Curiouser and curiouser!: Underground Coal-to-Liquids (UCTL) pilot test

UCTL Process flow diagram (click for an enlarged picture), source

The GCC reports that Regal Resources, an Australian company, is planning to acquire Magma Oil, which holds patents in underground coal-to-liquids (UCTL) processes. According to Magma Oil, hydrothermal reactions of coal (lignites) in the presence of suitable catalysts produce steam, methane and hydrocarbon liquids. The hydrocarbon liquids are separated for further refinery processing, whereas the steam (and other products) are reinjected. According to Magma Oil, the advantages of the process are the use of oilfield equipment (significantly lower capital costs compared to surface- and underground coal gasification technologies)and lower temperature (350 C), maximizing liquid hydrocarbon yields.
My comments
One cannot strictly compare the UCTL process to UCG (underground coal gasification) process. UCG technology aims to utilize stranded coal resources (not necessarily limited to lignites), and therefore requires some capital outlay for advanced (horizontal) drilling equipment. On the other hand, from the information available, it seems that the UCTL process works with mineable coal seams as well (seam depth > 50 m). Whereas previous UCG pilot tests have established to some level of certainty that groundwater pollution can be avoided, this is doubly important for the UCTL technologies where significantly higher quantities of water and other chemicals (catalysts) are likely injected. Other competitors to UCTL processes include the Syntroleum-Linc Energy air-based UCG-synfuel process also produces above-ground Fischer-Tropsch liquids from air-blown UCG syngas.
Two other issues might also be important: namely, the availability of supplementary "natural catalysts/impurities located in all coal seams" (coals are necessarily heterogeneous) and the real extent of zeolite-formation and CO2 sequestration.

Read More...

Summary only...

UCG update: Lower CO2 emissions compared to NGCC

World Coal ($ubscription required) has an article in their March 2009 issue [Next Generation Drilling, World Coal, v. 18(3), p.28-36] detailing an economic-engineering analysis of underground coal gasification (UCG). According to Kempka et al., producing UCG-syngas to electricity has lower CO2 emissions per unit energy produced compared to natural gas combined cycle power plants. I think this is significant because natural gas-fired power plants have almost half the CO2 emissions of a conventional pulverized coal-fired power plants. Therefore, in a high-gas price scenario, UCG might become economically as well as environmentally favorable (provided sulfur, VOC, ground water contaminant emissions are taken care of).
My previous UCG post:
Underground Coal Gasification: Keep the coal in the ground, convert it to gas

Read More...

Summary only...

Glimpses through the Energy Crystal Ball : 2009

New Year's Eve Ball, 1978. Photo credit: The New York Times.

Happy New Year to our readers. Continuing the blogging traditions of forecasting major breakthroughs in a given field :-), I present my opinion of what the energy industry might expect in 2009.

• Oil prices & clean tech-investments: The downward trend in the crude oil prices will likely continue atleast until Summer'09. A lot depends on the market perceptions of US and world economies. The current conflict in the Middle East has put a slight upward pressure on the oil prices, but this will likely be temporary. Short-term clean tech-investments will depend to a major extent on the availability of credit and the risk perceptions associated with various technologies. Investments in oil sands production have come to a standstill because of the lower demand and poor credit access.


• Carbon trading and renewable energy credits: Because it might be easier to get Congressional approval on a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), expect RPS standards at the state/Federal levels to be implemented before a cap-and-trade regime. However, various regional GHG programs will begin to play a greater role in influencing the debate on a Federal cap-and-trade regime. I think that rewarding early action to reduce GHG emissions/increased renewable-based power generation should be a key component of the RPS/carbon trading approach.
  


• Clean coal technologies: The high capital costs associated with clean coal technologies (IGCC, CTL, etc.) coupled with the low cost of crude oil (and natural gas) have limited investments in clean coal technologies. One notable example is the cancellation of SES-Consol Energy synthetic gasoline project in West Virginia. However, CTL projects elsewhere in the world seem to be going forward. Because these multi-billion dollar facilities take many years to build, it is essential to take a long-term view for these projects. On the other hand, financing will still be partly influenced by short-term market trends, and well-established companies with proven technologies will stand a better chance at getting financed.
  Recently, Laurus Energy, the sole North American licensee for Ergo Exergy's εUCG^TM underground coal gasification technology received financing from a Silicon Valley-based VC firm. This indicates that projects which aim to lower capital costs of conventional coal technologies could also likely succeed in getting financed.
  


• Carbon capture and storage (CCS): Various players in the oil and gas industry and the power industry are following developments in the CCS field, and strategically positioning themselves. Exelon, for example, has a mid-term low carbon roadmap which incorporates elements of efficiency, along with low-carbon electricity production options such as natural gas, nuclear and renewables. Papers describing current industrial efforts in CCS from the recent Greenhouse Gas Technologies-9 conference can be found here. A comparative assessment of the World Resources Institute (WRI)'s CCS guidelines and emerging U.S./European geologic CO2 sequestration regulations is here (subscription might be required).


• Biofuels: My take on the short/medium-term implications of President-elect Obama's biofuel policy appeared as a guest post on The Big Biofuels Blog.

