Mehsana during 19841986. They drilled two pilot wells UCG1 and UCG3 at a distance of 10 km north east of Mehsana to get data regarding nature of rock, coal properties and sub-surface strata conditions [43]. Further developments were not reported since then. 4.4. Identication of coal blocks for UCG by ONGC After a gap of 20 years ONGC India has again undertaken site selection for UCG pilot studies with technical support from SIM Russia [44]. Five coal blocks have been studied. Four coal blocks (Blocks IIV) were rejected based on hydrological reasons. One block (X-Mine Block) has been found suitable for an UCG pilot study. Blocks IIV were rejected based on one or more of the following reasons: (1) block was surrounded by water aquifers. (2) Block was discontinuous. (3) Block was enclosed by Basalt. (4) Block was surrounded by water bearing rocks. If UCG is carried out in Blocks-I and II, during the process of extracting gas from the coal seam, deformation and movement of coal strata would cause the thick basalt blanket to fall off resulting in sectioning and parting of drill strings. Block V (X-Mine Block) was found to have good lignite reserves. Two major lignite seams were encountered up to a depth of about 300 m. The seams were deposited in thick strata of clay materials, which is a very favorable factor.

The lignite seams appeared to be safely isolated from the overlying alluvial aquifer by thick strata of waterproof rocks and this factor excludes possible negative inuences on the UCG process. This block has been selected for pilot studies [44]. 4.5. Comparisons of selected Indian coal seam properties with eld trial coals UCG eld trials conducted worldwide (Table 6) show that the Yuzhno-Abinskaya, Angrensikaya, Podmoskovnaya, Chinchilla and Tremedal trials can be considered as successful eld trials. These sites have the following parameters which are important for UCG: depth 30580 m, thickness 25 m, ash 234%, moisture 735%, volatile matter 2744% and xed carbon 1238%. Our proposal of Indian coal mines for immediate UCG activity is based on these features. The mines where the depth, thickness and coal properties fall in the above ranges are listed in Table 10. In addition, the Kalol mine in Gujarat listed is very deep. UCG should be ideally used here as conventional mining is not possible. The depth and thickness of these Indian sites are compared with the successful UCG eld trial site of Angrensikaya in Fig. 2. The selected Indian sites have comparable depth and thickness as that of Angrensikaya. The coal properties are compared with Angrensikaya coal in Fig. 3. It shows that Indian coals have low ash content. The xed carbon is comparable with Angrensikaya, X-Mine block has high moisture content. In a similar way the thickness and coal properties of Sasti-Rajura (Maharashtra) coal are comparable with the Chinchilla trial coal. This Indian site has a depth of 600 m. The comparison of coal properties is shown in Fig. 4. The Kalol site has a greater depth of 1700 m and its coal properties are comparable with that of Angrensikaya lignite. However, this is a matter for future consideration, as the nancial investment in UCG is likely to be initially in the shallower mines. These sites may be looked upon as potential sites for the application of UCG technology implementation. X-Mine block has already been selected by ONGC based on geology and hydrology, as suitable for pilot studies. For the other sites, geological and hydrological studies must be performed, based on this favorable initial analysis. 4.6. Economics of UCG for power generation National thermal power corporation (NTPC), India, presented the cost estimation study of an UCGIGCC power plant at a workshop held at Kolkata, India in 2006 [45]. A 100 MW power plant with coal having a GCV of 3300 kcal/kg was chosen for a case study. The coal seam thickness was assumed to be 2 m. The following conclusions were reached based on cost estimations using available datathe capital cost for IGCC is estimated as Rs. 850 crores, and for UCG as

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2069 Table 10 Potential UCG sites in India [17,18,43] State Field/block Proximate analysis M% Tamil Nadu Rajasthan Gujarat Gujarat Maharashtra Mine-I Kapurdhi Kalol Umarsar Sasti-Rajura(Bhandara) X-Mine 4555 4050 2328 27.8 12 47 Ash% 29 520 1020 12.7 1518 22 VM% 1925 2030 4044 37.9 32 12 FC% 1722 1530 3037 21 8.2 19 CV (k cal/kg) 25003200 20013500 48005700 4180 S 0.71.1 0.21.5 15.7 319479 55120 7001700 150220 600 300 120 520 550 0.330.5 8.2 Depth (m) Thickness (m)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0

Angrensikaya Umarsar X Mine Block Mine 1 (TN)

Rs. 640 crores. This is attributed mainly to the additional cost of the specially designed gasier, and coal and ash handling, in case of IGCC. However, the cost of generation (Rs./kW h) is higher in case of UCG (Rs.3.6/kW h) as compared to IGCC (Rs.2.6/kW h). This is mainly due to the higher fuel cost and lower gross efciency associated with UCG. Finally, it has been mentioned that COG in case of UCG will be comparable to that for IGCC if the seam thickness is greater than 2 m and the caloric value of the coal is above 3300 kcal/kg.
Thickness (m)

Depth (m)

Fig. 2. Comparison of depth and thickness of coal from selected sites in India with Angrensikaya coal.

