1

UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION

HISTORY, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT BELUGA, ALASKA









Kendra L. Zamzow, Ph.D.
Center for Science in Public Participation
March 2010
2

Table of Contents
CIRI's proposed project ................................................................................................................................. 4
Natural Gas and Coal Gas .............................................................................................................................. 5
How UCG works ............................................................................................................................................ 7
Getting coal to burn .................................................................................................................................. 7
Operational parameters ............................................................................................................................ 9
Deep and Thick .................................................................................................................................... 10
Temperature ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Water .................................................................................................................................................. 11
Faults and fractures ............................................................................................................................ 11
Historical Perspective .................................................................................................................................. 12
Regional experiences .............................................................................................................................. 12
Former Soviet Union ........................................................................................................................... 12
United States ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Europe ................................................................................................................................................. 13
Other countries ................................................................................................................................... 13
Key test sites ........................................................................................................................................... 14
Hoe Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 14
Centralia, WA ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Rocky Mountain I ................................................................................................................................ 15
El Tremedal ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Chinchilla ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 17
Structural Integrity of Host Rock ............................................................................................................. 19
Formation of contaminants .................................................................................................................... 19
Migration of contaminants ..................................................................................................................... 20
CO
2
.............................................................................................................................................................. 21
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions ....................................................................................................... 21
Carbon capture ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Carbon sequestration ............................................................................................................................. 25
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 27
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Appendix A: UCG reactions and Syngas Reactions ..................................................................................... 31
Appendix B: Natural Gas Processing ........................................................................................................... 32
Appendix C: UCG sites worldwide ............................................................................................................... 33
Appendix D: Water Analysis at Contaminated UCG Sites .......................................................................... 39


3

Figures
Figure 1. Location of proposed UCG project, Beluga, AK.4
Figure 2. CRIP process of gasification.8
Figure 3. Depth and thickness of coal seams by global region..9
Figure 4. Faulted and dipping seams11
Figure 5. UCG at Chinchilla, Australia...15
Figure 6. Comparison of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by fuel type.22

Tables
Table 1. Composition of Natural Gas, Syngas, and UCG gas...5



4

In November 2009, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), an Alaskan Native regional
corporation, filed for exploration permits to examine the potential to fuel a 100 MW power plant
using "underground coal gasification" (UCG) technology. This paper explores the history of
UCG technology globally, including environmental impacts during historical trials, how those
impacts might be mitigated, and risk of environmental impacts at the Beluga, Alaska project.
CIRI's proposed project
Information on CIRI's proposed project is limited since the project is only at the
conception and permitting states. The property is located in a remote location on the west side of
Cook Inlet, just north of the Beluga River, on CIRI lands (Figure 1). The site is 5-10 miles from
the current 385 MW Chugach Electric Plant, located at Beluga, which utilizes natural gas from
nearby offshore platforms to provide electricity. The CIRI project proposes a 100 MW
combined cycle power plant run on the syngas that would be the product of 'gasifying' coal in the
ground.
1
Although no maps have been produced to indicate where the power plant would be
located, it would almost certainly be adjacent to the targeted coal fields.


1
CIRI presentation to the Alaska State House Resources, Senate Resources, and Senate Energy committees,
October 9, 2009
Figure 1. Location of proposed UCG project, Beluga, AK.
5


Natural Gas and Coal Gas
Natural gas, as extracted from production wells, is mostly methane (CH
4
) with a high
heating value (>1000 BTU/ft
3
). The composition depends on how the natural gas was formed. If
it is biogenic (produced by living organisms) it is nearly pure methane. Thermogenic natural gas
(produced by the breakdown of organic matter) is methane with contaminants (small
hydrocarbons, water, sulfur, and CO
2
) and must be processed before it can be used (Table 1).
2

The hydrocarbons can be separated and sold while the other constituents are corrosive.
3,4
Cook
Inlet gas is primarily biogenic, and North Slope natural gas is thermogenic.
5
At the Beluga
Power Plant, seven gas turbines and one steam turbine together produce 385 MW of electricity,
the primary source of electricity to Anchorage. In the combustion process, methane is burned
and water, CO
2
, and oxidized sulfur and nitrogen products are the primary waste products.
"Syngas", or synthetic gas, is the term that refers to a carbon monoxide-hydrogen gas
mixture. It can be made from coal, natural gas, or biomass. "UCG gas" is used in this paper to
refer to gas produced from burning coal underground, although some literature also refers to this
as "syngas". Both are primarily carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen gas (H
2
), but the processes
of making them are different (Appendix A). To make coal-derived syngas above ground, coal is
put under heat (>700
o
C) and pressure to make carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas. Hydrogen or
the building blocks for chemical products like methanol are the products. To make electricity,
the CO and H
2
are reacted with steam to form CO
2
and more hydrogen. Hydrogen is combusted
to produce power. Water, CO
2
, and oxidized sulfur and nitrogen products are the waste products.
Syngas plants are relatively common, with over 150 in operation.
6

The UCG process burns coal under heat (1000 1600
o
C) and pressure with steam while
the coal is still underground. UCG gas as it comes out of the product well is carbon dioxide
(CO
2
) and hydrogen gas (H
2
), with more methane and less CO than syngas, and lower in sulfur,
tars, mercury, and other metals which are left underground in the residual ash after the burn.
The actual proportions of each component will vary depending on how the burn is operated:
Thickness of coal seam. Thin coal seams (< 2 m) produce a gas that is mostly CO
2
, with
little H
2
, CO, and methane. This is a low quality gas, and may not be economic. Thicker

2
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp
3
http://housemajority.org/coms/hres/gas_report_chapter1.pdf;
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp
4
http://housemajority.org/coms/hres/gas_report_chapter1.pdf;
http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp
5
Clayton, G. 1980; Goldsmith and Szymoniak 2009; http://housemajority.org/coms/hres/gas_report_chapter1.pdf
6
Simbeck, 2002, in Burton et al 2006.
6

seams don't change the amount of CO
2
, CO or methane, but produce a lot more H
2
. This
is useful for generating hydrogen or a CO/H
2
syngas.
Depth of coal seam. Burning deep seams where the pressure is greater creates more
methane and less CO and H
2
, and therefore a higher quality gas.
Temperature. High temperature reactions produce more methane,, but temperatures that
are too high reduce the quality of the gas
Water. Changing the amount of water changes the amount of methane and hydrogen.
Oxygen. Injecting air to start the burn instead of oxygen increases the nitrogen content of
the gas, lowering the gas quality.
The product gas will also contain sulfur, nitrogen, and volatile trace metal species. Like
thermogenic natural gas, it needs to be 'cleaned' to remove hydrogen sulfide and other
contaminants (Appendix B). UCG produces either hydrogen or a methane-hydrogen mixture for
combustion after clean-up. If a methane-hydrogen mixture is combusted, CO
2
will be the
primary air emission. If hydrogen is combusted, water will be the primary emission, but CO
2

will be produced as part of the process of making hydrogen. Hydrogen may also have other
industrial uses, or may be used for hydrogen fuel cells and other parts of the emerging hydrogen
economy. Similarly, chemical reactions can begin with UCG gas to make methane, methanol,
fertilizer, and other products.
Table 1. Composition of Natural Gas, Syngas, and UCG gas. Natural gas and UCG gas composition is as it occurs
at the well-head, not after cleanup. UCG gas composition will vary depending on the purpose the gas is to be used for.
and the conditions under which it is generated. The table is a compilation from the following sources: Shafirovich and
Varma 2009, Goldsmith and Szymoniak 2009, Friedmann 2007, Bakker 2004, Claypool 1980, and the following
websites: http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/processing_ng.asp,
http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp, http://www.uniongas.com/aboutus/aboutng/composition.asp,
http://www.fluent.com/about/news/newsletters/04v13i2/s8.htm
Natural Gas Syngas UCG gas
Methane (CH
4
) 70-90% 1-2% 5-14%
Hydrogen (H
2
) 24%-30% 25-40%
Carbon dioxide (CO
2
) 0-12% 4%-15% 25-40%
Carbon monoxide (CO) 35-65% 5-20%
Hydrogen Sulfide (H
2
S) 0-5% 1% 2-8%
Nitrogen (N
2
) 0-5% 1% ?
7

