J rrt ltl! wd) ll,: yttll!ll Llli rJ lrdrt.

iPUr ru\
EdJ
rnethane drainage well or a mine opening is driven into the seam, a low-
pressure space is created; the gas is liberated from its adsorbed state and
migrates to the well or opening (Ertekin, 1984).
Methane occurrence in a coal seam is expressed as the volume of gas
contained per unit weight of coal. It indicates the potential of a seam to
produce methane. Methane emission is measured as the volume flow rate g- x
per unit length of drainage hole. Characteristics of U.S. coal seams noted for o!x>
their high methane content and liberation rate are given in Table 14.6. :.:
L=er\

-
z f :-: -
A variety of factors control the output of methane drainage. They include
physical properties of the coal seam (diffusivity, reservoir pressure, perme-
ability, and gas content), mining method (if in progress), and drainage
method (Thakur and Dahl, 1982). One of the best predictors of emission rate
is the product of daily coal production and depth of mining; that is, the 6
greater the production or depth or both, the greater the gas liberation rate
€
(Irani et al.,1972). o
o
There are fggllgg$lgr in use in the Utited-Sjates to drain methane E
from solid coal (Thakur and Davis, 1977): u
qr.

L. Vertical wells from the surface, with hydraulic stimulation

-a
2. Inclined holes from the surfac.e C)

3. Horizontal holes from shaft bottoms TE

4. Horizontal holes from mine entries o

6
g
Vertical holes are least productive and, if they are hydraulically fractured, lrJ

may damage the roof or floor of the seam and interfere with mining. Inclined
6
holes are promising, but drilling and completion costs are high. Either of thb th
o
last two methods, using horizontal holes, is productive, with entry drilling g)

more popular and cheaper. Holes are usually 3-5 in. (76-127 mm) in diame- :-:
ter and'up to 2000 ft (600 m) in length. A typical underground methane (J
F v_>
a=
drainage plan for solid coal using horizontal holes appears in Fieure 14.12.
o o
rrgurg_l+*p(rop/plctureSlneSunacelnStallatlonIorau"ffi 6E

=&n"nthe mining method in use causes concurrent caving and subsidence

of the overburden, methane from the entire gas-emission space flows into the =
mine, which acts as a natural low-pressure sink (Thakur and Dahl, 1982). (D
€
Drainage of methane from the gob becomes even more essential if mining is ul
to continue safely. Two methods are in use in the United States (Thakur et @
al., 1985): (1) Vertical holes are drilled from the surface over the proposed F
mining area, almost to the top of the coal seam; and (2) cross-measure holes
are drilled at an angle of 30-40' from the vertical over the intended mining
area. Vertical holes are more widely used and generally regarded as more
productive. Methane drainage from a gob using vertical holes is shown in
Figure 11.13 (bottom).
 OE
-o 6
e-
sE e;
S s
O 9no
e'Q ro cr) o ^tr) (') o
O)rrFO) ^
a a; E

hco
tur .g
:F=
E.=

o .c o^o^c)^o^
OVOF.OCtO@
E o-t
O.=
tr ONtOIONTNT li
Nr<f OJ-tO
G
0, o ra

to
fo -
o o^ o
q = o=-a 3
) :(6.=a
^:
i\
E$s0ssE$ o
z
.; U-Q>o> ui
c
ll)
o
U)
G od
E
tr o
c
o
'6 F*
AL q-oq c
=
.2 c
E
ut
3!? o)(oo
o)oo o
a
tt Eo- Ai
c o @
o
G
O
IA o
(,
Q
; c
_9
o-:
tl.l coE
o- o Ar.ioao=oQ o
o O--{ @\'l(7)cDNwlros
G NcO*rC!(OVr C)
G ac
d5 oi
o (t o
e
$ t3
c
G
o
q, !
c
6
= f
(o
rl 5clq 6
>OL=
oDF c
F
UJ oJtrY o
j o
c0 o:ilo
o
o u)
TABLE 14"6 MethqJF Characteristics and Emission Rates in U'S. Coal Seams
Calorific Average
Gas Content, Value, Depth, Emission Rates,
ft3/ton Composition, Btu/ft3 ft million ft3/day per 100 ft
Seam (m3/tonne) o/oCHt (MJ/m3) (m) (million m3/day Per m)
Beckley (WV) 262 99.2 1 002 900 15
(8.2) (37.4) (274\ (13)
Mary Lee (AL) 430 96.1 970 1 500 10
(13.4) (36.1) (457) (e)
Pittsburgh (PA, WV) 220 90.8 922 700 15
(6.s) (34.3) (213) (13)
Pocahontas (VA) 450 96.9 1 003 1 700 10
(14.0) (37.4) (518) (e)

Sou/'ce. Thakur and Dahl, 1982. (Copyright O 1982, John Wiley & Sons, New York )
 \

14.5 METHANE DRAINAGE 521

natural gas, ammonla, or carbon dioxide is under consideration (Link, 1982;

McKeever, 1983).

14.5 METHANE DRAINAGE

A novel mining method, methane drainage is not a new method. Attempts to

drain firedamp (methane) from coal seams date to 1730 in England, with the
first successful, controlled system installed in 1943 in Germany (Buntain,
: 1983). Today, ovqr 60% of the coal mines in the United Kingdom practice
?