4.7. Indian government policy for UCG Indian government is in the process of making a policy to allot the coal blocks for UCG. The present rules do not permit UCG as the end use for the allotment of coal blocks. The Ministry of Coal will notify the rule change at the end of this nancial year. This would amend the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act of 1976. After sorting out all the technology and related issues by the interested industry, coal blocks can be allotted based on the data available with the Coal Mining and Planning Development Institute after notication by the ministry [15]. The draft coal vision 2025 envisages the development of UCG [43]. Although there are no specic policies encouraging UCG technology in India, the message from the appropriate ministry is that in the near future such policies will come into place, and that as far as the government is concerned the benets of UCG especially for India, are well appreciated. 4.8. Planning and public perception issues Since discussions on UCG are at an initial stage, planning and public perception issues are to be discussed at a later stage of the commissioning of the projects. This involves educating the public about UCG, its benets and possible effects. It should be noted that a detailed study conducted in the UK for public perception issues indicated the importance of the local public opinion for such projects [46]. Such type of studies should be conducted in India at favorable sites. Considering the potential in India for UCG, we believe that the time is now ripe for extensive laboratory

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Angrensikaya Umarsar X Mine Block Mine 1 (TN)

Ash

VM

Moisture

FC

Fig. 3. Comparison of coal properties from selected sites in India with Angrensikaya coal.

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Chinchilla Sasti-Rajura

Ash

VM

Moisture

FC

Fig. 4. Comparison of properties of coals from Sasti-Rajura and Chinchilla.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2070

experiments and mathematical simulations on Indian coals, followed by eld trials at specic sites. UCG could be particularly useful in India because of the high ash content of coal, i.e. avoiding need for coal washing, transportation of ash, disposal of ash, problems with combustion and surface gasication. However, before starting an UCG project, complete environment and risk management studies should be undertaken. To the best of our knowledge information on these aspects is not available in the open literature, as yet. 5. Summary India is the third largest producer of coal in the world. India has 253 billion tons of coal reserves and a signicant portion is deep underground. Indian coal is of bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite type. The high ash content and poor quality of these coals leads to operational problems in industries. Hence, the consumption of coal is reduced. To utilize the vast coal reserves underground coal gasication is a promising technology. UCG can utilize low-grade coal in India economically. After comparison of the coal in India with the coal used in worldwide UCG trials, it seems that some of the low-grade coal seams are suitable for UCG particularly in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu. X-Mine block selected by ONGC India recently for UCG studies has comparable depth and coal properties as that of the previous eld trials. Although the coal seam depths, thickness and quantity of coal are favorable for UCG in many places in India, properties such as ash and moisture content may need further consideration. Furthermore, additional information regarding the environment and safety issues needs to be generated in order to fully evaluate the candidature of any potential site for UCG. Theoretical studies are also required for the prediction of UCG gas composition and coal consumption to support the pilot studies. Pilot studies will enable detailed analysis of the UCG process in India based on coal type, geology and hydrology of the particular site. Coherent inputs are required from research institutes and industries in order to take UCG activity forward in India. References
[1] Rao OP. Coal gasication for sustainable development of energy sector in India. CSIR New Delhi.

[7] [8] [9]

[10] [11]

In: 2001 gasication technologies conference, San Francisco, 2001. p. 810. DTI. Cleaner technology programmeprogress report. DTI/Pub URN 01/937, 2001. Green M. UK programme on underground coal gasication. R-250, DTI, 2000. Beath A. Process studies for clean electricity and liquid fuels from UCG. In: International workshop on underground coal gasication, DTI conference centre, London, 12 October 2003. DTI. Review of underground coal gasication technological advancement. R-211, DTI/Pub URN 01/1041, 2001. The Hindu Business Line. Underground coal/lignite gasication techGAIL gets board nod to get licence from Canadian rm.

[12] ONGC News. ONGC to soon establish two pilots for underground coal gasication.

[13] ONGC News: ONGC joins hand with GMDC for underground coal gasication

[14] Project Monitor. GAIL plans coal gasication project in Rajasthan.