Water (H
2
O) saturated 15-25% 33%
Producing electricity by burning these different gases will generate different
environmental footprints. For instance, syngas requires mining and transporting coal; natural gas
production requires deep, often offshore wells; while UCG gas may require deep wells but has
very little above ground disturbance. Similarly each has a different potential to pollute water or
air, and different greenhouse gas types and amounts.
How UCG works
The basic concept is to drill two wells into a deep coal seam and burn out the coal
between them.
Compressed air or an oxygen/steam mixture is injected through one well, the coal burns
and releases gases, and the gases come out of the ground at the second well, called the
production well. The burn creates a cavity or "combustion chamber", and the process works best
with deep seams of low-quality coal, exactly the material that is difficult to traditionally mine
economically. Water flowing into the cavity is not pumped out, but is used as part of the burn
reaction. Because of the cost of transporting the gas, power plants would likely be sited adjacent
to the coal field.
Pilot projects have been conducted since the 1940's, and particularly in the 1970's and
1980's in the US and the 1990's in Europe and China. Trials focused on how to get the coal to
burn, how to control the burn, maximizing efficiency, and minimizing environmental
contamination.
Getting coal to burn
The first difficulty in the early trials was getting the coal to burn. Although there are
numerous instances of uncontrollable underground coal fires around the world, the fires are
dependent on oxygen reaching the coal. Deep coal seams several hundred feet underground are
saturated with water and isolated from oxygen, and attempts to simply set the seam on fire
fizzled. In researching science journals, federal documents, and company literature this author
was unable to find any instances of uncontrolled coal fires during UCG.
Eventually two techniques proved to be successful.
Inject air at the injection well. The ignition source is placed at the production
well to "draw" the fire towards the high oxygen area in a process called "reverse
combustion", burning a path through the seam.
Drill a simple vertical well as the production well. The injection well begins
vertical then bends to become a horizontal tunnel through the coal seam towards
8

the production well. A "controlled retractable injection point" (CRIP) is a point
where coiled tubing burns through the horizontal tunnel borehole casing; oxygen
and steam are forced through the point to ignite the coal. This is initially placed
near the juncture of the injection and production wells. The coal burns for a
while, forming a cavity as hot gases move up and outward, but it eventually
fizzles. When the burn is done, the point is retracted and ignition is started again
at a point in the horizontal tunnel closer to the injection well. In this way the
burning coal front proceeds in a controlled manner (Figure 2). The CRIP
technique allows for several production wells for each injection well, reducing the
overall footprint.
A proprietary technology developed by Ergo Energy was successfully used in the
30-month long Chinchilla Australia project. However, the specifics of the
technology are not known.
9



In general, the CRIP process and the Ergo technology have worked better than hydraulic
fracturing and reverse combustion in controlling the UCG process.
7


Operational parameters
Constraints such as depth, thickness, dipping of the coal seam and temperature, pressure,
oxygen, and water in the burn cavity all play a role in gas quality, economics, and potential
environmental impacts.

7
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique of fracturing the coal seam between the two wells to encourage gas flow; this
did not work, as gases spread out and did not flow consistently in the desired direction.
Overburde
n
Coa
l
Inject oxygen
and steam
Gas
product
Old burned out
cavity with
ash/rubble
New injection
point, new burn
area
burned out injection well
pipe
heat and hot gases
escaping
pyrolyis products line
cavity
water influx
Figure 2. CRIP process of gasification. The movable injection point begins the burn near the production
well. When the first burn expires, a second burn is initiated closer to the injection well. This procedure
continues until the seam is burned out. Adapted from Burton et al 2006.
10

Deep and Thick
Trials have determined that UCG should be conducted on deep, thick coal beds. This
provides a better quality gas and reduces the risk of groundwater pollution or surface subsidence.
The pressure in the burn cavity affects how well the reaction will proceed, the
composition of product gas, and how the surrounding rock will be altered. Burns conducted at
depth (200 m to over 1000 m) where the pressure is greater produce better quality gas with more
methane. This has been proven in the field: using oxygen injection, gas produced at 4 bars of
pressure contained 5%
methane (and 21% CO
and 38% hydrogen) while
gas produced at 5.3 bars
contained 13% methane
(and 13% CO and 25%
hydrogen.
8
The
remainder of gases in both
cases was carbon dioxide
and hydrogen sulfide. The
difference affected the
heat content of the gas,
with 8.7 and 10.9 MJ/m
3

produced respectively.
Deep seams also
cause the economics of air
versus oxygen injection to
change. Injecting air
requires compressing nitrogen and injecting oxygen requires an oxygen separation plant both
are expensive. Oxygen injection becomes economically favorable for deeper coal seams as the
cost of making oxygen becomes less expensive than additional compressors for injecting air.
9

Thick seams allow gas production with fewer wells. Seams that are too thin (less than 2
m) allow heat to escape into surrounding rock too easily, and the resulting product gas is of poor
quality.
10
Some UCG development companies suggest seams should be at least 10 m thick,
11

while others believe seams as thin as 0.5 m can be used; this is likely biased by the depth of
available coal (Figure 3).

8
Kreinin in Shafirovich et al 2008; Shafirovich and Varma 2009
9
Boysen et al 1998; Burton et al 2006
10
Bowen and Irwin 2008
11
Shafirovich et al 2008
Figure 3. Depth and thickness of coal seams by global region. The US tends
to have thick seams of coal near the ground surface, while Europe tends to have
thin, deep seams of coal. Thick seams produce better quality gas, but deep seams
are more likely to isolate contaminants and reduce the risk of subsidence. From
Burton et al 2006.
11

Figure 4. Faulted and dipping
seams. (Left) Drilling faulted
seams. (Below) Gasification of
steeply dipping seams.

Temperature
Temperatures that are too low allow tars to form and can cause the pathway between
wells to plug, but if too high reduce the efficiency of the gasification process and the heat value
of the final gas.
Water
Although coal contains water and combustion cavities are expected to have water flux
into them, too much water will reduce the methane content in the gas, reducing the heating value.
For this reason, if UCG is being used to provide electricity it is preferable to use coal with low
moisture with no overlying aquifer within 25 times the height of the seam.
12
This also reduces
the risk of groundwater contamination, particularly groundwater that might reach surface water
or enter drinking water wells.
Faults and fractures
Coal seams may dip up and down, or a fault may cause the seam to be discontinuous,
suddenly stopping at one depth and starting again at another. To adjust for fault discontinuities,
drilling equipment has the capacity to contain "eyes" that "see" the geologic structure ahead of
the drill bit; the drill can then be adjusted as necessary (Figure 4).
To use the technology on steeply dipping coal seams, combustion occurs at the deep end
and the coal above "gravity feeds" down into the fire, with production gases working their way
upward (Figure 4) and coal tar flows down away from the burn. Testing on dipping seams has
been conducted at Rawlins, WY and in Russia (Juschno-Abinsk).








12
Sury et al 2004, in Shafirovich et al 2008
12




Historical Perspective
This section lays out some the general history of underground coal gasification in
different countries, and describes some key sites in detail. A list of all gasification sites is
available in Appendix C.
Regional experiences
Former Soviet Union
The technology for burning coal into gas while it was still in the ground began in the
1930's in the USSR, and by the 1950's the USSR was producing about 300 MW of electricity
with this gas.
13
About 200 pilots were conducted in the USSR and, after 1991, in Russia,
Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. One station (Yuzhno-Abinsk, Kuznetsk Basin, Russia) produced gas
for 14 boilers from 1955 1996, finally closing as equipment failed during the post-Soviet era.
Another plant built in the 1950's in Uzbekistan is still operating. Most closed as cheap natural
gas came on-line. During the trials in the former Soviet Union, it was learned that injecting
oxygen rather than air produced gas with higher heat value, that transporting the gas any distance
is often uneconomical, and that high temperatures (540-760
o
C) cause rocks to swell.
14

Environmental modeling was also developed.