:
drainage, as do many other European mines, but it is still relatively uncom-
;
p
mon (although taking hold rapidly) in the United States.
!
Methane drainage, also called coal degasification, is the practice of re-
) moving the gas contained in a coal seam and adjoining strata through .i:: l
wellbores, drillholes, and pipelines. In some respects, it resembles borehole
mining, although operations may be conducted from either surface or under- liri.:
t1:,1: :)
ground. Drainage is also closely akin to the well production-of natural gas, )ir:', a
ii.:r1 i:
the principal constituent of which is methane. fi-fiat fi;ffindependent of
or in coqjunction with traditional mining.
In their ventilating airstieams, U.S. coal mines purge some 250 million ft3
i+
r€l (7.1 million m3) of methane daily (Dunn,1982).It is an inefficient, costly,
.g
unsafe, and archaic practice. The successful and widespread use of methane
drainage abroad demonstrates that (1) air dilution requirements can be dras-
tically but safely reduced and that (2) the methane captured by drainage can
be utilized commercially. Mines employing methane drainage report the
capture of 50-60% of the face emissions (Thakur and Davis, 1977; Dunn,
1982; Perry et al., 1982).
Independent of mining and the safety motivation of drainage, coalbed
methane is classified by the U.S. Department of Energy as one of four
* unconventional gas resources. While not definitely established, total U.S.
E coal methane resources are estimated to be 300 trillion ft3 (8.5 x 1012 m3),
f= with about 200 trillion ft} (5.7 x 1012 m3) believed to be recoverable (Anon.,
E 1981b). Candidate coal fields with large resources that seem to bear the most-
E- prornise are Green River (WY and CO), Arkoma (AR and OK), Piceance
I
=E (CO), and Northern Appalachia (PA, OH, WV, and KY). Currently, the
€ largest commercial production comes from the Warrior Basin (AL). Individ-
E.
E ual mines now being degasified or suitable for degasification have methane
=' emission levels of 5-12 million ft3lday (0.14 to 0.34 million m3/day) (Irani et
al.,1972).
While an unconventional gas resource, coalbed methane in the United
States is an attractive one, because coal seams still remain that are accessi-
ble and unmined. Unlike natural gas reservoirs, hou'ever, coal seams are
thin and impermeable except for their natural fracture system (butt and face
cleats). Methane occurs occluded and adsorbed as layers of gas in the cleats.
The principal difference in conventional and unconueniional coalbed occur-
su
lt
it
ilIt
II
it
t]

534 NOVEL METHODS OF MINING

The production scale must be similarly large to be economic.

It has been
Droiect;d that a modified in-situ operation would have to mine and retort on
blast and retort
il;;"- io,ooo tons/day (18,000 tonnes/day) and containing 30 under- gayton
gr"r.A 3O,6OO tons/day iZZ,000 tonneslday)- With shale
(8750 m3/day) of oil' An
TtiS l-tto""e), the yield would be 55,000 bbUday at
development or exploitation
estimated 20 blocks (retorts) would be under
one time.
Mining-retortingcostsforthemodifiedin-situmethodmust,ofcourse,be
competitive with c;nventional petroleum production costs
if oil shale is to
with oil. To date, thai goal has not been attained (Anon., 1980b;
"o*p"," 1gg1; Dayton, 1ggla;
Rusiell,'"orrs pecabriete and Aho, 1982; Rajaram, 1985).
alonl forthe mine described-above have been estimated at $3
Cupiof
oil shale mine still exceed those for
billion. unit costs for the most economic
conventional oil by at least $5ibb1 ($30kfi3)'
retort+
we can identify the following as important features of underground
ingofoilshale,referencingtheSourcesjustnoted(plusMarsdenandLucas,
1973; Kalia and Gresham, 1985):
.a.
::l
Advantages
a , ,:::: 1. Makes the recovery of oil from shale technologically (if not economi-
I :;i cally)feasible,andatalowercostthantraditionalmining
: ::i:: i 2. Minimal environmental damage due to mining
:.
i
i {!.1
t: i
3. Higher recovery (45-50%) than for traditional mining in oil shale
:i:iil
?'Ei'1
: €;!'l I
Disadvantages
' ihii I
L. Restrictive method, applicable only to solid hydrocarbons
-:l

It,] 2. Economically uncompetitive with conventional petroleum production

;' .r'l
;ti I
!
at todaY's Prices; high risk
ilJir ll il
t i"., i 3. Capital-intensive
4. Health and safety risks considerable but not well evaluated (e.g',
I
a ::lii:r i lj

:. ,:ii r; i
gassy atmosphere constitutes explosion hazard and adds 15-20% to
i
; r::',j1, i
:,ri lli -quipment
cost, combustion and high temperatures occur in retorts,
ii

::
:.rl
la:; ventilation requirements high)
'i-iril
.::ll:r.'
. ;:.:i:r,: i I 5. Substantial environmental problems in waste disposal, water contam-
ination, and possible surface subsidence after retorting (estimate of
: i. i:5.. i u

, :1,'::. L. i

''i:i,: ti timetoprepareEls:2years;numberofpermitsneeded:100)
: ,-.::}'.r. i
6. Retorting difficult to regulate and control (fracturing, ignition, com-
i
,t.:::'.
. {*'l,i'l ")
r
bustion, etc.)
: ::51','1. 1 I

: ':::;. 7. Private investment discouraged by government ownership and regu-

.
]::ir: r:
:;::,:
I lations
tl, r :, 8. Waste disposal required for 80vo of mined material (e .g., 16,000 tonsi
..!a:,:'
duy, or 14,400 tonnes/day, in the previous example)
' =::
.
:.,,
llii.i : I
.
,

. ri.l;i' ;; I :

,l1;: l'.