UCG prospect of Bangladesh

Arup Kumar Biswas

PhD candidate

Prince of Songkla University

Hat Yai, Songkhla 90110

Thailand

December 2019

i
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Preface
Very significant portion of Bangladesh coal remains inaccessible due to various issues of adoption of
proper mining method and unprecedented techno-economic feasibility assessment. Hence, an evaluation
for the suitability of coal gasification method is a timely demand as a sustainable solution from
geological-engineering perspective considering both socio-economic and environmental factors. It’s high
time for Bangladesh to come forward with a viable coal resource development strategy for tackling the
prevailing energy shortage. Presumably, Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) can be a very much
viable clean coal technology for this country. UCG can be also developed as an integrated carbon
utilization concept based on the coupled UCG-CCUS process.

1.2 Background and rationale of study

1.2.1 UCG in brief
Underground coal gasification (UCG) is an industrial method of harnessing energy from coal being an
alternative to conventional underground mining for seemingly un-mineable coal (from the point of
uneconomical, especially those which are too deep, low grade, or very thin) with minimal surface
disturbance. This process converts coal into high quality yet a low-cost synthesis gas/fuel through partial
oxidation. It involves drilling of injection and production wells from surface to the target coal seam
followed by creating a highly permeable channel between those two wells to develop a flow-path within
the coal seam. The process requires injecting steam and an oxidant (either pure oxygen or air) which are
the only feed materials to sustain the gasification process, and their effective proportion maneuvers the
gasification performance [1]. As coal is not dug out of the subsurface, ash remains underground. The
UCG objective is to produce a syngas with a high percentage of CO and H 2, while the coal geology and
the gasification parameters have high impact on the composition. The product gas (containing H 2, CO
and CO2 with minor quantities of CH4, higher hydrocarbons, traces of tars and pollutants) can be used as
a feedstock for chemical products like hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, fertilizers, and synthetic natural
gas, or to produce electricity by combustion in a gas turbine (Figure 1-2). Even produced tars can also be
used for oil and chemical manufacture. Fracturing and cracks develop in surrounding rocks around the
gasification zone during the gasification process leading to a cavity formation in the underground. The
gasification process performance can be quantified by the product gas heating value of and the resource
recovery for a given injection and production well configuration in that coal seam [2]. A schematic
diagram is presented in Figure 1-1.

Page 2 of 23
 Figure 1-1: Simplified diagram of underground coal gasification

Figure 1-2: Applications of syngas/producer gas obtained from UCG.

1.2.2 Bangladesh energy perspective and Coal Demand/ Supply Scenario

The energy demand of the country is continuously growing to support the development of infrastructure
under the shade of a fast pacing GDP – 6.5 in 2015, 7.1 in 2016, 7.28 in 2017, 7.864 in 2018 (source:
World Bank). The energy sector is the driving force behind this prosperity. Unfortunately among the
indigenous sources of energy (Natural gas and coal only), natural gas is depleting very fast. According to
Hydrocarbon Unit (November, 2019) report, 16.93 Tcf (Trillion Cubic feet) gas has already been
consumed from the recoverable 28.69 Tcf reserves leaving only 11.73 Tcf, while annual consumption
has reached almost 1 Tcf which is likely to rise for keeping up with the national demand. To supplement
energy sources, from 2018, expensive LNG (Liquefied Natural Gas) is being imported to feed the
growing industrial demand. Almost all the petroleum products (fuel oil, crude oil, lubricants etc.) are
imported. After all the above options, coal based industry (mainly power plants) are coming into light in
the recent years. So coal demand is also increasing very rapidly leaving the only available option of
importing for immediate necessity. Moreover, for fulfilling the SDG agenda by 2030 and Bangladesh
Vision by 2041 (to be a developed country) energy targets have been set, where 50% of the total energy
demand (among other options like gas, fuel oil, renewable energy, nuclear energy, imported electricity
etc.) will be met by coal alone (Source: PSMP 2016). Matter of fact is that most of the coal supply is
planned through importation (Table 1-1). While energy security is a worldwide concern, this dependency
on import is a grave concern for the nation.

Page 3 of 23
 Table 1-1: Projection of Coal usage potential in Bangladesh
2015* 2018** 2019** 2030* 2041*
Demand (Million Tons) 1.7 4.3 6.5 27.2 71.2
Domestic 1 0.92 0.80 6.2 11.2
Supply (Million Tons) Import 0.7 3.39 5.75 21.0 60
Total Supply 1.7 4.3 6.5 27.2 71.2
Source: * Power Sector Master Plan (PSMP) 2016
** Hydrocarbon Unit database 2018-19

1.2.3 Moving towards a sustainable coal extraction strategy, preferably

unconventional
Bangladesh needs a well postulated, yet long visionary national energy policy where coal will have the
key role. There are five major discovered Gondwana coalfields (namely Barapukuria, Khalaspir,
Phulbari, Jamalganj and Dighipara) at southern slope of Rangpur saddle in Bangladesh (Figure 1-3). The
cumulative reserves of coal (Bituminous Coal) is about 8 billion tones which is equivalent to more than
200 Tcf gas. Large reserves of indigenous coal in Bangladesh has the potential to provide security of
future energy supplies long after Bangladesh oil and natural gas reserves are exhausted. If vigorous
initiatives are taken for extensive exploration all over the country, more prospective coal mines are
thought to be discovered. Out of the discovered mines, coal from four deposits (118-509 meters) except
Jamalganj is extractable at present by conventional methods (i.e., Underground or opencast mining). In
fact, Underground mining operation is only being held in Barapukuria coal field since 2005. However
the extraction of these coal reserves are currently problematic while these are going through different
stages of techno-economic feasibility studies and awaiting any kind of suitable mining operation to be
undertaken [3].