United States
In the US, initial tests began in Alabama in the 1940's and 1950's. Testing was
revitalized during the years of high oil prices, with 31 tests conducted 1973-1989, mostly by the
Department of Energy (DOE). They were short-term projects, with a total of only 50,000 tons of
coal gasified. It was during this period that the CRIP technology was developed by Lawrence
Livermore National Labs (LLNL). Most trials attempted to answer specific questions about
managing the burn, shutdown and startup, gas consistency and quality, and groundwater impacts.
New projects are scheduled to begin in Wyoming: in July 2007, British Petroleum (BP), LLNL,

13
Shafirovich et al 2008; Shafirovich and Varma 2009
14
Den'gina et al 1994, in Shafirovich et al 2008
13

and a UCG developer signed an agreement for a pilot in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming
that would incorporate carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) with UCG.
15

Europe
In the European Union, a series of experiments was conducted 1982-1999, primarily in
Belgium, France, and Spain. These trials tested methods to get coal to ignite, move gas to the
production well, and determined that coal burning could be conducted in deep coal seams.
Repeated testing of reverse combustion and hydraulic fracturing to direct gas to the production
wells failed. Not until directional drilling and oxygen injection were attempted at the El
Tremedal site in Spain were researches able to link wells productively.
All were short-term tests primarily designed to learn more about the technology. No
electricity is currently generated from UCG in Europe, although more trials are planned. A
consortium of countries led by Poland has started a pilot to test the feasibility of using UCG as a
cornerstone of developing a hydrogen economy and the feasibility of integrating it with
geothermal heat exchange and CCS.
16
The UK is examining the feasibility of conducting UCG
in a coal seam that lies under the Firth of Forth in Scotland; the gas would be used in conjunction
with fuel cells to make electricity. This would be the first UCG project beneath ocean water.
Other countries
In Australia, one of the most successful pilots was conducted. The Chinchilla project ran
from 1999-2003 and demonstrated that UCG could be controlled, including shutdown and re-
start. During the 4-year period, 35,000 tons of coal from a seam 140 m deep was gasified with
no environmental problems. Today two major pilot projects are in development, and several
other smaller projects. Pilots include a planned 400 MW combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT)
power plant and a 100-day pilot to test a module-based system to produce 20 MW per module,
17

with the goal of developing a commercial CCGT plant. In October 2008, a coal gas-to-liquids
fuel production facility was started.
18

Canada has not had any historical UCG projects, but two projects are moving forward in
Alberta to use UCG for power, fuel, and hydrogen and sequester CO
2
using enhanced oil
recovery (EOR).
19
The steam from UCG may be used in tar sands oil recovery.
20
The
proponents of these projects, Laurus Energy, may become a partner in the CIRI Beluga project.
21


15
Shafirovich and Varma 2009
16
Rogut 2008
17
Shafirovich et al 2008
18
Friedmann et al 2009
19
ibid
20
Maev 2008; Shafirovich and Varma 2009
21
Bluemink 2009
14

A test project in New Zealand in 1994 only lasted 13 days. The information available
says the area was "tectonically active with coal deposits faulted and folded, providing a geologic
challenge" but does not explicitly detail the issues, except to say that they did not achieve good
gasification.
22
South Africa started a pilot UCG project in January 2007 with the intent to use it
for both power and coal gas-to-liquid fuel. The small amount of UCG gas would be used to co-
fire turbines at a large natural gas facility. The co-firing was successful 2007-2008, but it is
unclear if a scale-up occurred after that. China has had 16 UCG trials since the 1980's. One
project currently operating in XinWen uses six UCG reactors to provide gas for cooking and
heating, while one in Shanxi uses the gas to produce ammonia and hydrogen. A $100 million
pilot commercial project has started in Inner Mongolia next to a coal mine. Other plants are used
to produce fertilizer. More trials are planned, including feasibility of UCG for hydrogen and
methanol production.
23

Key test sites
24

Hoe Creek
The Hoe Creek site in Wyoming was operated from 1976-1979. The coal seam was 10 m
thick, lying 40-50 m below ground, with a shallow layer (5 m thick) of siltstone and clay
separating it from an upper coal seam; overburden above that was primarily silt, sand, and
sandstone. The sand and coal seams were the primary aquifers. Three experiments (Hoe Creek
I, II, and III) were conducted and heavily monitored to examine the burn process, gas
composition, cavity formation, and geotechnical data.
The primary research at this time was in getting gas to move to the production well. At
Hoe Creek I, explosives were used to fracture the coal bed and air was injected for 11 days. The
test was not very successful, with about 7% of the gas lost to the overburden. At Hoe Creek II,
three separate trials of 2-43 days used reverse combustion with air or oxygen. Water entering the
burn cavity lowered gas quality, so the pressure was increased to keep water out. However, this
forced much of the gas out of the cavity away from the production well, and about 20% of the
gas was lost. Hoe Creek III used directional drilling and reverse combustion over a 47 day test.
Unfortunately the burn at the lower coal seam target moved into the upper coal seam, a mere 10
m above, and again nearly 20% of the gas was lost. Eventually subsidence occurred at both Hoe
Creek II and III.
Twelve monitoring wells were sampled before, during, and for up to two years after
gasification.
25
Groundwater contamination occurred within seven days of the start of
gasification. The pressure used in the cavity to try to push water out also pushed out soluble

22
Shafirovich and Varma 2009
23
ibid
24
These compilations are derived from Burton et al 2008, except where noted
25
This section from Campbell et al 1979
15

volatile organics (such as phenols) and other contaminants (like cyanide) into the aquifer above.
The problem was exacerbated by surface subsidence, which occurred due to the shallow depth of
the seam and the lack of structural integrity in overlying rock. Toxic organics in residual ash
dissolved in inflowing water and moved into all three aquifers. Due to the extensive monitoring
well system and groundwater analysis, the contamination was picked up and monitored.
Analysis was done for 250 different organic and inorganic compounds, and 70 were detected
(Appendix D). Testing up to two years after the burns found all contaminants were within 30 m
of the burn zone, and concentrations decreased very rapidly with distance; many probably sorbed
to overburden and residual coal layers.
However, by 1993, the DOE found that contaminants remained in an aquifer 55 m below
the surface, and had migrated off of the original BLM-owned property the testing was conducted
on. Contaminants included phenol and benzene (known carcinogens) and other organics known
to cause kidney and nerve damage; all were small, highly soluble molecules that do not sorb well
to soils. In 1998, DOE installed 64 air-sparging wells to remediate the site, and another 50 were
installed in 1999. A variety of remediation technologies were in use as of 2006.
Much of what we know now came out of this test, and later tests based on these findings.
This was the first successful use of oxygen/steam injection and a movable injection point. What
was learned from the subsidence and groundwater contamination became part of the basis for
site-based risk assessment by today's standards, the site would have been considered as having
high environmental risk due to the shallow depth of the coal and proximity to aquifers.
Centralia, WA
Between 1981 and 1982, the CRIP system was further tested at Centralia, WA for 4 and
for 30 day burns. Different oxygen/steam ratios as well as a propane-silane (SiO
4
) combination
were used to ignite the burns, and drilling configurations and slants were tried to examine
changes in syngas quality. The variations did not change gas quality much. This trial was the
first real test of the CRIP system, and also tested whether models could predict how cavities
would grow. Cavity shape and size models were validated by quarrying out the actual burn
cavities. Quarrying also allowed researchers to examine the products left in the cavity dried
coal, char, and ash. No subsidence was predicted, and none was observed.
Rocky Mountain I
The Rocky Mountain I test in Wyoming November 1987-February 1988 was considered
the most successful US test to date. The project focused on siting the project to prevent
groundwater contamination. Significant effort went into pre- and post-burn water, temperature,
and mineral analysis to determine how the burn changed the underground make-up of the rock
and water chemistry. The coal seam was 10 m thick and 130 m below ground. The successful
directional drilling and CRIP processes tested in Centralia were used continuously for several
16

months.
26
Negative pressure was used to ensure that water flowed into, not out of, the burn
cavity, and water that filled the cavity post-burn was pumped to the surface and treated to
remove underground contamination from dissolution of ash and pyrolysis products, both to
ensure that no contaminated water remained underground, and also to cool the cavity quickly to
reduce steam, which can crack the rock above and induce fractures, and reduce transfer of hot
gases to surrounding rock. No environmental contamination was found by the 19 groundwater
monitoring wells.
Research indicated that the heat in rocks surrounding the burn cavity does not dissipate
quickly, and rocks can still be 4-12
o
C hotter than normal two years after a burn. Similarly,
groundwater temperatures did not always rise until several months after gasification ended.
27

