http://pubs.acs.

org/journal/acsodf Article

Modeling Methodology for Site Selection Evaluation of

Underground Coal Gasification Based on Combination Weighting
Method with Game Theory
Wen-gang Huang,* Shao-wei Zhang, Guo-zhi Wang, Jun Huang, Xin Lu, Shu-liang Wu,
and Zuo-tang Wang

Cite This: ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555 Read Online

See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

ACCESS Metrics & More Article Recommendations

Downloaded via 190.250.121.182 on September 15, 2023 at 06:40:57 (UTC).

ABSTRACT: The lack of systematic geological work is an essential reason why underground coal gasification (UCG) has not been
industrialized for a long time. Building a scientific index system and favorable area evaluation technology for the UCG site selection
is the key to breaking through the geological bottleneck. Aiming at the problems of the single index weight determination method,
intense subjectivity, and poor reliability of current evaluation models, we put forward an evaluation modeling methodology for the
UCG site selection using the combination weighting method with the game theory. The factors of coal resource conditions
associated with the potential risk of UCG are systematically analyzed. From the six dimensions of the geological structure,
hydrogeology, seam occurrence, coal properties, reserves, and roof lithology, 23 key factors were selected as evaluation indexes to
construct a hierarchical model composed of the target layer, category index layer, and index layer. The influence of each index on
UCG and its reasonable value range were systematically analyzed. The evaluation index system for UCG site selection was formed.
The improved analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was adopted to sequence indices and determine their subjective weight. And the
variability, conflict, and information amount of the index data were analyzed by the CRiteria Importance Through Intercriteria
Correlation (CRITIC) method to calculate the objective weight. Then, the subjective and objective weights were combined through
game theory. On this basis, fuzzy theory was employed to calculate the membership of indices and construct the fuzzy
comprehensive judgment matrix. The evaluation model of the UCG site selection was applied to the suitability evaluation of
resource conditions of UCG pilot projects at Zhongliangshan (ZLS), Huating (HT), and Shanjiaoshu (SJS) mines in China. The
result shows that the resource conditions of HT are the best, followed by ZLS and, finally, SJS, which are consistent with the actual
running effects of the three UCG pilot projects. It indicates that the evaluation model can provide a scientific theoretical basis and
reliable technical support for the UCG site selection.

