Erguendo Pilares para o Desenvolvimento

DIVISÃO DE ENGENHARIA
ENGENHARIA DE PROCESSAMENTO MINER0AL
PLANIFICACAO MINEIRA II
1˚ TRABALHO
2° Ano Turma Única/Curso Noturno

TEMA:

Discentes: Gerson Xavier Pacule

Sarande da Virginia Luis
Tinache Baptista Sande Creve.

Docente:
A degradação do solo, definida por Poch & Martinez-Casasnova (2002) como o declínio
na sua qualidade causado pelo uso impróprio pelo homem, resulta em diminuição ou,
mesmo, perda da sua capacidade de desempenhar as funções que lhe são naturalmente
devidas ou designadas. O ponto básico refere-se à diminuição da qualidade da estrutura
do solo, podendo ocorrer tanto em superfície, com o aparecimento de finas crostas,
quanto em subsuperfície, sob a camada arável, com o surgimento de camadas
compactadas, resultando em menores taxas de infiltração de água e maiores de
escoamento superficial e de erosão, o que irá acelerar mais ainda o processo de
degradação do solo.

A erosão é a mais extensiva e preocupante das oito categorias de degradação antrópica

do solo estabelecidas (Hudson, 1995), já que as taxas de desgaste e remoção de solo
pela erosão podem superar infinitamente as taxas (naturais e artificiais) de renovação e
reposição superficial de solo. Excetuando a erosão, a degradação essencialmente física
do solo (sem perda de solo) é a mais fácil e rápida de ser causada e a mais difícil e
demorada de ser revertida, especialmente quando as taxas de decomposição dos restos
vegetais superam as de reposição, fazendo com que cada vez mais diminua o teor de
matéria orgânica e, em decorrência, cada vez menos as plantas respondam às funções do
solo.

Assim, práticas selecionadas de manejo aumentam o teor de matéria orgânica no solo e

melhoram sua estrutura como um todo, incluindo propriedades físicas (densidade do
solo, resistência à penetração de raízes, estabilidade de agregados, porosidade e retenção
de água), químicas e biológicas, o que irá favorecer o crescimento das plantas,
refletindo em maior rendimento das culturas (Mielniczuk & Schneider, 1984;
Schjonning & Christensen, 1994; Kay, 1998; Mallory & Porter, 2007; Riley et al.,
2008). Assim, práticas que buscam o aporte contínuo e abundante de matéria orgânica
ao solo, associadas a métodos conservacionistas de preparo, são de fundamental
importância na recuperação de solos fisicamente degradados.

Underground mining

Direct changes of underground mining areas are caused by extracLion and processing
plants as well as waste dumps and tailings. The biggest disturbance of relief, water
relations, ecological and economic conditions appears in subsidence pits which are a
feature of some underground workings. Vertical and horizontal movement of rocks to
the extent of some dozen metres can occur and cause flooding or drainage of soil. This
substantially diminishes the land-use value, eventually making the affected area
completely unfit for reclamation. Soil subsidence poses dangers for all sorts of buildings
and surface and underground installations.

Methane Drainage

Experience in industrialised countries shows that investment in good gas drainage

practices results in less mine downtime due to gassy mine conditions, safer mining
environments, and the opportunity to utilise more gas and reduce mine methane
emissions. Practical gas drainage problems at coal mines can generally be resolved by
applying existing knowledge and techniques. Introducing new or novel technologies
should only be considered after application of good practices, and only if existing
techniques have failed to provide a satisfactory solution. Rigorous testing should
precede introduction of any technology into the mining environment to ensure that
safety is not compromised and best practices are maintained.

Methane Drainage and Its Challenges

The purpose of methane drainage is to capture gas at high purity from its source before
it can enter the mine airways. From a strictly regulatory perspective, only enough gas
needs to be captured to ensure that the capacity of the ventilation air to dilute gaseous
pollutants is not exceeded. However, there is a strong case for maximising gas capture
to achieve enhanced safety, environmental mitigation, and energy recovery

Methane can be captured before and after mining by pre‐ and post‐drainage techniques,
respectively. Pre‐ drainage is the only means of reducing gas flow directly from the
mined seam. For this reason, pre‐ drainage is especially important if the seam being
extracted is the main gas emission source, but it is generally only feasible in seams of
medium to high‐permeability. Post‐drainage methods involve intercepting methane that
has been released by mining disturbance before it can enter a mine airway. Post‐
drainage techniques all involve accessing the zone of disturbance above and also
sometimes below—the worked coal seam. Post‐drainage may involve drilling from the
surface or from underground.