The rise in temperature in wells was entered into models to calculate the temperature along
production lines. Within 1 m of the well, rocks could be 750-1000
o
C, nearly as high as
temperatures in the burn zone. This is potentially high enough to cause the rock around the gas
lines to change and affect the cement-rock seals and could lead to gas leaks. Temperatures
decreased rapidly with distance from the line: as modeled they would have been 100
o
C four
meters away and within 16 m they were only 4.5
o
C higher than background.
Although the testing was successful and the operators intended to go into commercial
production of ammonia, the Rocky Mountain UCG site was shut down when cheap oil became
available.
El Tremedal
The El Tremedal site was a joint project of Spain, the UK, and Belgium located in Spain
and operated 1992-1999. Directional drilling and oxygen injection were used. The tests were
conducted to determine if gasification could be done on deep seams (550 m) while maintaining
negative cavity pressure to prevent groundwater contamination. A methane explosion damaged
the injection well and stopped the project, but no environmental contamination was detected by
the several monitoring wells.
28

Chinchilla
29

The Chinchilla project emerged from testing in the 1980's at the University of
Newcastle, Australia. It was conducted over 30 months from December 26 1999-April 2003
using the proprietary Ergo technology and consisted of 9 injection/production wells surrounded
by 19 monitoring wells (Figure 5). The coal was 140 m deep and 10 m thick. The test was
conducted under low temperatures (300
o
C) and reverse combustion with air/water injection

26
Clean Air Task Force 2009
27
Gosnald 1998
28
Friedmann et al 2009
29
Information from Shafirovich et al 2008 and from Burton et al 2006
17

(rather than the CRIP technology) was successfully used between vertical wells. Up to 675 tons
of coal per day was gasified, with 75% total energy recovery. No groundwater or surface water
contamination was detected, nor was there any subsidence. A gas-to-liquids plant was
constructed in 2008 at the site, with the intent of using UCG product gas.
What made this project important was that it validated the concept of keeping the cavity
at a pressure less than the surrounding rock to allow groundwater to flow into the cavity and
keep volatiles from being pushed out; essentially a successful scale-up of the testing done at
Rocky Mountain.











Environmental Impacts
The primary concerns are the potential for uncontrollable fire, sinkholes (subsidence),
groundwater contamination, and air emissions, including increased greenhouse gases.
Essentially, the risks can be broken down into: will contaminants dissolve, how much CO
2
can
be captured and sequestered without leakage, and will any contaminants reach anything
important?
Although a literature review has not revealed any instances of uncontrolled fires,
most projects have been conducted for only a short period of time and little
information is available regarding the New Zealand pilot in a tectonically
Figure 5. UCG at Chinchilla, Australia. From Hattingh, L. 2008. Underground Coal Gasification.
Sasol.
http://www.sacea.org.za/SeminarsSymposium/Seminar22Aug2008/UNDERGROUND%20COAL%
20GASIFICATION%20%20-%20Lian%20Hattingh.pdf
18

complicated area. Current recommendations are that there should be no major
faulting within 45 m of the proposed gasifier.
30
The potential for new faults to
develop and provide a route for air to reach the coal seam will need to be assessed in
Beluga.
Subsidence and groundwater contamination have been issues in past projects where
shallow coal seams were burned; the recommendation now is to use coal seams
greater than 200 m deep with an impermeable, structurally sound layer above the
seam and no potable aquifers nearby or within 25 times the height of the coal seam.
CIRI proposes to use a seam 198 m deep. If an impermeable overburden layer is
present it also helps prevents product gas from flowing into the surrounding rock,
improving the quantity of gas retrieved. However, it should be noted that a
structurally sound layer does not eliminate the risk of subsidence. Any rock
overlying a burned out cavity could develop fractures.
About half the mercury, arsenic, sulfur, tars, and particulates produced from burning
coal remain underground. While this reduces air emissions, it is a potential concern
for groundwater contamination.
Groundwater can become contaminated with volatile, soluble organics like benzene
and phenols.
31
Site-specific geologic and hydrologic assessment will need to assess
whether the aquifers in the area are fresh or saltwater, the potential for connection
between the coal seam and aquifers, and the potential for the aquifers to reach surface
water. A connection to surface or tidal water is a serious risk, in that benzene at
levels safe for humans can cause genetic damage in salmon exposed to it
consistently.
32

High temperatures in production wells could cause well casings to crack and release
hot gas;
33
if the well passes through an aquifer this could be a route for
contamination.
To gasify coal above ground, the coal must be mined, transport, and put under great
pressure and heat before it can fuel turbines. The environmental impacts include all the impacts
of mining (water contamination, methane release, potential subsidence for underground mining,
human health impacts for miners) as well as air pollution from combustion (CO
2
, mercury, sulfur
and nitrogen oxides). By gasifying the coal below ground, many of the mining impacts are
eliminated, and groundwater and air pollution become the primary risks.

30
Surey et al 2004, in Burton et al 2006
31
Campbell et al 1979
32
Carls et al 2008
33
Gosnald 1998
19

Structural I ntegrity of Host Rock
Coal will be surrounded by "host rock". In the nearby Chuitna coal fields near the Chuit
River (less than 100 m deep), the host rock is primarily permeable sandstone saturated in water.
If the same geologic forces that created this set of conditions also created the coal and host rock
at the Beluga coal fields (200 m deep), they could also be overlain by a permeable sandstone
aquifer.
34
This would increase the risk of a UCG burn contaminating an aquifer, and would be
important unless the aquifer were saline.
Tectonic activity can create faults and fractures that allow UCG gas to escape, allow
water to move in unexpected directions, and provide a route for contaminant transport.
35
Not
only do any current faults need to be assessed, but the potential for high temperature activity to
cause stresses and fractures and provide new pathways, collapse of the burn cavity, or subsidence
needs to be assessed.
Subsidence occurs when coal is removed, leaving a void under the surface. Subsidence
does not always occur; it was minimal in pilot tests in Centralia, WA and Chinchilla, Australia.
However, these were pilot projects, and it is not known what would happen in a commercial
situation where large quantities of coal are removed. Given the remote location, the primary risk
is the potential to create pathways for contaminants rather than direct risk to habitation.
Formation of contaminants
The high temperatures of the burn cause volatile hydrocarbons and some trace metals to
become gases and carbon in coal and carbonate rocks to release carbon dioxide. These generally
partition into either the production gas or end up in the residual ash that stays in the cavity after
the burn is complete. If there is a route to an aquifer, highly soluble off-gassed volatiles like
phenol can cause persistent water contamination, as can material in ash. Organic compounds
such as tars, benzene, toluene, phenols, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH's) will be
created as heat dries and burns coal. The rocks themselves will change: carbonate rocks will
release calcium and CO
2
; mafic rocks will release iron and magnesium, and so forth. Metals
from rocks will volatilize and move out with production gas, remain in residual ash, and may
move into pore spaces of surrounding rock. A lining of burn products can be generated around
the burn cavity.
There are two periods to consider: during the burn and after the burn. During the burn,
contaminants are most likely to volatilize and move out with product gases. After the burn,
contaminants are most likely to become soluble in water and migrate out of the burn cavity as
normal hydrologic flow re-establishes.