Page 4 of 23
 Figure 1-3: Existing and possible coal regional map of Bangladesh; adopted from [4]

Jamalganj coal basin is the largest coal basin of Bangladesh with around 5.45 Billion tons of coal
(equivalents to about 130 Tcf gas). Production from Jamalganj may not be viable with any of those
abovementioned technology due to the depth of the deposits. Hence, a sustainable method of extracting
this huge energy resource of Bangladesh from techno-economic, social and environmental perspective
should be undertaken immediately to serve the country’s best interest in alleviating any energy and
power shortage. Because of its deep burial, this has become problematic for developing any traditional
method like Underground coal mining. But quite intriguingly, this particular problem offers interest to
develop unconventional method like UCG especially for the deep seated coal seams of Jamalganj where
environmental issues like the aquifer contamination or subsidence can be avoided/minimized and
coupling of gasification process with CCUS specifically becomes lucrative.

Page 5 of 23
 Table 1-2: Coal Fields of Bangladesh
Place/Field Depth Area Reserve
(Discovery Year) (Meter) (Sq. Km) (Million Ton)
Barapukuria, Dinajpur (1985) 118-509 6.68 390
Khalaspir, Rangpur (1989) 257-483 12.00 685
Phulbari, Dinajpur (1997) 150-240 30.00 572
Jamalganj, Joypurhat (1962) 640-1158 16.00 5450
Dighipara, Dinajpur (1995) 328-407 15.00 865
Total Reserve (IN MILLION MT) 0
Source: BCMCL [5], AEC, GSB

1.2.4 The sustainable solution- UCG concept

For finding out a sustainable solution for harnessing the energy from coal, firstly the available
unconventional exploitation techniques for coal energy can be listed as follows-

 Coal Bed Methane (CBM) / Coal Seam Gas (CSG),

 Underground Coal Gasification (UCG),
 Borehole Mining (research phase),
 Biotechnology in coal reserve (R&D phase) etc.

While coal cannot be physically extracted, underground coal gasification (UCG) deserve to be
considered as an energy option, given the condition that the recovery of Coal Bed Methane (CBM) has
been deemed non-potential for the largest coalfield (Jamalganj) of Bangladesh [6]. A comprehensive
study of Jamalganj Coalfield under the title “Consultancy Services for Drilling and Testing of Core
Holes for Feasibility Study for the Extraction of Coal Bed Methane at Jamalganj” was conducted in 2016
by Petrobangla (Bangladesh) through engaging a consultancy firm- Mining Associates Pvt. Ltd.
(MAPL), India.

Before this, in absence of suitable data from Jamalganj coalfield, adjacent Khalaspir and Barapukuria
coal adsorption isotherm data were used to estimate theoretical maximum gas content. Henceforth, major
unknown factors of the coal deposit such as actual gas content of coal, composition of gas, coal seam
permeability and in-seam coal pressure have been known. The reserve estimates have been reviewed and
greatly enhanced (only 1 billion ton before 2016 study, now 5.45 billion tons).

Apparently the favorable chemical properties of high-volatile bituminous (HV-B type) coal in Jamalganj
deposit is very much suitable for UCG development in terms of depth of occurrence, seam thickness,
reserve of coal, areal coverage and a workable overburden.

Secondly, the sustainability of UCG technique, can be discussed through identifying its pros and cons
from a liberal viewpoint-

UCG has the potential to radically increase the existing recoverable coal reserves by adding those
resources which were otherwise thought to be uneconomical through conventional mining techniques
i.e., opencast or underground. UCG needs much smaller setup, thereby lowers the capital investment
because of no surface gasification units, only injection and production wells drilled from the surface,
mostly like those used in the oil and gas industry. After almost a century of laboratory and trial (pilot in-
situ tests) experiences, demonstrated UCG techniques have revealed that it is possible to use the energy
stored in the coal in an economic as well as environmentally sensitive way [1], [7]–[10], as such -

 High quality yet a low-cost synthesis gas/fuel can be produced in the scenario of rising global
energy value.

Page 6 of 23
  Apparently un-mineable coal (from the point of uneconomical, especially those which are too
deep, low grade, or very thin) can utilized with minimal surface disturbance/ footprint; hence
reclamation expenses are low.
 As coal is not dug out of the subsurface, ash remains underground.
 Possibility of geological carbon storage (GCS) for CO 2 sequestration.
 Nullify the fatalities associated to conventional coal mining activities, considering this issue
alone UCG can be the safest energy harness process.
 Coupling of UCG to electricity production is seemingly profitable both from economic and
environmental view point, especially in deep-seated coal deposit of Jamalganj, where the major
concerns of interference with groundwater or surface subsidence are likely to be removed.
Moreover, CO2 emission is less while UCG is united with a combined cycle power plant
comparing the standard coal based power generation.

Thus, for large-scale gas production, UCG technique bears very high hope [10]. Nevertheless, before
adoption of a large scale UCG enterprise, the potential setbacks should be properly addressed. The prime
challenges lie in UCG process stability, possibility of adjacent groundwater pollution, and surface
subsidence, which can be minimized by selecting the site carefully and adopting the best operational
management practices [8], [10].

From all aspects, regarding geological, engineering or environmental, Jamalganj coal basin is likely to
have the potential for underground coal gasification which needs to undergo a detailed study programme
for further appraisal.

Page 7 of 23
Chapter 2. Literature Review
2.1 Governing factors and important considerations of UCG
2.1.1 UCG extraction methods
Two methods for gasifying underground coal have been evolved since the dawn of UCG technology-
shaft and shaftless [11].