Low capture efficiencies of the drainage system and excessive ingress of air to the mine
workings result from the selection of unsuitable gas drainage methods and from the
poor implementation of these methods. These, in turn, negatively affect both gas
transport and utilisation by producing gas concentrations sometimes at levels that are
not considered safe (e.g., below 30% methane).

The performance of methane drainage systems can be significantly improved through a

combination of proper installation and maintenance, regular monitoring, and systematic
drilling.

There is a strong business case for installing and operating high ‐efficiency methane gas
drainage systems. Successful methane control is a key factor in achieving profitability
of gassy underground coal mines. Based on experiences in coal mines worldwide,
investment in “good practice” gas drainage systems results in less downtime from gas
emission problems, safer mining environments, and the opportunity to utilise more gas
and reduce emissions.

Basic Principles of Methane Drainage Practices Employed Worldwide

Differing geological and mining conditions in the world’s coal basins have resulted in
the development of different methane drainage techniques. Methane drainage methods
are conventionally classified as involving either pre‐drainage or post ‐ drainage
techniques. Pre‐drainage involves removing methane from the seam to be worked in
advance of mining, while post‐drainage involves capturing methane and other gases
released from surrounding seams as a consequence of the strata movement, relaxation,
and increased permeability induced by mining. A summary of the most common
methane drainage methods is provided in Appendix 1. Good practice post ‐drainage
techniques can typically capture 50% to 80% of the total gas from a long wall district in
the absence of unusual geological conditions. 50% gas capture from the entire mine is
an achievable target in most cases. Methane concentrations of 30% and higher should be
achievable using post‐drainage systems in all but the most challenging mining
conditions, and concentrations of 60% and higher should be achievable from pre‐
drainage methods.

(Courtesy of Raven Ridge Resources, Incorporated)

Fig.1. Schematic of Pre‐Mine Drainage from Lateral Wells Drilled from the
Surface

For shallow to medium‐depth seams of high permeability (> 10 mD), hydraulically

stimulated vertical wells drilled from the surface, also known as “frac wells,” have
traditionally been applied to drain methane in advance of mining with good success,
mainly in the United States. Hydro‐fracturing or “fraccing” has been used without
compromising the safety of coal mines located in the Eastern United States, but caution
should be used to determine if the technique is suitable for the specific geologic and
mining conditions before it is employed.
Methane Utilisation and Abatement

Captured CMM is a clean energy resource for which there are a variety of uses. Figure
ES‐1 summarizes the distribution of known CMM projects globally that are operating,
under development, planned, or were operating previously. These figures are based on a
database of more than 240 projects globally, compiled by the Methane to Markets
Partnership. As the figure indicates, power generation, natural gas pipeline injection,
and boilers are the dominant project types (based on number of projects).

Methane that is not captured by the drainage system is diluted in the mine ventilation air
and is emitted to the atmosphere as dilute ventilation air methane (VAM), typically at
concentrations of 1% or less methane. Despite this low concentration, collectively VAM
is the single largest source of mine methane emissions globally. Thermal oxidation
technologies have been introduced at demonstration and commercial scales at several
sites globally (e.g., Australia, China, and the United States) to abate these emissions
(and in one case, to produce electricity from the dilute methane). Other technologies to
mitigate VAM emissions (e.g., catalytic oxidation) are emerging and under
development.

Cost and Economic Issues Effective gas drainage reduces the risks of explosions, and
hence accident risks. Reducing these risks in turn reduces their associated costs. Costs
of methane‐related accidents vary widely from country to country but are significant.
For example, a 10% work stoppage or idling at a given mine due to a gas ‐ related
incident or accident could lead to US $8 million to US $16 million per year in lost
revenues at a typical high‐production longwall mine. Additional costs of a single fatal
accident to a large mining operation could range from US $2 million to more than US
$8 million through lost production, legal costs, compensation, and punitive fines.