34
Burton et al 2006 Section 5.3.1.2
35
Creedy and Garner 2004, in Burton et al 2006; Gregg 1977 in Burton et al 2006
20

Migration of contaminants
Very high temperatures (greater than 1000
o
C) cause rocks to crack and burn and solid
metals become gases; also water becomes less dense and less viscous so it moves more easily
allowing easier transport of contaminants. High temperatures in the production well, carrying the
gas product, may be high enough to crack the well casing and allow gases to escape gases that
can contain metals and toxic organics. The production of contaminants and their movement is
entirely different from any other industry, and prediction needs to rely strongly on results from
pilot tests. Whether contaminants become a risk depends on whether they are able to reach water
being used by aquatic life or people.
Just as steam and oxygen, temperature and pressure affect the quality of the UCG product
gas, they also affect what happens to the unintended byproducts. Burns will be operated at very
high temperatures in order to shift the reaction to produce methane, and the higher the
temperature the less byproduct. However, higher temperatures also increase the solubility of
organics, allowing them to move further in water. High temperatures can thermally drive water
up through the burn cavity roofing, cause cracks or collapse of the burn cavity that allow water to
migrate out, and cause organics to become soluble in water.
36
Deep UCG projects will need to
be run at higher pressures to keep the burn going, risking outflow of water from the cavity, but
are more likely to be far from potable aquifers. High pressure and the buoyant gas forces can
combine to overcome the pressure surrounding the cavity, resulting in vaporized material
moving out of the cavity and condensing in the outer rock. If the burn is advancing in that
direction, the process may repeat.
37

As material is pushed away from the hot cavity, it condenses, absorbs, adsorbs, or in
other ways reacts to precipitate away from the cavity. Organics and ammonia may sorb to coal
or surrounding clay. This material may be encountered as groundwater re-establishes its natural
flow post-burn.
After the burn, the normal hydrologic flow will fill the underground chamber and
dissolve the ash left behind. When it encounters the precipitated or sorbed material outside the
burn cavity, different reactions may occur. Some material may dissolve; some will be detoxified
if the groundwater is high in oxygen for instance, ammonia will become the non-toxic nitrate
and some may be broken down by aerobic bacteria. The migration of contaminants may be
irrelevant if the coal was capped by an impermeable layer or no potable aquifer is at risk.
However, some of the contaminants are toxic to fish, if they are able to reach fish-bearing
waters: ammonia, high concentrations of calcium or other cations, high concentrations of total
dissolved solids (TDS commonly mostly sulfate), and low but persistent concentrations of

36
Under room temperature conditions, many organics are not soluble in water, which is why oil forms a sheen on
water instead of dissolving.
37
Burton et al 2006
21

PAH's. One method of mitigation to prevent harm to drinking water or aquatic life is to pump
and treat water as it enters the burn chamber until all toxic compounds are below safe levels, as
was done at Rocky Mountain I. One author has suggested that UCG sites should be at least 1.6
km from rivers and lakes, and 0.8 km from major faults to prevent groundwater contamination
conditions that may be difficult to meet at Beluga.
38

CO
2
Carbon dioxide is the defining pollutant of our age endangering entire populations of
people, plants, and animals through its role in global warming and ocean acidification. Models
developed by international consensus through the IPCC are proving to have underestimated the
rise in global temperatures. Feedbacks such as reduced ice cover at the poles (less reflection of
sunlight, more absorption), release of methane from warming Arctic tundra,
39
and positive
biological feedback mechanisms such as vast stretches of dying trees in the Pacific Northwest
(due to increases in beetle kills because winter temperatures no longer kill the beetles) and no
longer removing CO
2
may account for the unexpectedly rapid temperature increase. Ocean pH is
dropping, Arctic ice is melting, and permafrost is thawing at rates much faster than predicted,
and there has been increased drought in Australia, the US, Africa, and the Middle East; increased
flooding; eroding beaches in Hawaii and villages in Alaska; and more. The measured physical
observations indicating the fast rate of global warming, the human face of it, and the likely fiscal
impacts on individual gas emitters make it an imperative to consider greenhouse gas emissions in
any large scale project.
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
Carbon dioxide will be produced from the UCG process as the raw gas exits the
production well and also when methane is combusted in the power plant if a methane/hydrogen
mixture is used. All carbon products become CO
2
during combustion if the product gas
entering the power plant contains CO
2
, CO, and methane, all of these will exit the stack as CO
2
.
If CO
2
and CO are removed during a "cleanup" or carbon capture process, only the methane will
be converted to CO
2
in the stack.
Although no studies could be found that analyzed the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
of syngas made through the UCG process, analysis has been done comparing coal, syngas,
natural gas, and liquefied natural gas both with and without mitigation technologies (Figure 6).
40

The study notes that natural gas is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the

38
Bowen, BH. A review and future of UCG. Powerpoint.
http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/energy/events/cctr_meetings_dec_2008/presentations/Bowen-12-11-
08.pdf
39
Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as potent as CO
2

40
Jaramillo et al 2007
22

US when processing, transmission, and combustion are included, producing about 800 lbs of
CO
2
-equivalents per MWh, or an estimated 250 lbs if CCS could be incorporated. But this is
less than traditional pulverized coal plants, which produce about 1800 lbs of CO
2
-equivalents per
MWh, or an estimated 400 lbs if CCS could be utilized. UCG product gas is likely to be similar
to natural gas in the combustion, processing, and transmission components, although it will
require extra release of CO
2
for air compression or making oxygen; it will be significantly lower
than traditional above-ground gasification CO
2
releases in that no coal mining, processing, or
transportation are required, nor is energy required for the gasification process as in above-ground
facilities.
While UCG combined with carbon capture is likely to produce much lower greenhouse
gas emissions than a traditional natural gas plant, it is not a zero-emissions technology. In 2001,
the Beluga plant supplied 300,000 MWh of electricity.
41
If UCG with CCS fueled a similar
amount of electricity, it would generate at least 375,000 tons of CO
2
-equivalent annually if the
estimates of about 250 lbs of CO
2
per MWh are correct.

41
ISER 2003
23


Figure 6. Comparison of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Fuel Type. Although UCG product gas was not
analyzed, it is likely similar to natural gas in production, processing, and storage. It will likely produce slightly more CO2 than
natural gas due to energy requirements for compressed air or oxygen generation, but could produce less sulfur and nitrogen if
some of those components remain underground. UCG is not like syngas, in that it does not require coal mining or transport,
nor does it require power for gasification. All but the PC scenario assume a "combined cycle" turbine system would be used, in
which gas drives the first turbine and energy from that is used to make steam to drive a second turbine. The natural gas plant at
Beluga is NGCC, and CIRI envisions a combined cycle plant using UCG gas. PC=pulverized coal IGCC=integrated gasification
combined cycle NGCC = natural gas combined cycle LNGCC = liquid natural gas combined cycle SNGCC = syngas
combined cycle.
24

Carbon capture
CO
2
is commonly captured from natural gas wells and re-injected into oil fields. This is
because ideally methane is all that goes into the gas turbines at power plants; CO
2
is corrosive in
pipelines and lowers the heat value of the natural gas. Due to these economic factors, removing
CO
2
from natural gas is a long-tested technology. Amine scrubbers, membranes, and "pressure
swing absorption" are the main processes used
CIRI has discussed capturing CO
2
from UCG gas and re-injecting it into natural gas
fields, however there has not been any interest on the part of the natural gas produces in Cook
Inlet. Removing CO
2
from UCG gas has never actually been done. There are three groups of
methods for capturing CO
2
, and all could theoretically be adapted to fit a UCG operation.
Pre-combustion removal injecting oxygen and steam to start the burn and adjust
the water to converts CO to CO
2
, so the product gas contains mostly CO
2
and H
2
;
the dense stream of CO
2
can be separated by amine scrubbers, membranes, or
other technologies before reaching the combustion facility.
Post-combustion removal removal of CO
2
from the combustion stack by amine
scrubbers or other technology
Oxy-fuel method gasification and combustion can both be carried out using
oxygen instead of air; the stack gas will be primarily CO
2
and steam and CO
2
is
recovered by allowing the steam to condense.
While CIRI has discussed capturing CO
2
from the product well, it is unclear if they
intend to also capture the CO
2
produced from the proposed power plant, or any additional
facilities that may be considered in the future, such as a liquid natural gas plant. While CO
2

capture from production wells at natural gas fields is commonly done, capture from power plant
stacks (post-combustion CO
2
capture) is a concept in its infancy. CO
2
sequestration has just
started at the Mountaineer 1300 MW power plant in West Virginia, but they are only capturing
1.5% of the emissions during this initial test period.
42

Not only is CCS technology just developing and likely to take decades to mature, it is
also likely to be expensive. Estimates by the International Panel on Climate Change are that
capturing CO
2
from natural gas power plants will increase the capital cost by 65-100%. Due to
the energy needs of the compressors and capture equipment, up to 30% more natural gas may be
needed to produce the same amount of electricity as without the capture equipment, although the
Mountaineer plant is testing a new capture technology that requires less power. The cost of

42
Biello 2009
25

electricity is estimated to be 35-70% higher for a natural gas combined cycle plant, such as is
used at Beluga, if CO
2
capture is installed.
43
Pre-combustion technology itself (Selexol) costs
about $25/ton CO
2
captured.
44