 Shaft methods-
o Long and large tunnel (LLT) gasification method
o Stream method
o Borehole producer method
o Chamber or warehouse method
 Shaftless methods-
o Controlled retractable injection point (CRIP)
o Linked vertical well (LVW) method
o Steeply dipping seams (SDS)

After a number of experimentation over the years of all the above-mentioned techniques, three standard
well configurations have been widely accepted - LVW, CRIP and SDS (Figure 2-1). The most familiar
techniques to be applied are variants of the CRIP (Controlled Retracting Injection Point) technique
involving Linear-CRIP and Parallel-CRIP, directionally drilled wells, etc. The LVW is more appropriate
for shallower (<300 m) coal seams, as the grid of regularly spaced wells requires excessive drilling,
while for deeper seams the directionally drilled CRIP-type systems are best suited, where the higher cost
of the wells can be justified due to less number of wells required [12].

Figure 2-4: Most familiar UCG designs: (a) LVW (b) CRIP (c) SDS. Adopted from [13]

2.1.2 Fundamental chemical reactions

The chemical processes (i.e., drying, pyrolysis, combustion and gasification) occurring in the
underground gasifier can be simplified into three zones - oxidation, reduction and pyrolysis (Figure 2-2)
[14], [15]. The oxidation (combustion) zone surrounds the release point of the oxidant source (around
the injection well), where the heat is generated and temperature can rise beyond 1400°C. The oxygen
content is decreased farther from the injection well and reducing conditions start dominating into the
second zone. H2O(g) and CO2 are reduced to H2 and CO under high temperature effect in the reduction

Page 8 of 23
zone. Farther form this zone, temperature is dropped after the endothermic reactions in the reduction
zone, leading the gas contents to flow into the destructive distillation and dry zone (200°C to ~550°C).
Hereby the main physical changes taken place, are dewatering, cracking, absorption and contraction of
coal with high water content.

Figure 2-5: In-situ underground gasification process schema (modified after [16] & LLNL)

Most of the chemical reactions take place at the cavity wall in a thin zone at several key stages as
follows. Main reactions involved in coal gasification processes along with their kinetics have been
detailed out by [15].

Drying (Evaporation) – In the drying process, surface water in wet coal vaporizes and coal becomes
more porous. The only reaction associated with this process is converting the wet coal to dry coal and
water [17]
Wet Coal → Dry Coal+ H2O ------------- (1)
On the other hand, a series of heterogeneous and homogenous chemical reactions happen during the
pyrolysis, char combustion and gasification processes. The following pyrolysis reaction occurs in the
process:
Dry Coal → 4.63 Char + 0.12 CO + 0.18 CO2 + 0.43 H2 + 0.79 CH4 , ∆H0298 = 0 kJ/gmole

The stoichiometry coefficients in this reaction are obtained from [13]

Pyrolysis - When the dry coal is further heated, pyrolysis begins at temperatures around 350°–400°C,
char is formed by releasing the volatiles (Hydrocarbons, CH 4, H2, H2O, CO, CO2).
Coal → Char + Ash + Volatiles ----------- (2)
The pyrolysis takes place at the cavity boundary, just along the drying front. Then the released gaseous
species move into open cavity to take part in the following reactions.
Oxidation - The char (C) and volatiles react with injected oxygen in the combustion chamber,
C +O2 → CO2 --------------------------------- (3)
2C +O2 → 2CO ------------------------------- (4)
No. 3 & 4 are coal combustion exothermic reactions which exert essential heat to initiate the successive
endothermic processes. For that purpose, limited oxygen is injected into the gasification chamber.

Page 9 of 23
Oxidation reactions mainly happen within the cavity, because oxidants are released and consumed near
the injection point.
Gasification - The basic gasification reaction is steam gasification happening mainly within the char
layer at the cavity wall.
C +H2O → H2 + CO -------------------------- (5)

Subject to the cavity conditions some side reactions also take place, which can improve the methane and
hydrogen content in the product gas.
(Methanation) C + 2H2 → CH4 ------------------------------- (6)
CO + 3H2 → CH4 +H2O ---------------------- (7)
(CO2 gasification) C + CO2 → 2CO ------------------------------- (8)
(Water-gas shift) CO +H2O ↔ H2 + CO2 ----------------------- (9)

The overall process of UCG is intensely exothermic as such burn zone temperatures frequently exceed
900°C. Notwithstanding at the end of the gasification process, after sufficient cooling (by conductive and
convective heat loss respectively to surrounding strata and native groundwater), product syngas is
usually flown into the production well at 200°C-400°C. The production rate of preferred syngas is
determined by the reactivity of the char to O 2, H2O, CO2, and [18]. The desired composition of the gas
can be adjusted (to some extent) through adjusting the oxidants’ feed rate and other operational
parameters. Several phenomena take place simultaneously within the cavity i.e., reactive transport,
turbulence, radiative heating, etc., making the whole process of gas flow very complex. Moreover, a
rubble zone is also formed at the cavity floor, making the scenario more critical.
2.1.3 Syngas composition
UCG derived raw dry gas mainly contains H 2, CO and CO2 with minor quantities of CH4, higher
hydrocarbons as well as some traces of tars and pollutants, among which CO, H 2, CH4 and higher
hydrocarbons are considered as good value product gases. The typical constituents in UCG derived
syngas are [19]-

The product gas composition can change significantly due to several governing factors, such as, the
proportion of oxidant (oxygen/air and steam) used, water intake rate, operating pressure, the mass and
energy balance in the gasification chamber, etc. [7]

2.1.3.1 Oxidant selection

Practically just as surface coal gasification, for the feed gas either oxygen or air can be used for UCG.
The calorific value of the produced syngas is determined by the gasifier atmosphere. Syngas of lower
heating value (approximately ⅛ of natural gas) is produced, when air is used as gasifying agent, because
of syngas dilution by the N2 content in air [20]. While syngas of medium calorific value is obtained, if
steam or a combination of steam-oxygen is used. By adding steam in the process of combustion the
carbon-oxygen system balance is changed to carbon-oxygen-steam system balance. The oxygen-steam
gasification exploits the excess heat to magnify the process’s energy efficiency. Furthermore this
multiplies the volume of produced gas as well as drops the oxygen consumption rate per ton of coal [14].