Conclusion: It would have been highly unlikely for someone to predict 40$/barrel crude prices at the beginning of previous year. The current economic slowdown will play a greater role in influencing both the consumption of energy and investments energy technologies. On the other hand, President-elect Obama plans to jumpstart the economy with a 850 billion $ infrastructure spending plan. The stakeholders must ensure that the current economic scenario is not another opportunity lost in addressing the problems of human development and sustainability.

Read More...

Summary only...

Synfuels (CTL, OTL, GTL, BTL, XTL) Round-Up

Given below is a compilation of the latest news, analyses and resources on synthetic fuels from hydrocarbons (coal-to-liquids, biomass-to-liquids, gas-to-liquids, oil sands-to-liquids)
Analyses

The Impacts of Synfuels (CTL,GTL, BTL, OTL) on World Petroleum Supply

RAND Study Concludes Oil Sands Synthetic Crude Can Be Cost-Competitive with Conventional Petroleum Even Over a Wide Range of CO2 Prices

New Life-Cycle Analysis Concludes Neither GTL or CTL a “Reasonable Path” for Energy Security With Reduced GHG Emissions

Study Suggests “Flexible Carbon to Liquid” Fuel Process Could Displace 15-20% of Transportation Fuels in the US

The tale of two synthetic fuels & Using champagne to make beer

News

Australia:
Linc Energy Begins Producing GTL Liquids from Underground Gasification Syngas

South Africa:
Biofuels singled out as 'best option' for alternative fuels in SA

USA:
Synfuels Converts Natural Gas to Gasoline to Cash

New Route to Hydrocarbon Biofuels: A simple catalytic process converts plant sugars into gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.

Synthesis Energy Systems Options Up to 15 Methanol-to-Gasoline Technology Licenses for Coal-to-Gasoline Projects

Researchers Propose Dual-Bed Configuration to Increase Efficiency and Reduce Emissions from Coal Gasification

China:
Shenhua Ningxia Coal Group boosts CTL project with Sasol

Is it the end of the line for coal-to-oil in China?

India:
Sasol mulls dlrs 8bn India CTL plant

UK:
Small Scale FT Contract with Thai National Oil Company

Resources:

Diesel Fuel from Bolivian Natural Gas by Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis using Nitrogen-rich Syngas

DOE Releases Feasibility Study for Small-Scale Conceptual Coal-to-Liquids Facility in Appalachian Basin : Technical and Economic Assessment of Small-Scale Fischer-Tropsch Liquids Facilities

An Engineering-Economic Analysis of Syngas Storage

Small-Scale Fischer-Tropsch

Read More...

Summary only...

News: BP and Ergo Exergy agreement on UCG

This is somewhat old. Following up from a previous post on underground coal gasification (UCG), BP and Ergo Exergy have teamed together to combine their respective strengths in directional drilling, seismic data interpretation and UCG technologies. The Ergo Exergy website has details of the εUCG™ process.

Read More...

Summary only...

Underground Coal Gasification: Keep the coal in the ground, convert it to gas

The world has much more coal than oil/natural gas. However, using coal also entails the disposal of mineral matter produced due to combustion/gasification. Additionally, for technologies such as coal-to-liquids (CTL), the captial cost of a gasification plant is very high. One technology that overcomes these two limitations is Underground Coal Gasification (UCG).
In UCG, the coal seam is gasified underground, by injecting either steam/hot air or a combination of both, converting the hydrocarbons to a syngas mixture, rich in inert gases. This mixture can then be further processed to remove the inert gases and produce synfuels. The highlights of UCG are NOx emissions which are comparable to combined cycle power plants, lesser ash volumes and lower capital costs. (See the GCC blog for results from a life cycle study on UCG compared to other "clean coal" technologies.) On the other hand, the operation of a UCG plant/reactor requires detailed knowledge of the stability/safety of the coal seam. Because the coal in the ground is being gasified, some subsidence will occur. Additionally, care must be taken to make sure that the ground water does not get contaminated by the organics produced during UCG. Accordingly, the UCG well should be located below the water table, and should be operated under negative pressure to ensure no leakage of fluids to the ground water. Additional details about UCG are given in the links below. By far, the best example of a UCG facility has been the Chinchilla project in Australia, which was the longest running demonstration project of its kind.

Update: I recently became aware of the Majuba project in South Africa (Thanks David!), which is supposedly more technically challenging than Chinchilla.

Whereas both the Majuba & Chinchilla projects converted/convert the gases from UCG into power, the gases could also be converted to synfuels. My opinions after the jump.
I am very interested in UCG, because this represents a unique combination of challenges in mine safety, mine engineering, coal gasification (fuel science) and potential CO2 sequestration. Moreover, when the ash content of the coal is too high (~30-40%), it may be economical to gasify it in-place instead of mining and gasifying it ex-situ. This is useful especially for Indian coals which have a higher ash content compared to most US coals. Therefore, a future CTL plant in India need not entirely be an above-ground structure. In fact, partial gasification to produce syngas and the conversion of this produced gas above ground to liquids might be cheaper. A phenomenon which is closely related to UCG is coal fires (UCF), which result from the burning of the coal seam. Examples are Centralia (PA), and fires in the Jharia coal seam. See Prof. Anupma Prakash's web page for more information on these phenomena.

Hat tip: Green Car Congress
Some links:
Best practices in UCG
Underground coal gasification: A new clean coal utilization technique for India
Primer on UCG

Read More...

Summary only...