Carbon sequestration
The locations where CO
2
is removed from natural gas are in the southern US, where
pipelines transport the CO
2
to declining oil fields. Geologic sequestration has been discussed
and theorized, but rarely implemented. The only commercial-sized long term sequestration of
CO
2
outside of enhanced oil recovery is at the Sleipner, Norway natural gas production platform,
where CO
2
has been injected into saline aquifers 1000 m beneath the ocean floor since 1996.
This project has been driven by Norway's high carbon tax, $55/ton CO
2
in 1991 (the equivalent
of over $100,000 per day for Sleipner). Drilling the injection well and installing a compressor
added $100 million to the project; adding scrubbers to remove CO
2
and monitoring equipment
were additional expenses.
While Sleipner has been successful, not all projects have gone smoothly.
Norway's Snohvit natural gas platform has had significant technological problems
with storing CO
2
. The CO
2
freezes at temperatures required to make LNG,
blocking the LNG transport pipe. The plant was shut down twice in 2008 and
again in 2009.
45

Pilot projects that injected CO
2
into rock formations to make solid carbonate
rocks instead caused carbonic acid to form, and the acid dissolved the rock cavity
intended to contain it. The process stopped when neutralizing rock was
encountered.
46
Injecting CO
2
into basalt rock to make mineral carbonates failed
when the rock swelled and plugged the underground pore spaces.
47

CO
2
captured at a power plant in Wisconsin (as a demonstration project) did not
store the CO
2
because the geology under the plant was not favorable.
48

Currently there has not been enough test-drilling to determine if the geology at the
Beluga coal fields would support sequestration. CIRI has suggested injecting the CO
2
into
declining natural gas or oil fields, but currently no producers have showed interest in the idea. A
report from the National Energy Technology Lab suggests that sequestration can only be done as

43
Thambimuthu 2005 in Burton et al 2006
44
Burton et al 2006
45
Hurst 2008 and http://www.pr-inside.com/golar-lng-q2-2009-results-r1456514.htm
46
Kharaka et al 2006
47
Sturmer et al 2007
48
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-look-at-carbon-capture-and-storage
26

EOR or as saline aquifer injections in the Beluga area, and that both are likely to be cost-
prohibitive.
49

CIRI has discussed geologic sequestration of CO
2
,
50
although they have not shown how
this would be economically feasible. It is likely that storing the CO
2
in depleted underground
burn chambers will be considered; it is possible the capacity will be available, and injecting CO
2

into residual coal causes swelling that would plug fractures and migrating CO
2
would tend to
adsorb to coal and not move far.
However, at Beluga the burn cavities are only expected to be 200 m below the surface,
and CO
2
storage should be at least 800-1000 m below the surface to maintain CO
2
in a dense
supercritical state. Nevertheless, the CO
2
is still likely to be less dense than water, and will be
"buoyed" up to the top of a caprock layer, making it important for the caprock to remain
impermeable in perpetuity.
51
This may be particularly important in a seismically active area
such as Beluga.
The heat and steam may cause the rock around the cavity to be quite different
than pre-burn, potentially initiating cracks, fractures, and section collapses.
Volatile organics (benzene, etc) left behind in the cavity dissolve easily in CO
2

and will be carried upwards by CO
2
if the rock above the cavity is permeable.
CO
2
forms carbonic acid as it dissolves in water and may form sulfuric acid on
contact with coal and ash. These acids lower the pH of groundwater and
potentially allow metals in surrounding rock to dissolve and migrate in a plume
along the groundwater pathway.
The act of injecting CO
2
will also create changes in temperature, pressure, pH, rock-water
chemistry, and gas-water chemistry. If injected too quickly after a burn, the CO
2
could boil,
increasing the pressure in the cavity. If injected with too much pressure, the water that has filled
the cavity and dissolved volatile organics and ash material could be flushed out or fractures
could be created. CO
2
that dissolves decreases water pH, and CO
2
that does not dissolve can
push up on the cavity, putting pressure on it.
Should CO
2
migrate up and out of the geologic storage location, it is likely to kill plants
and ground-dwelling animals at the discharge location. Slow, non-catastrophic natural leaks of

49
Chaney and van Bibber 2006 Chapter 2
50
CIRI's Coal Development plans presentation to the Alaska Bar Association Environmental Law/Natural Resource
Law Section Nov 9 2009
51
Keith et al 2005
27

CO
2
continue to kill forests in the Sierra Mountains in California, and very large discharges from
natural sources have in the past asphyxiated plants, humans, and animals.
52

This means that it is not feasible to safely remove product gas then use the same wells to
pump CO
2
back down into the burned out coal seams at the proposed Beluga project. At the very
least, injection wells will need to be drilled much further down, and the geology will need to be
favorable both for safe UCG reactions at the proposed 200 m coal seam level and the 800+ m
CO
2
storage level. The seismic analysis during the feasibility period of the project will be
critical to determine whether there is a risk of air entering the coal seam during the burn, and
further analysis post-burn may be required to determine the risk of CO
2
leaks from deep storage
locations if earthquakes open new faults.
In the feasibility studies for the UCG project, the true feasibility and costs of carbon
capture from both the product well gas and the power plant need to be presented, along with the
feasibility, costs, and risks of geologic storage.
Summary
The CIRI Beluga UCG project proposes to take components of two emerging
technologies and join them together. This will require scrutiny of both components. The UCG
component has been conducted successfully in pilot scale tests around the world; the one long-
term plant in existence (Angren, Uzbekistan) does not have environmental information readily
available. The operators will need to satisfy both the requirements of producing high quality gas
and the requirements of maintaining environmental integrity. Given the proximity of the
proposed project to the Beluga River, Cook Inlet tidelands, and the Castle Mountain Fault, it is
particularly important to examine the hydrogeologic and geophysical details to ensure
Geologic conditions that preventing subsidence
o At least 200 m below ground
o Structural integrity of host rock
o Geophysical modeling of temperature/pressure stresses on fractures
Siting to prevent contaminant migration
o Impermeable caprock
o a distance at least 25 times the depth of the coal seam between the seam and
aquifer
o a minimum of 1.6 km from rivers and lakes
o a minimum of 0.8 km from major faults

52
Wilson et al 2003
28

o seams should be thick and widely separated to prevent burn-through between
seams
In addition to the conditions that must be satisfied for coal gasification, conditions also must
allow for carbon capture and sequestration. No UCG projects currently capture and sequester
carbon. Separating CO
2
and transporting it to an appropriate declining oil field will require extra
financing and negotiations with Cook Inlet oil and gas companies. If the CO
2
is to be injected
back into the coal fields, injection wells at least 800 m deep far deeper than the 200 m deep
target coal seam will need to be drilled and the geologic conditions at that depth will need to be
sufficient to entrain the CO
2
for thousands of years.
29

Bibliography
Bakker, W. 2004. High temperature corrosion in gasifiers. Mat Res Vol. 7 (1).
Biello, D. 2009. Burying climate change: efforts begin to sequester carbon dioxide from power plants. Scientific
American. September 22.
Bluemink, E. 2009. CIRI plans coal-to-gas electrical power plant. Anchorage Daily News. Anchorage, AK October 9.
Bowen, BH and MW Irwin. 2008. UCG CCTR Basic Facts File #12 (powerpoint). Indiana Center for Coal Technology
Research. [Online] https://eed.llnl.gov/co2/11.php.
Boysen, JE, MT Canfield, JR Covell, and CR Schmit. 1998. "Detailed evaluation of process and envrionmental data
from the Rocky Mountain I underground coal gasification field test: final report." Gas Research Institute and US
Department of Energy. Chicago, IL and Morgantown, WV.
Burton, E, J Friedmann, and R Upadhye. 2006. "Best practices in underground coal gasification (draft)." Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore, CA.
Campbell, JH, FT Wang, SW Mead, and JF Busby. 1979. Groundwater quality near an underground coal
gasification experiment J Hydrology 44: 241-266.
Carls, MG, L Holland, M Larsen, TK Collier, NL Scholz, and JP Incardona. 2008. Fish embryos are damaged by
dissolved PAHs, not oil particles. Aquatic Toxicology 88 (2): 121-127.
Chaney, R and L Van Bibber. 2006. Beluga coal gasification study. Phase I final report for subtask 41816.333.01.01.
DOE/NETL-2006/1248. July.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/gasification/pubs/pdf/Beluga%20Coal%20Gasif%20Feasibility%
20Study9_15_06.pdf
Clayton, G. 1980. Biogenic and thermogenic origins of natural gas in Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska. AAPG Vol 64 DOI:
10.1306/2F91944F-16CE-11D7-8645000102C1865D.
Clean Air Task Force. 2009. Coal without carbon: an investment plan for federal action. Boston, MA.
Creedy, DP and K Garner. 2004. Clean energy from underground coal gasification in China. DTI Cleaner Coal
Technology Transfer Program Report No. COAL R250, DTI/Pub URN 03/1611.
Friedmann, SJ, R Upadhye, and F-M Kong. 2009. Prospects for underground coal gasification in a carbon-
constrained world. Energy Procedia 1: 4551-4557.
Goldsmith, S and N Szymoniak. 2009. Energy Analysis: propane from the North Slope - could it reduce energy costs
in the Interior? Institute of Social and Economic Research for Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority.
Anchorage, AK.
Gosnald, WD. 1998. Postgasification thermal regime of the Rocky Mountain I underground coal gasification test
site. Gas Research Institute and US Department of Energy. Washington, DC.
30