[15] Chemical Weekly. Coal blocks allotment for underground gasication to be notied soon, 20 February 2007. p. 144. [16] Coal India Ltd. Coal reserves in India. [17] Pandey BP, Singh I. Underground coal gasication: a promising alternative for India. Fuel Sci Technol 1992;11(1,2):738. [18] Acharyya SK. Coal and lignite resources of Indiaan overview. Geological Society of India, 2000. [19] Chandra D, Singh RM. Text book of coal: Indian context. Tara Book Agency India, 2000. [20] OSC. Anthropogenic emissions from energy activities in India: generation and source characterization

[2] Tsui H, Eu C. Operating concept of circulating uidized bed gasier from the kinetic point of view. Power Technol 2003;132:17683. [3] De S, Nag PK. Thermodynamic analysis of a partial gasication combustion and supercritical steam combined cycle. J Power Energy 2000;214:56574. [4] Topper JM, Cross PJI, Goldthorpe SH. Clean coal technology for power and cogeneration. Fuel 1994;73(7):105663. [5] DTI. Cleaner coal technology programmeprogress report. R-234, October 2003. [6] Walker LK, Blinderman MS, Brun K. An IGCC Project at Chinchilla, Australia based on underground coal gasication.

[21] Khadse AN, Qayyumi M, Mahajani S, Aghalayam P. Reactor model for underground coal gasication channel. Int J Rector Eng 2006;4:A37. [22] DTI. Review of the feasibility of underground coal gasication in the UK, September 2004. [23] DTI. Cleaner technology programmeprogress report. DTI/Pub URN 00/698, 2000. [24] Dufaux A, Gaveau B, Lbtolle R, Mostade M, Noel M, Pirard JP. Modelling of UCG processes at Thulin on the basis of thermodynamic equilibria and isotopic measurements. Fuel 1990;69:62433. [25] Gregg DW, Edgar TF. Underground coal gasication. AIChE J 1978;24:775. [26] Debelle B, Malmendier M, Mostade M, Pirade JP. Modeling of ow at Thulin underground coal gasication experiments. Fuel 1992;71:95105. [27] Blinderman MS, Jones RM. Coala new horizon. In: Gasication technologies conference, San Francisco, 2002. p. 2730. [28] Yang L, Liang J, Yu L. Clean coal technologystudy on the pilot project experiment of underground coal gasication. Energy 2003;28:144560. [29] Stephens DR, Thorsness CB, Hill RW. Underground coal gasication using steam and oxygen. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRN 195347, 1984. [30] Hill RW. The present state of the US underground coal gasication program. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRL 96508, 1987.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2071 [31] Stephens DR, Hills RW, Borg IY. Underground coal gasication review. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRL 92068, 1985. [32] Kuznetsov AA, Kapralov VK. UCG in Russia and prospects for electric power production in gaselectric complexes. In: International workshop on underground coal gasication, DTI conference centre, London, 12 October 2003. [33] Magnani CF, Farouq Ali SM. Mathematical modelling of the stream method of underground coal gasication. Soc Pet Eng J 1975; 15:425. [34] Yang L, Liu S. Simulation on heat and mass transfer in the process of underground coal gasication. Numer Heat Transfer Part A 2003;44: 53757. [35] Thorsness CB, Rosza RB. In situ coal gasication model calculation and laboratory experiments. Soc Pet Eng J 1978;18:10516. [36] Thorsness CB, Kang SW. A method of line approach to solution of packed bed ow problems related to underground coal gasication. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRN 90731, 1984. [37] Thorsness CB, Kang SW. Future development of a general purpose packed bed model for analysis of underground coal gasication. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRL 92489, 1985. [38] Thorsness CB, Kang SW. A general purpose packed bed model for analysis of underground coal gasication. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRL 20731, 1986. [39] Yang L. Model and calculation of dry distillation gas movement in the process of underground coal gasication. Numer Heat Transfer Part B 2003;43:587604. [40] Yang L. Study on the model experiment and numerical simulation for underground coal gasication. Fuel 2004;83:57384. [41] Thorsness CB, Britten JA. Underground coal gasication nal report. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Report, UCRL 21853, 1989. [42] Perkins G, Sagha A, Sahajwalla V. Numerical modeling of underground coal gasication and its application to Australian coal seam conditions. School of Material Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2003. [43] Concept paper. Underground coal gasication and underground coal mining for bright and secure future. In: National seminar, New Delhi, 3031 January, 2006. [44] Sapru RK, Sharma RK, Kuznetsov AA, Kapralov VK. Technical parameters for underground coal gasicationevaluation of some of the Indian coal deposits. In: Seventh international conference on oil and natural gas, Petrotech2007, 1519 January, 2007. [45] NTPC. Economics of power generation with UCG. UGC Workshop at Kolkatta, India, November 2006.

[46] Shackley S, Mander S, Reiche A. Public perceptions of underground coal gasication in the United Kingdom. Energy Policy 2006;34:342333.