Page 10 of 23
L. H. Yang et al. (2009) studied the role of pure oxygen and oxygen-steam on the underground
gasification process and gas quality. The relationship between gas compositions with changing
steam/oxygen ratios is shown in Figure 2-3. It was found that with the rising steam/oxygen ratio, the
volume of steam is increased, the H 2 content is improved, the CO content is dropped, and the CH 4
content is slightly heightened [20].

Figure 2-6: Change in Gas composition due to varying ratio of steam/oxygen [20]

2.1.3.2 Water intake rate

The water intake rate largely depends on the permeability of surrounding rocks and the regional
hydrostatic water head. The calorific value of product gas is decreased if the amount of water inrush is
comparatively higher. Figure 2-4 exhibits that the proper water intake rate could escalate the heating
value of gas as well as H 2 content in it. It was found that the appropriate water-injection rate could be
0.3–0.4 kg/kg coal for a continuous and stable producing gas phase [21].

Figure 2-7: Changes in gas composition and heat value due to varying water-intake rate [21]

2.1.3.3 Operating pressure

The changes in operating pressure can greatly influence the underground gasification process. L. H.
Yang (2008) experimented anthracite coal gasification under constant pressure and cyclically changing
pressure and conferred that under the condition the gasification process is significantly enhanced. The
heat loss is reduced by 60%; heat efficiency is improved by approximately 1.4 times and gasification
efficiency about twice from that of a constant pressure situation, and product gas heat value is increased
by 100% [21].

Page 11 of 23
Presumably, the operating pressure is increased by ~1MPa (~10 bar) in each 100 m depth. General
practice is to keep the operating pressure below surrounding formation pressure during and after
operations to diminish outflow of pyrolyzed gases. This also facilitates influx of groundwater towards
the cavity so that the gasification process has sufficient water to produce CO and H 2 via the steam
gasification reaction.

1.1.1 Depth of burial of coal and Thickness of coal seams

Depth factor is very significant. Deeper seams require higher drilling costs for directional drilling and
linking the injection and production well. Those also need higher injection and operating pressure, as the
operating pressure of the gasifier is limited to the hydraulic head at the coal seam [12] and expenses
grow for any following pump-and-treat works. But there are also some positive aspects. Deeper seams
are usually not linked to potable aquifers, thus it is less likely to interfere with other groundwater users,
either by polluting or depleting water near the coal seam. Besides, additional compression may become
unnecessary if product gas is used in gas turbines. Any possibility of surface subsidence is greatly
decreased due to increase of extraction depth [8], [12]. Thus, depth of coal resources development is also
associated to environmental concern.

The thicker the coal seam, the better and no discontinuity is preferable [12]; in this case, fewer wells are
required, thus drilling cost is reduced. Considerable heat losses occur in case of thinner seams less than 2
m thick resulting low thermal efficiency and lower quality product gas [8].

Figure 2-8: Influence of seam thickness and depth in UCG projects worldwide; after [7]

Jamalganj coal deposit is distributed among 7 seams with varying thickness from as minimum as ~1m to
very thick of about 46m. Some of them (seam III, IV & seam VII) are widely developed throughout the
whole extent and very thick regarding world standard and also in respect of lateral continuity. Especially
seam III is attributed to highly thick (up to 46 m encountered in one drilled hole). Depth of coal seams in
Jamalganj ranges is ~636 m to 1146 meters from the surface, as listed in different literatures [6], [22].

Page 12 of 23
 2.1.4 Coal composition & calorific values with varying rank

Figure 2-9: Peat to Coal formation schematic (source: http://www.apsense.com/article/coal-biomass-

coal-ranks-coal-gasification-encyclopedia.html)

The four main types, or ranks, of coal are:

 Lignite
The youngest coal type commonly known as "brown coal," with the lowest energy content, containing
between 25 % and 35 % carbon. Lignite usually has not been subjected to the extreme temperatures and
pressures. It has typically a high moisture content, and usually burned in power plants for electricity
generation.
 Sub-bituminous
It has higher energy content than lignite, containing between 35-45 % carbon. In general, around 100
million years of extreme temperature and pressure condition have created this type of coal.
 Bituminous
It has 45-86 % carbon, containing higher heating value than sub-bituminous. High heat and pressure and
between 100 and 300 million years are required to produce this type of coal. Bituminous coal is used for
electricity production and in the steel and iron industries.
 Anthracite
Anthracite contains 86-97 % carbon but has a slightly lower heating value than does bituminous coal.

Figure 2-10: Coal of different ranks with CV, VM & FC (Source: https://www.uky.edu/KGS/coal/coal-
rank.php)

Page 13 of 23
 Figure 2-11: Coal composition based on classification table of Regnault-Gruner-Brosquet system

Surface plants can gasify any ranks of coal (from lignite to anthracite) and UCG operations have been
tested for all. Low rank coals (i.e., lignite and sub-bituminous) seem to be easily gasified in-situ. There
had been one test of UCG in anthracite in the former U.S.S.R, which did not succeed. Probably UCG is
better for coals of lower ranks, as they usually shrink while heated, thereby improves the permeability
connecting the injection and production wells [8]. Contrarily, high rank coals are less porous, less
reactive and have lower moisture and volatile matter contents than low rank coals [15]. Bituminous coals
usually tend to swell. Several researchers [3], [7] inferred that high rank coal is difficult to ignite and to
limit the risk of blockages, swelling bituminous coals required careful scheme for UCG development.
Moreover, lower volatile matter containing bituminous coal yields gas of less heating value.