Gregg, DW. 1977. Ground subsidence resulting from underground coal gasification. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratories. UCRL-52255. Livermore, CA.
Hurst, S. 2008. Snohvit CO2 storage underway. Petroleum News Vol 13 (21). May 25.
Institute of Social and Economic Research. 2003. Alaska electric power statistics 1960-2001. University of Alaska
Anchorage for Alaska Energy Authority. Anchorage, AK.
Jaramillo, P, WM Griffin, and HS Matthews. 2007. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural
gas, LNG and SNG for electricity generation. Environ Sci and Technol 41:6290-6296.
Keith, DW, JA Giardina, MG Morgan, and EJ Wilson. 2005. Regulating the underground injection of CO2. Environ
Sci and Technol, pp. 499A-507A.
Kharaka, YK, DR Cole, SD Hovorka, WD Gunter, KG Knauss, and BM Freifield. 2006. Gas-water interactions in Frio
Formation following CO
2
injection: implications for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins.
Geology 34 (7): 577-580.
Maev, S. 2008. Development of a UCG based project in Canada. Twenty-fifth annual international Pittsburgh coal
conference. Paper 32-6. Pittsburgh, PA.
Rogut, J. 2008. Hydrogen Oriented Underground Coal Gasification.Twenty-Fifth Annual International Pittsburgh
Coal Conference. Paper 20-3. Pittsburgh, PA
Shafirovich, E and A Varma. 2009. UCG: a brief review of current status. Ind Eng Chem Res Vol 48: 7865-7875.
Shafirovich, E, M Mastalarz, J Rupp and A Varma. 2008. Potential for UCG in Indiana: Phase I report to the Indiana
Center for Coal Technology Research. Purdue University, Indiana.
Simbeck, D. 2002. Carbon separation and capture from energy systems: the forms and costs of separation and
capture. Complements to Kyoto: technologies for controlling CO
2
emissions. National Academy of Engineering.
Washington, DC.
Sturmer, DM, DD LaPointe, JG Price, and RH Hess. 2007. Assessment of the potential for carbon dioxide
sequestration by reactions with rocks in Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Report 52. University of
Nevada, Reno.
Thambimuthu, K et al. 2005. IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage, Chapter 3. International
Panel on Climate Change, 2005.
Walter, K. 2007. Fire in the Hole. Sci Tech Rev, pp. 12-18.
Wilson, EJ, TL Johnson, and DW Keith. 2003. Regulating the ultimate sink: managing the risks of geologic CO
2

storage. Env Sci Technol 37: 3476-3483.

31

Appendix A: UCG reactions and Syngas Reactions
The table below lists the primary reactions found in producing syngas (SNG) or UCG product gas (UCG). The most important
reaction for both is Step 1, the actual transformation of coal into gases. Other reactions either provide the heat to drive the desired
reaction (burning coal) or are reactions to produce a desired product (methane, etc). Adapted from Burton et al 2006, Table 4-1.
Step Reaction Name Chemical reaction Chemical equation UCG SNG Notes
1
Gasification
reaction (Water-
Gas Shift reaction)
Carbon + water
hydrogen and carbon monoxide
C + H
2
O H
2
+ CO x x
main reaction; makes
hydrogen for combustion;
requires heat from steps
5,6
2 Shift conversion
Carbon monoxide + water
hydrogen and carbon dioxide
CO + H
2
O H
2
+ CO
2
x x
react CO to make more
hydrogen
3 Methanation
Carbon monoxide and hydrogen
methane and water
CO + 3 H
2
CH
4
+ H
2
O
side
reaction

increase methane content
of gas; to make hydrogen
from natural gas, reverse
the reactions
4
Hydrogenating
gasification
Carbon + hydrogen
methane
C + 2H
2
CH
4

side
reaction

increase methane content
of gas
5
Partial oxidation
(incomplete
combustion of coal)
Carbon + oxygen
carbon monoxide
C + O
2
CO x
releases heat to drive step
1
6
Oxidation
(complete
combustion of coal)
Carbon + oxygen
carbon dioxide
C + O
2
CO
2
x x
releases heat to drive step
1
7 Boudouard reaction
Carbon + carbon dioxide
carbon monoxide
C + CO
2
2CO
side
reaction

requires heat, provides CO
for steps 2,3
32


Appendix B: Natural Gas Processing
from http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2006/ngprocess/ngprocess.pdf

33

Appendix C: UCG sites worldwide
(all tables are from Burton et al 2006)
International experiments, not including the US or the Former Soviet Union
Dates
Place (Test
Name)
Dur -
ation
(days)
Coal
Gas-
ified
(tons)
Feed
gas
Coal
Seam
Depth
(m)
Auspices/
Comments Original Reference
1982-
1985
Thulin,
Belgium
12 4
air;
mix
of N
2
,
O
2
,
CO
2

860
Institut pour le
Development de
la Gazeification
Souterraine,
Belgium
Chandelle, V, 1986, Overview
About Thulin Field Test,
Proceedings of the Twelfth
Annual Underground Coal
Gasification Symposium,
DOE/FE/60922-H1.
1983-
1984
Initially at
Bruay en
Artois, and
later at La
Haute
Deule,
France
75
0.3 1st
phase
1.5
next
phase
N
2
,
O
2
,
CO
2

880
Groupe d'Etude
de la
Gazeification
Souterraine,
France
(Production well
plugged by
particulates and
tar, terminating
the tests)
Gadelle, C., et al., 1985, Status
of French UCG Field Test at La
Haute Deule, Proceedings of
the Eleventh Annual
Underground Coal Gasification
Symposium, DOE/METC-
85/6028 (DE85013720).
1992-
1999
Province of
Teruel, NE
Spain (El
Tremedal)
550
Spain, UK,
Belgium,
Supported by the
European
Commission,
used CRIP
www.coal-
ucg.com/currentdevelopments2.
html
1980-
present
China, 16
separate
trails *

UCG centre at
China Univ. of
Mining and
Technology,
Beijing.
1990 -
present
Chinchilla,
Queensland,
Australia

1994
Huntley,
New
Zealand

with US technical
assistance
34

Experiments in the Former Soviet Union
Dates
Place (Test
Name)
Dur -
ation
(days)
Coal Gas-
ified (tons)
Coal
seam
Thickness
(m)
Coal
Seam
Depth
(m)
Auspices/
Comments
Original
Reference
1959-1976
Shatsk, Moscow
Basin (Shatskaya
UCG 1)
17 262,030
2 to 4,
average
1.9
30 to
60,
avg
40
Flat bed
Olness,
Dolores, "The
Shatskaya UCG
Station",
UCRL-53229,
1981
1941-1946
Tula, Moscow
Basin
(Podmoskovnaya
UCG 1)
5
Phase 2 was
small-scale
commercial
operation; flat bed
Olness,
Dolores, "The
Podmoskovnaya
UCG Station",
UCRL-53144,
1981
1946-1963
Tula, Moscow
Basin
(Podmoskovnaya
UCG 2)
17
1,647,800
(from 1950
to 1960)
1 to 5 50
Phase 1 R&D;
110 boreholes
drilled, 61 links
(1588 m) using
counter-current
combustion; flat
bed; shut down
1963, partly due
to coal
exhaustion;
production peaked
at 2 billion m3/yr
(0.85 million tons)
Olness,
Dolores, "The
Podmoskovnaya
UCG Station",
UCRL-53144,
1981
production
stopped in
1977
Donets coal
basin
(Lisichansk)