At the same time, gas drainage creates an opportunity for gas recovery and utilisation.
Such energy‐ recovery projects can be economical in their own right through sale of the
gas or its conversion to electricity, vehicle fuel, or other valuable gas feedstocks. Gas
recovery and utilisation projects are increasingly also including revenue streams from
carbon emission reduction credits in the form of Verified Emission Reductions (VERs),
Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), or other credits such as emission reduction units
(ERUs). These potential carbon financing options may be a critical factor in making
some CMM utilisation projects economically viable that would be otherwise financially
unattractive. In addition, carbon financing may provide the only revenue streams for
abatement‐only projects, such as VAM oxidation (without energy recovery) or CMM
flaring. VAM can also be used for power generation. At this time, VAM ‐derived
power generation is not commercially feasible without carbon revenues or other
incentives, such as preferential electricity pricing or portfolio standards. Currently,
investment decisions at most mines are likely to favour expansion in coal production
rather than developing CMM utilisation projects (particularly power generation) due to
the high opportunity cost of investing in power generation capital equipment and
infrastructure. To meet environmental protection targets in the future, however, mine
owners may be required to improve gas drainage performance beyond the level strictly
required to meet the mines’ safety needs. Such improvements in the drainage system
that yield relatively high‐quality gas may provide an additional incentive for investment
in gas recovery and utilisation projects.

Design of a gas drainage system

The capacity of a methane drainage system should be designed to accommodate the

maximum expected captured gas mixture (methane and air) flows from all sources in
the mine, including working faces, exhausted faces from which equipment is removed,
and abandoned (closed or sealed) areas.
The expected volume of produced methane gas can be estimated using a methane
prediction method. The highest flow that has to be transported through the piping
network is given by the highest expected captured gas flow with the lowest methane
concentrations (purity) likely to arise during normal operations. The resulting flow rate
should be within the system’s planned capacity when all the pumps are operating. Gas
quality is a design feature of the gas drainage system, not an inherent or natural
characteristic. Gas purity of less than 30% methane in air should be considered
unacceptable for both safety and efficiency reasons.
The maintenance of gas purity in underground drainage systems depends on the quality
of borehole sealing, including proper installation of standpipes, the systematic
regulation of individual boreholes, and the suction pressure applied at the surface
extraction plant. Increasing suction in 28, an effort to increase gas flow will introduce
more air and hence reduce the gas purity. Conversely, reducing suction will reduce the
total mixture flow but improve gas purity. Most importantly, suction and flow at the
surface plant should only be adjusted with a full knowledge of the underground status
and while maintaining communication with the longwall ventilation supervisors.

When planning, implementing, and managing a methane drainage system, the following
factors should be taken into account:
 Safety of access for drilling, monitoring, and regulation.
 Ground stability and necessary support systems to stabilize boreholes.
 Gas drainage borehole configurations, with consideration given to differences
between the expected performance of roof and floor post‐drainage boreholes.
 Drainage capacity, pipe diameters, extraction pump, and infrastructure
requirements.
 Location, installation, and commissioning of the drainage pipe network.
 Water traps and dewatering facilities.
 Operational control and maintenance of the drainage system and infrastructure.
 Monitoring of boreholes, pipe networks, and the surface extraction plant.
 Protection of gas drainage pipes from crushing behind longwall retreat faces.

Monitoring of drainage systems

Gas drainage systems require continuous monitoring and management to determine

effectiveness and performance. Mixture, gas flow and concentration, gauge pressure and
temperature should all be monitored, with measurements made of individual boreholes,
the gas drainage pipework and at the surface. Changes in barometric pressure affect gas
flows and should also be recorded to assist in standardisation of flow data. The data
obtained from monitoring these parameters is essential for safety planning.

Modelling of gas emissions can provide predictive information on the effects of

increased coal production rates on gas flows. Modelling can also forecast the maximum
controllable gas flow and the associated maximum coal production rate, depending upon
methane limits and ventilation quantities
Management of gas at the drill face

VLI established a gas management system at its drill sites in accordance with its own
standard procedures, which included:
• drilling through a standpipe – a gland driven into the wall face and grouted into
position as a permanent access point to the borehole; • using valves connected to the
standpipe to divert the flow of water and/or gas while drilling, and contain or divert the
water and/or gas after drilling;
• using a stuffing box, which prevents gas or water from the borehole from entering the
mine’s atmosphere, enabling it to be diverted to a gas/water separator; and
• using a gas/water separator to assist with managing the flow of gas from the borehole
and directing it through a T-piece into the mine’s gas drainage line, or free venting the
gas into the return ventilation system, in accordance with Pike’s instructions

Mine Ventilation
Mine ventilation systems are critical components of an overall system to effectively
remove methane from mine workings. A mine ventilation system is designed to achieve
three objectives: 1) deliver breathable fresh air to the workers, 2) control mine air
temperature and humidity, and 3) effectively dilute or remove hazardous gases and
airborne respirable dust.
Improvements to methane drainage systems can often provide a more rapid and cost‐
effective solution to mine gas problems than simply increasing the mine’s air supply.