In the region of interest the coal rank is typically high volatile bituminous with minimal swell, which
classes it as suitable for UCG. Generally, upper seams of Jamalganj coal basin exhibits bituminous coals
HV-B (high-volatile bituminous) type and low in ash, but lower seams are High rank Medium Volatile
in nature [6].

2.1.5 Coal Permeability

Coal permeability might be crucial for determining flow of gas within coal seams. The cleat system is
very important for permeability in coal seams. Naturally if depth increases, coal permeability decreases,
which is evident in case of Jamalganj coal field [6]. From 2016 exploration conducted by Petrobangla,
Jamalganj coal was found highly cleated, fractured resulting good permeability (seam II at ~750m depth
has 121 mD, while for seam IV to VII at depth range from ~1000m to ~1100m it varies from 3-6 mD
which is also sufficient permeability) to let the gas flow uninterruptedly. Moreover, during EDH-14
borehole drilling, mud loss was observed which is an indication of good permeability of these coal [22].
Even after the permeability of a coal seam is found very low, hydro-fracking can be employed to
increase gas flow within the seam.

2.1.6 Roof properties

A significant factor for selecting a potential UCG target seam is structurally robust overburden with low
permeability and essentially dry rock to reduce loss of heat and product gas leakage through overlying
strata. The roof formation has vital significance in that the overburden with low permeability restricts
water influx in to the gasification zone and minimizes gas loss.

Page 14 of 23
The coals have about 150-200m cover of hard, impervious Gondwana sandstone and unlike Barapukuria,
chances of water influx would be less. The hard, compact sandstone cover rock would also offer less
chances of roof fall during mining [6].

The sandstones over the roof of the coal seams are effectively impermeable as these are highly
compacted and cemented, especially because of kaolinitic cement presence [22]. This formation (strata)
will create an active shield on top of the coal seams and check any de-pressuring (dewatering) issue.

2.2 Coupled UCG-CCUS

When fossil fuels are burned traditionally, all of them emit CO 2. Some of them produce more energy
than others. From general perspective (as calorific values widely vary by source), natural gas would
produce 50 GJ t-1, while crude oil 45 GJ t -1 and coal 30 GJ t-1. Hence, coal releases highest CO 2 when
burnt for energy production [14].

UCG can be coupled with CCUS technology. In the modern carbon-constrained world, CCS
technologies are becoming imperative. UCG technology development in deep-seated coal deposits has
high potential to co-locate and combine with geological carbon storage (GCS) options for effective CO 2
storage [11]. Usually these storage options would be the same for conventional carbon sequestration
operations (Figure 2-9) [23].

Figure 2-12: Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage options in deep geologic formations (IPCC, 2005)

Moreover, as a signatory of the 2011 Dhaka Declaration (https://daraint.org/wp-

content/uploads/2011/11/Dhaka.Declaration.pdf), Bangladesh committed for a low-carbon development
future implementing cleaner energy alternatives which will subsidize the jeopardies of global warming;
the resulting climate change has already put livelihood in Bangladesh at risk through intensifying the
recurrence and magnitude of natural calamities.

If Bangladesh comes forward for developing UCG technology along with the CCUS, there are manifold
advantages -

 Fast developing Bangladesh needs fast growing infrastructures being supported by power and energy,
much of what is currently being met by imported sources. The upcoming and newly built power
plants are being developed based on the inferior quality (compared to Bangladesh resource which are

Page 15 of 23
 just lying subsurface) imported coal emitting much CO 2 into the atmosphere. Venturing this eco-
friendly technology can be a timely response to help building a green environment.
 UCG presents a potential option to mitigate CO 2 emissions against the growing concern of climate
change effects; UCG generates exclusive opportunities for CO 2 storage in the post-gasification
structures commonly titled as Reactor Zone Carbon Storage (RZCS) [8], [11], [24]–[26]
 But, CO2 storage potential in the spent reactors could be orders of magnitude smaller than the
required capacity to store the produced CO 2 during gasification [27]. There may be a lower cost route
to the production of synthesis gas for chemical synthesis applications (e.g., Fischer-Tropsch for
transportation fuels, methanol or Urea fertilizer). This will not only minimize the necessity for CO 2
storage capacity on-site, but also maximize the economic yield of UCG through value added end
products. A study of UCG-CCS with feasibility of coupled urea (fertilizer) production for Jamalganj
coal revealed the potential utilization of 14.6 % - 18.6 % of produced CO 2 compared to that
geological storage option of 11.6 % - 16.3 % in UCG voids (post-gasification structures) at site-
specific conditions [28]. The study, through techno-economic modeling, exhibited that an economic
as well as carbon neutral operation of UCG combined with urea production comparing the world
market price and overall replacement of urea importation can be attained through UCG of Jamalganj
coal resources. Furthermore, the excess CO 2 will boost up production of nearly depleted natural gas
fields through EGR (Enhanced Gas Recovery) technique.
 Coupled UCG-IGCC may provide a lower cost route to clean coal technologies for power generation
than conventional alternatives such as surface based IGCC (Figure 2-7). Beath et al. (2001) calculated
that the efficiency of electricity generation from UCG and a combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) is
around 45 – 46% (based on HHV of coal consumed). While the efficiency estimates are sensitive to
site factors, these values indicate that the efficiency of power generation of UCG with CCGT (and
without CCS) is better than conventional pulverized fuel combustion and comparable to surface
IGCC [29].