831,604
(from 1950
to 1960)

Steeply dipping
beds; shut down
in 1964, partially
due to coal source
exhaustion
Stephens et al.,
"Underground
Coal Gasification:
Status and
Proposed
Program",
UCRL-53572,
1984; Olness, D
UCRL-50026-80-
1

Siberia (Yuzhno-
Abinsk)

1,735,112
(sporadic
data or
operation,
from 1955 to
1977)

Steeply dipping
beds
Stephens et al.,
"Underground
Coal Gasification:
Status and
Proposed
Program",
UCRL-53572,
1984; Olness, D
UCRL-50026-80-
1
1955 to
present
Tashkent,
Uzbekistan
(Angren)
50 1,040,060 24 250
Flat bed; still
operating

35

Experiments in the US
Dates
Place (Test
Name)
Dur-
ation
(days)
Coal
Gasi-
fied
(tons)
Feed
Gas
Coal
Seam
Depth
(m) Auspices Original Reference
1947 -
1960
Gorgas,
Alabama, US

US Bureau of
Mines
Stephens, D.R., R. W.
Hill, and I. Y. Borg,
1985, Underground Coal
Gasification
Review. Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore,
CA UCRL-92068.
1976
Hoe Creek,
Wyoming,
USA (Hoe
Creek I)
11 123 air LLNL/USDOE
Stephens, D.R., R. W.
Hill, and I. Y. Borg,
1985, Underground Coal
Gasification
Review. Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore,
CA UCRL-92068.


Wang, F.T., Mead, S.W.
and Stuermer, D.H.,
1982c, Mechanisms for
groundwater
contamination by UCG
preliminary
conclusions from the
Hoe Creek study,
Proceedings
of the Eighth
Underground Coal
Conversion Symposium.
1977
Hoe Creek,
Wyoming,
USA (Hoe
Creek IIair-
1)
13 286 air LLNL/USDOE
1977
Hoe Creek,
Wyoming,
USA (Hoe
Creek II-O2)
2 47
Oxy-
gen
LLNL/USDOE
1977
Hoe Creek,
Wyoming,
USA (Hoe
Creek II-air -
2)
43 1155 air LLNL/USDOE
1979
Hoe Creek,
Wyoming,
USA (Hoe
Creek III-air)
7 256 air LLNL/USDOE
1979
Hoe Creek,
Wyoming,
USA (Hoe
Creek III-O2)
47 3251
Oxy-
gen/
steam
LLNL/USDOE
1981-
1982
Centralia,
Washington
(Centralia-
LBK-O2)
20 140
Oxy-
gen/
steam

LLNL/Gas
Research
Institute/USDOE
Stephens, D.R., R. W.
Hill, and I. Y. Borg,
1985, Underground Coal
Gasification
Review. Lawrence
Livermore National
Laboratory, Livermore,
CA UCRL-92068.
1981-
1982
Centralia,
Washington
(Centralia
LBK-air)
Un-
known
Un-
known
air
LLNL/Gas
Research
Institute/USDOE
1983
Centralia,
Washington
(Centralia
CRIP-O2)
28 2000
Oxy-
gen/
steam

LLNL/Gas
Researc
Institute/USDOE
36

Experiments in the US, continued
Dates
Place (Test
Name)
Dur-
ation
(days)
Coal
Gasified
(tons)
Feed
Gas
Coal
Seam
Depth
(m) Auspices
Original
Reference
1973-
1974
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-1)
168 2720 air
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
Stephens, D.R., R.
W. Hill, and I. Y.
Borg, 1985,
Underground Coal
Gasification
Review. Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory,
Livermore, CA
UCRL-92068.
1975
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-II-1A)
37 962
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1975
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-II-1B)
38 780
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1976
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-II-II)
26 2201
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1976
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-II-III)
39 3414
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1977
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-III)
38 2663
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1978
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-IV-A(a))
7 294
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1978
Hanna, Wyoming
LETC-IV-A(b)
48 3184
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1977
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-III)
38 2663
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1978
Hanna, Wyoming
(LETC-IV-A(a))
7 294
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE





37

Experiments in the US, continued
Dates
Place (Test
Name)
Dur-
ation
(days)
Coal
Gasified
(tons)
Feed
Gas
Coal
Seam
Depth
(m) Auspices
Original
Reference
1977
Hanna,
Wyoming
(LETC-III)
38 2,663
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
Stephens, D.R.,
R. W. Hill, and
I. Y. Borg,
1985,
Underground
Coal
Gasification
Review.
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory,
Livermore, CA
UCRL-92068.
1978
Hanna,
Wyoming
(LETC-IV-A(a))
7 294
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1978
Hanna,
Wyoming
LETC-IV-A(b)
48 3,184
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1979
Hanna,
Wyoming
LETC-IV-B(a)
7 468
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1979
Hanna,
Wyoming (LTC-
IV-B(b))
16 663
Laramie Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1979
Princetown, W.
Virginia
(METC-1)
17 234
Morgantown Energy
Technology
Center/USDOE
1979
Rawlins, Carbon
County,
Wyoming
(GRD-I-air)
30 1,207 air
Gulf Research and
Development
Company/USDOE
1979
Rawlins, Carbon
County,
Wyoming
(GRD-I-O2)
5 125
Oxy-
gen

Gulf Research and
Development
Company/USDOE
1979
Rawlins, Carbon
County,
Wyoming
(GRD-I-O2)
5 125
Oxy-
gen

Gulf Research and
Development
Company/USDOE
1981
Rawlins, Carbon
County,
Wyoming
(GRD-II-O2)
66 8,550
Oxy-
gen

Gulf Research and
Development
Company/USDOE
38

Experiments in the US, continued
Dates
Place (Test
Name)
Duration
(days)
Coal
Gasified
(tons) Feed Gas
Coal
Seam
Depth
(m) Auspices
Original
Reference
1976
Fairfield,
Texas (BRI-I)
26
Basic Resources,
Inc. (privately
funded)
Stephens, D.R.,
R. W. Hill, and I.
Y. Borg, 1985,
Underground
Coal Gasification
Review.
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory,
Livermore, CA
UCRL-92068.
1978-
1979
Tennessee
Colony, Texas
(BRI-IIa)
197 4500 air
Basic Resources,
Inc. (privately
funded)
1978-
1979
Tennessee
Colony, Texas
(BRI-IIb)
10 212 Oxygen
Basic Resources,
Inc. (privately
funded)
1978
Reno
Junction,
Wyoming
(ARCO-I)
60 3600
Atlantic Richfield
Company
(privately funded)
1977
College
Station, Texas
(TAM-I)
1 2
Texas A&M
University
Industrial
Consortium
(privately funded)
1979
Bastrop
County, Texas
(TAM-II)
2 Unknown
Texas A&M
University
Industrial
Consortium
(privately funded)
1980
Bastrop
County, Texas
(TAM-III)
Un-
known
Unknown
Texas A&M
University
Industrial
Consortium
(privately funded)
1987-
1988
Hanna,
Wyoming
(Rocky Mt.)
(RM1-ELW)
(extended link
well)
40 4,100 Oxygen/steam 10
Gas Research
Institute and
METC (USDOE)
GRI Report
GRI-90/008;
Thorsness, C.B.,
and Britten, J.A.,
1989, Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory
Underground
Coal Gasification
Project: Final
Report.
Lawrence
Livermore
National
Laboratory,
Livermore, CA.
UCRL-21853.
1987-
1988
Hanna,
Wyoming
(Rocky Mt.)
(CRIP-ELW)
93 11,400 Oxygen/steam 10
Gas Research
Institute and
METC (USDOE)

39

Appendix D: Water Analysis at Contaminated UCG Sites
Groundwater Quality UCG Hoe Creek I, from Campbell et al 1979
40

Water analysis in the burn cavity before and after a UCG burn at a small Texas site, from
Humenick, MJ and CF Mattox. 1977. Groundwater pollutants from underground coal
gasification. Wat Research 12: 463-469