Conclusions

A holistic approach to managing methane releases into coal mine workings and
subsequent emissions into the atmosphere will have a number of beneficial impacts on
overall mine safety, mine productivity, and environmental impacts, particularly with
regard to GHG emissions.

• Global application of the accumulated knowledge on methane occurrence, prediction,

control, and management that is currently available will improve mine safety.
Implementation of good practices for methane drainage could substantially reduce
explosion risks resulting from methane in coal mines.
• There is a strong business case for installing and operating high ‐efficiency gas
drainage systems based on their contributions to increase mine productivity. Because
such systems will increase the availability of good‐quality CMM, there can also be a
strong business case for exploiting and recovering energy from the captured gas.

• Emissions of methane, an important GHG, from underground coal mines can be

significantly reduced by utilising the drained gas, flaring the gas that cannot be used,
and mitigating VAM emissions by oxidation.

Underground gasification

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is an in situ technique to recover the fuel or

feedstock value of coal that is not economically available through conventional
recovery technologies. First tentative works directed toward the utilization of the in situ
method of gasification under conditions of Northern Bohemian brown-coal basin date
back to 1956 in formerly Czechoslovakia. 6 experiments of UCG were realized later.
The obtained results did not confirm the technological assumptions of gasification
especially regarding the quality of the gas recovered. The average heating capacity
reached the value from 1.59 – 3.44 MJ.m-3. Today, similarly all other countries in the
world, in Slovakia there is an interest in the revival and perfection of the UCG
technology. In this paper it is described a laboratory plant including monitoring and
controlling system and some reached results. During these experiments were find out
that the gasification process depends on many factors/parameters. Most the important
are topologies/methods, humidity of coal, heat losses, temperatures in relevant zones,
composition of oxidation agents and permeability. The calorific value of syngas is 2 - 5
MJ.m-3 if the oxidation agent was used air only. In case of using the air + oxygen mix
the calorific value to 10 MJ.m-3 has been obtained.
Introduction
Coal is our most abundant fossil fuel. While oil and natural gas account for 64 percent
of the world’s energy consumption, they total only 31 percent of the world’s known
fossil fuel reserves. Today, less than one sixth of the world’s coal is economically
accessible. In present time most coal is extracted by classical mining technology. In
general, the disadvantages of classical mining (high cost, dangerous work, problems
with ecology,…) are well known. Therefore, other technologies are permanently
investigated all over the world. They are known as underground technologies. They aim
at transforming the coal energy from the solid phase to the liquid or gas phase which
makes it possible to extract and transport it to the surface more effectively. Clean coal
technologies, among which belongs also underground coal gasification, can be defined
as those technologies which improve the environmental acceptability of coal extraction,
preparation, and utilization. Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is an in situ
technique to recover the fuel or feedstock value of coal that is not economically
available through conventional recovery technologies. Although coal is the most
plentiful fossil fuel, only a small fraction of the potential coal reserves can by
economically accessed through the shaft or strip mining.

The idea of UCG is not new. As early as 1867 Wilhelm Siemens designed the first
underground generator. The well-known chemist Dimitri Mendeleyev came up with the
same idea in 1862. The basis of underground gasification is the creation of several drill
holes into the coal bed, where, after ignition of the coal, one drill hole serves for feeding
the oxidants (air, oxygen, water steam). Gradually, three zones are created (oxidizing,
reduction, pyrolysis/drying) and the created gas is conducted through a second, so-
called production drill hole to the surface of the bed. The control of the gasification
process is the most important step of the entire technology and is developed continually.
Our research concentrates upon the control and topology ( methods) of the gasification
process with the aim of obtaining gas with a maximum heating capacity.

Conclusion

Underground gasification is one of alternatives how to provide energy from coal

supplies that are economically inaccessible with present-time methods of underground
mining. Alternatively, this technology can be used to recover energy from spent coal
mines because there are still large volumes of coal not mined for technological reasons.
During the last 50 years, the technology of underground gasification was able to
increase at least threefold the heating capacity of the mined syngas. A necessary
condition for its application, however, is the economic efficiency and profitability. The
costs for its realization are not small. Therefore, the current efforts are directed toward
achieving as much knowledge as possible about efficient methods of gasification,
optimum control and maximum recovery of energy from coal. Therefore, the laboratory
research with its unique role should be performed before the testing experiment and
after a successful verification of specific technology (depending on the type, structure
and hydrogeology of the coal deposit) on a real deposit can a potential industrial
realization be carried out.