Figure 2-13: GHG emission and cost competitiveness for electricity (source: CSIRO, 2006)

Page 16 of 23
2.3 Bangladesh UCG prospect
In regards to UCG development in Bangladesh, several noteworthy tasks have been accomplished, such
as-

(1) M. Sajjad et al. (2014) analyzed UCG taking in consideration the hydrology and geology of coal
bearing region of Bangladesh. To evaluate various UCG process parameters’ effect, CFD modeling has
been suggested by the authors to formulate effective engineering design and best practices to venture the
first coal gasification operation in Bangladesh [3].

(2) In 2009, UNDP produced a report where it was inferred that exploitation of Jamalganj coal resources
opens up a challenge of many dimensions, and recommended that “It would be well worthwhile for
BCSIR to conduct a pilot/demonstration scale project using UCG at Jamalganj coalfield” [4].

(3) T. Kempka et al., (2011) illustrated Nitrogen based fertilizer carbamide (CH 4N2O) production
process route by application of the coupled UCG-Urea-CCS process [30]. They conducted a feasibility
study which is theoretical in nature for evaluating the economics of UCG-Urea process along with the
potentials of UCG covering CO 2 storage options in the already gasified zone (reinjection of excessive
CO2 in the resulting cavities formed in the spent gasifiers and adjacent strata).

(4) N. Nakaten et al. (2014) conducted a research on UCG through a carbon neutral approach for finding
a solution for Bangladesh for supporting the scarcity of electricity and fertilizer from syngas product of
deep buried coal in Jamalganj deposit. They have even further approached for additional CO 2 utilization
through the method of Enhanced Gas Recovery (EGR) at one of the gas fields of Bangladesh
(Bakhrabad). Their techno-economic scheme demonstrated those options as feasible [28].

2.4 Similar UCG venture experience

Though there has been a substantial cumulative experience (over a century) gathered for UCG
experimentation, there is only one example of this kind of UCG trial at great depth (more than 1400 m)
and in almost similar quality coal (HV-B type). This has been demonstrated by Swan Hills Synfuels in
Alberta, Canada from 2009 and 2011 [31].

The target coal seam was located at ~1450 m below ground, avg. thickness of 4.5 m, reservoir pressure
of >100 bar, permeability of <1 mD, lower calorific value of ~29 MJ/kg and horizontal section of ~1400
m. Vaporized oxygen and nitrogen were pumped into the injection well. L-CRIP configuration was used
with directional drilling of 4.5" dia injection well and a vertically drilled production well and this had a
water quenching attached to regulate temperature at bottom-hole. Water and oxygen at mass ratios 2:1-
3:1 were injected into the gasification chamber. Connecting injection and production wells seemed
problematic while many options were tried, such as forward combustion, hydraulic pumping, water jet
micro-drilling, etc. Even after limited flow path, the coal conversion rate of 118 Tpd was achieved,
which was unlikely. The produced syngas contained higher portions of carbon dioxide (41%) and
methane (37%) because of high pressures. Noteworthy, the major advantages (isolating shallow aquifers
and high quality syngas production) of undertaking UCG at depth were ascertained [31].

Unfortunately, a blowout happened exploding the injection well and burnt the surface facilities in
October 2011 [32]. A list of factors were identified for that mishap, of which prime concern was
identified as the oxidant (oxygen-water) corroded the coiled tubing at high pressure, causing syngas and
oxygen to mix, thus firing up the vertical section of the injection well till to the surface, leading to a
blowout and fire hazard. The controlling measures which could prevent such kind of accident are- best
practices, automatic oxygen shut-off device and water quench attached to injection well, check-valves
attached to oxygen supply coil, fire-break device at the heel of injection well.

Page 17 of 23
2.5 Role of computational modeling in the development of the UCG
process
Computational modeling for exhibiting the true potential of UCG ventures has been evolved in recent
years as extraordinary opportunity with the advent of advanced computing resources, comprehending
multiphase flows, and numerical methods. These models not only help to better understand UCG
operations based on underlying physicochemical processes but also facilitate better designing and
optimization of the whole operation. Over the years a broad classification of available models have been
established, which are as follows [15] -

a) Packed bed model computes the amount of syngas generated and its composition;
b) Channel model enumerates also the syngas amount and its composition;
c) Coal block model derives the block gasification simulation (lab-scale validation);
d) Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model is especially helpful to integrate all the regions
of UCG cavity collectively. CFD modeling obtains the flow, concentration and temperature
profile resulting from transport and reactions inside the cavity and to estimate the syngas
properties and cavity growth dynamics;
e) Geo-mechanical model identifies the impact of UCG on mechanical and geological properties
of the strata in adjacent areas to apprehend the process stability and surface subsidence issues;
f) Coupled reservoir and geo-mechanical model studies the simultaneous effects of field-scale
phenomena for well design and stability analysis, and helps to design an integrated high
efficiency UCG process for optimal resource utilization;
g) Resource recovery model estimates the amount of coal conversion and syngas production
and its quality;
h) Reservoir model determines well configuration and the effect of field-scale phenomena
related to geological features;
i) Multi zonal model studies detailed interactions among and within different zones of the UCG
cavity for determining flow patterns, transport, and reaction. This model uses a ‘divide and
conquer’ strategy (relatively simpler but effective) by dividing UCG cavity into multiple zones
to simulate the complete UCG cavity and then estimate product syngas properties and cavity
growth dynamics.

For fulfilling the objective of this research, CFD Modeling offers the best. Hence this has been
taken in consideration to incorporate into research methodologies.

2.5.1 CFD Modeling integration

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model can be efficiently used to simulate combustion and
gasification reactions on the interface between coal seam and cavity. The heat and mass transfer rates of
UCG process can also be obtained. The assumptions from the model include the cavity shape,
temperature profile, amount of coal consumption, etc. The CFD modeling has been proved to have a
high degree of accuracy with the reported measurements [33]. Daggupati et al. (2011) studied the
velocity distribution and quantify the non-ideal flow patterns in a UCG cavity by performing residence
time distribution (RTD) studies using CFD [34].

Kuyper (1994) pioneered the application of CFD to underground coal gasification, presenting some of
the first research where double diffusive natural convection and chemical reaction on a wall were studied
numerically [35]. He used a finite volume code with the turbulence model and focused on understanding
the transport phenomena in a channel during the gasification of thin seams (<3m thick). He performed
detailed modeling using the Navier-Stokes equations for natural convection in inclined enclosures under
laminar and turbulent conditions in two and three dimensions using a finite volume computer code. He

Page 18 of 23
applied the assumption of chemical and thermal equilibrium at the char interface and studied the impact
of the gas properties of the on the fluid flow and distribution of syngas composition within the channel.

Figure 2-14: Schematic diagram of cavity dimensions by CFD modeling [34]

Figure 2-15: 3D cavity growth predictions by CFD [33]

Page 19 of 23
Chapter 3. Knowledge Gap
3.1 Feasibility assessment of Jamalganj coal for piloting
Despite of all these works so far accomplished (mentioned in section 2.3), still there is a gap of assessing
UCG parameters in reality as because no piloting has been undertaken or any coal block study has not
been performed focusing Jamalganj UCG prospect. For the past several years attempts were made to
estimate the UCG resource potential of Jamalganj area. All these estimates were based on UCG
parameters like coal thickness and quality, depth, gas saturation, reservoir permeability and sufficient
overburden, results of adsorption isotherm studies on coals from Barapukuria and coal rank of
Jamalganj, which is not industry standard method of UCG resource estimation. But recent study on
Jamalganj CBM prospect has attested some of the prime factors of Jamalganj coal such as permeability
of the seams, in-seam coal pressure, coal gas content and gas composition. Now these data can be
employed to conduct a feasibility study for the underground coal gasification at Jamalganj through
applying the ideal technique.

Realizing the gap in the knowledge-base, fresh UCG feasibility study can be tested in the area where the
upper coal seams from I to III and at places IV, occurs within a depth range of 650 - 850m.

This study approaches for evaluating the coal characterization of Jamalganj for this unconventional
mining method (UCG) of coal. This study will be conducted through petrographic studies, Ultimate and
Proximate Analysis of Jamalganj coal, assessing Stratigraphy, Hydrogeology, site characteristics, etc.
considering detailed Hydrological and Geological conditions.

3.2 Suitability of operational parameters for conducting UCG in

Jamalganj coal
The governing factors like oxidant selection, water intake rate, operating pressure etc. have to be
carefully estimated for a successful implementation of UCG piloting. Selection of UCG extraction
method is also vital. The operating conditions (i.e., temperature, water influx, pressure within the coal
seam) have great impact on cavity growth rate and product gas composition in UCG.

The scope of the study will cover assessing the selection of extraction method, influence of operating
conditions, heat loss, oxidant selection/usage for optimal gasification, coal reactivity, etc.

The challenges of piloting UCG at high pressures were exhibited by the Swan Hills project (mentioned
in section 2.4). The amalgamation of high P-T, oxygen and steam, combustible corrosive gases presents
great challenges for selecting appropriate materials as well as planning a scheme for the safety system.
From the lessons learned by this project and operational - management experience from other successful
trial projects, there should be critical selections of operational parameters suitable for Jamalganj coal.

3.3 CFD modeling scope to study UCG potential of Jamalganj coal

Among various kinds of models prevailing in the field of UCG (mentioned in section 2.5),
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) model can be especially helpful in view of implementing a trial
plant in Jamalganj coal field. This can determine the gasification performance and ascertain the potential
well in advance.
CFD modeling can be employed to estimate the flow, concentration and temperature profile resulting
from transport and reactions inside the cavity and to estimate the syngas properties and cavity growth
dynamics.

Page 20 of 23
 Acronyms
AEC - Atomic Energy Commission, Bangladesh

BCMCL - Barapukuria Coal Mining Co. Ltd., Bangladesh

BCSIR - Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

CCS - Carbon Capture and Sequestration

CCUS - Carbon capture, utilization and storage

GCS - Geological Carbon Storage

GHG - Greenhouse gas

GSB - Geological Survey of Bangladesh

HV-B - High-volatile bituminous coal

IGCC - Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LLNL - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA

mD - milli-darcy

RZCS - Reactor Zone Carbon Storage

SDG - Sustainable Development Goal

Tcf - Trillion Cubic feet

Tpd - tons per day

UCG - Underground Coal Gasification

Page 21 of 23
 References
[1] V. Ranade, S. Mahajani, and G. Samdani, Computational Modeling of Underground Coal
Gasification. CRC Press, 2019.
[2] G. Perkins, “Perkins 2005 Mathematical modelling of UGC,” University of New South Wales,
2005.
[3] M. Sajjad and M. G. Rasul, “Prospect of underground coal gasification in Bangladesh,” Procedia
Eng., vol. 105, no. Icte 2014, pp. 537–548, 2015.
[4] A. K. Ghose and UNDP, “CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN COAL AND ENERGY IN SAARC –
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN THE BACKDROP OF GLOBALIZATION,” 2009.
[5] BCMCL, “Coal Reserve in Bangladesh,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://bcmcl.org.bd/coal-
mining-development/. [Accessed: 10-Sep-2019].
[6] Petrobangla and MAPL, Consultancy Services for Drilling and Testing of Core Holes for
Feasibility Study for the Extraction of Coal Bed Methane at Jamalganj. 2016.
[7] G. Perkins, “Underground coal gasification – Part I: Field demonstrations and process
performance,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 67, pp. 158–187, 2018.
[8] E. Burton et al., “Best Practices in Underground Coal Gasification,” in Draft, 2007.
[9] M. M. Khan, J. P. Mmbaga, A. S. Shirazi, J. Trivedi, Q. Liu, and R. Gupta, “Modelling
underground coal gasification-A review,” Energies, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 12603–12668, 2015.
[10] E. Shafirovich and A. Varma, “Underground coal gasification: A brief review of current status,”
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 48, no. 17, pp. 7865–7875, 2009.
[11] S. J. Self, B. V. Reddy, and M. A. Rosen, “Review of underground coal gasification technologies
and carbon capture,” Int. J. Energy Environ. Eng., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2012.
[12] A. Beath, S. Craig, A. Littleboy, R. Mark, and C. Mallett, “UNDERGROUND COAL
GASIFICATION : EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL BARRIERS,” CSIRO Energy
Transform. Flagsh. Rep., no. August, 2004.
[13] M. Seifi, Z. Chen, and J. Abedi, “Numerical simulation of underground coal gasification using
the CRIP method,” Can. J. Chem. Eng., vol. 89, no. 6, pp. 1528–1535, 2011.
[14] A. W. Bhutto, A. A. Bazmi, and G. Zahedi, “Underground coal gasification: From fundamentals
to applications,” Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 189–214, 2013.
[15] G. Perkins, “Underground coal gasification – Part II: Fundamental phenomena and modeling,”
Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., vol. 67, pp. 234–274, 2018.
[16] S. Lee, Handbook of Alternative Fuel Technologies. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2015.
[17] S. M. Elahi, M. Nassir, and Z. Chen, “Effect of various coal constitutive models on coupled
thermo-mechanical modeling of underground coal gasification,” J. Pet. Sci. Eng., vol. 154, pp.
469–478, 2017.
[18] M. Kariznovi, H. Nourozieh, J. Abedi, and Z. Chen, “Simulation study and kinetic parameter
estimation of underground coal gasification in Alberta reservoirs,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., vol. 91,
no. 3, pp. 464–476, 2013.
[19] J. O. N. Erickson, “Ucg Syngas Composition , Cleanup and Conversion Technologies,” UCG
Conf. SA July 2011, 2011.
[20] L. H. Yang, X. Zhang, and S. Liu, “Underground coal gasification using oxygen and steam,”
Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff., vol. 31, no. 20, pp. 1883–1892, 2009.

Page 22 of 23
[21] L. H. Yang, “A review of the factors influencing the physicochemical characteristics of
underground coal gasification,” Energy Sources, Part A Recover. Util. Environ. Eff., vol. 30, no.
11, pp. 1038–1049, 2008.
[22] M. B. Imam, M. Rahman, and S. H. Akhter, “COALBED METHANE PROSPECT OF
JAMALGANJ COALFIELD, BANGLADESH,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 17–27,
2002.
[23] J. Friedmann and K. Walter, “Fire in the hole - UCG may provide a secure energy supply and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Science & Technology Review of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, no. April, pp. 12–18, 2007.
[24] D. J. Roddy and P. L. Younger, “Underground coal gasification with CCS: A pathway to
decarbonising industry,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 400–407, 2010.
[25] T. Kempka, N. Nakaten, R. Schlüter, and R. Azzam, “Economic viability of in-situ coal
gasification with downstream CO2 storage,” Glückauf Min. Report., pp. 43–50, 2009.
[26] T. Kempka, T. Fernández-Steeger, D. Li, M. Schulten, R. Schlüter, and B. M. Krooss, “Carbon
Dioxide Sorption Capacities of Coal Gasification Residues,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 45, no.
4, pp. 1719–1723, Feb. 2011.
[27] S. Durucan et al., “TOPS : Technology options for coupled underground coal gasification and
CO2 capture and storage,” Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 5827–5835, 2014.
[28] N. Nakaten, R. Islam, and T. Kempka, “Underground coal gasification with extended CO2
utilization - An economic and carbon neutral approach to tackle energy and fertilizer supply
shortages in Bangladesh,” Energy Procedia, vol. 63, pp. 8036–8043, 2014.
[29] A. Beath, M. Wendt, and C. Mallett, “Optimisation of underground coal gasification for
improved performance and reduced environmental impact,” CSIRO Explor. Min. Rep., 2001.
[30] T. Kempka, M. L. Plötz, R. Schlüter, J. Hamann, S. A. Deowan, and R. Azzam, “Carbon dioxide
utilisation for carbamide production by application of the coupled UCG-Urea process,” Energy
Procedia, vol. 4, pp. 2200–2205, 2011.
[31] AI-EES, “Swan Hills In-Situ Coal Gasification Technology Development,” Final Outcomes
Report, 2012.
[32] AER, “Swan Hills Synfuels Ltd. Well Blowout of October 10, 2011,” Alberta Energy Regulator
Investigation Report, 2014.
[33] Y. Luo, M. Coertzen, and S. Dumble, “Comparison of UCG Cavity Growth With CFD Model
Predictions,” Seventh Int. Conf. CFD Miner. Process Ind., no. December, pp. 1–5, 2009.
[34] S. Daggupati et al., “Compartment modeling for flow characterization of underground coal
gasification cavity,” Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 277–290, 2011.
[35] R. . Kuyper, “Transport Phenomena in Underground Coal Gasification,” PhD Thesis, no. 1994-
06–16. Technische Hogeschool Delft, p. 259, 1994.

Page 23 of 23