1. INTRODUCTION ification (UCG) is a potential key technology to realize low-

Reducing carbon emissions is the primary measure to cope carbon mining and utilization of coal resources, which can be
with global climate change. Vast amounts of CO2, CH4, N2O,
and fly ash emissions generated during the process of coal Received: January 30, 2023
mining and combustion activities are one of the main reasons Accepted: March 8, 2023
for the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so Published: March 14, 2023
reducing carbon emissions in the coal industry is a necessary
step to control global warming.1 As a beneficial supplement to
conventional coal mining methods, underground coal gas-
© 2023 The Authors. Published by
American Chemical Society https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
11544 ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf
Figure 1. Potential risks (red label) caused by the improper site selection of UCG: 1�forming water flowing fissures; 2�roof cracks connecting
the UCG cavity with the surface; 3�poor gasification characteristics of raw coal; 4�large-area roof collapse; 5�discontinuity of the coal seam;
6�instability of seam occurrence.
used to extract deep coal seams, high outburst coal seams, and
closed/abandoned mine coal resources with suitable resource
conditions.2 In theory, the captured carbon dioxide can be
recycled as the UCG agent to reduce carbon emissions.3 In
addition, the UCG cavity with good airtightness is considered
to be an excellent place to store carbon dioxide,4,5 so the UCG
technology has great potential in the clean utilization of coal,
carbon capture, and storage.6,7 Different from ground gas-
ification, the carrier of the underground gasifier is a natural
geological body. The occurrence characteristics of coal
resources determine the risks of ground subsidence, ground-
water pollution, and unstable gas production during the
gasification process, which harm the feasibility of UCG
projects.8 Since the idea of UCG was first announced in
1884, the theory and technical system of UCG have steadily
improved after continuous scientific research and a large
number of industrial tests.9 However, it is still maintaining a
distance from industrialization. The lack of systematic
geological work is considered one of the crucial reasons why
the UCG has not been industrialized for a long time.10
Inadequate geological work will adversely affect the UCG
project and pose a potential threat to its safety and stable
production, as shown in Figure 1. The key to breaking the
geological bottleneck is to build a scientific UCG site selection
index system and promising area evaluation technology.11
The most common method for underground gasifier site
selection is to qualitatively analyze the structure, hydrology,
occurrence, coal quality, surrounding rock, and other
conditions of the candidate site; compare the attribute value
and superior value of each index one by one; and then
determine the UCG promising area through comprehensive
evaluation.12−14 The qualitative evaluation method is simple
and feasible. Still, its evaluation results are vulnerable to the
subjective consciousness, theoretical level, practical experience,
and other factors of the evaluator, and its reliability and
stability are poor. It is also a standard method to evaluate the
UCG feasibility of the candidate site by collecting coal samples
from the gasification area for laboratory simulation tests.15 Still,
with problems such as high test cost and long test period, this
11545
Article
method is generally tricky to objectively reflect the geological
condition of the UCG block, especially the structure and
hydrology. To explore economic and objective evaluation
methods, in recent years, some scholars have applied
quantitative evaluation methods to the feasibility evaluation
of site selection, technology, economy, safety, and environ-
mental protection of UCG, mainly using the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP), fuzzy mathematics, variable weight theory,
cloud theory, gray matter element analysis, data envelopment
analysis (DEA), and other mathematical methods, and
constructed the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)
model,16 variable weight FAHP model,17 cloud model,18 and
DEA cross model19 for the UCG evaluation. Although the
introduction of mathematical methods has dramatically
improved the stability of the UCG site selection evaluation,
the determination of the index weight of previous models
typically relies on subjective weighting methods, such as the
expert scoring method and AHP, which reduces the reliability
of evaluation results.
To solve these problems, we present a new evaluation
modeling methodology for the UCG site selection in this
paper. Based on the analysis of influence factors of UCG, 23
main interfering factors were selected as evaluation indices
from six dimensions to establish a hierarchical model of
indicators for the UCG site selection. The subjective, objective,
and combined weights of evaluation indices were determined
using the improved AHP, CRiteria Importance Through
Intercriteria Correlation (CRITIC) method, and game theory,
respectively. Fuzzy mathematics was employed to determine
the index membership function to construct the fuzzy
comprehensive judgment matrix of evaluation indices. The
created model was applied to the suitability evaluation of the
resource conditions of three UCG pilot projects in China. The
evaluation results were compared with the actual running
effects, demonstrating the reliability of the evaluation model
for the UCG site selection.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf
Figure 2. Relationship between coal resource conditions and potential risks of UCG.
2. FRAMEWORK OF THE EVALUATION INDEX
SYSTEM FOR THE UCG SITE SELECTION
2.1. Selection Principles of the Evaluation Index. The
selection of evaluation indicators and the construction of an
evaluation system follow five criteria.
(1) Systematicness: The selection of evaluation indices
should comprehensively represent the principal features
and status of the evaluated object from different angles,
and the index system should be constructed from macro
to micro to form an organic unity.
(2) Typicality: It shall ensure that the evaluation indices are
typical and representative to a certain extent and reflect
some characteristics as accurately as possible.
(3) Determinacy: The index value should be determined and
quantifiable, and its size has a definite meaning in the
evaluation.
(4) Independence: The selected indicator should be
independent and cannot be replaced by others.
(5) Dynamicity: The index values of different evaluation
objects have specific dynamic changes.
2.2. Selection Method of the Evaluation Index. There
are many influencing factors involved in the evaluation of the
UCG site selection. To avoid the potential risks caused by the
improper site selection of UCG in Figure 1, it is necessary to
comprehensively analyze the associated factor of each risk and
determine the evaluation indices on this basis.
2.2.1. Associated Factors of Forming Water Flowing
Fissures. The formation of water-flowing cracks during the
UCG process may cause excessive groundwater to flow into
11546
Article
the gasifier and affect production, and also cause pollution to
relevant water bodies. The relative water yield is the most
intuitive index to evaluate the water burst risk of the gasifier.
The formation of water diversion fissures is related to the
distance between the coal seam and the roof or floor aquifer,
and the thickness of the aquifers. The overlying rock will
continue to collapse with the advance of gasification working
face, so the distance between the coal seam and the roof
aquifer and the thickness of the roof aquifer are vitally
important. Although the floor will not collapse, the floor water
inrush accident must be avoided during the UCG process. The
floor water bursting coefficient is usually used to measure the
possibility of its occurrence.
2.2.2. Associated Factors of Roof Cracks Connecting the
UCG Cavity with the Surface. Roof cracks connecting the
cavity with the surface can cause gas leakage and reduce the
economic benefits of UCG projects, and also cause harm to
surface organisms. This risk is mainly related to factors such as
coal seam depth, roof strength, and permeability. Of course, it
is also closely related to the design size and mining scale of the
UCG panel, but these factors are not considered in the
geological site selection.
2.2.3. Associated Factors of Poor Gasification Character-
istics of Raw Coal. The quality of raw coal is the key factor
that determines the gas composition and calorific value, gas
production rate, gasification efficiency, consumption index,
production stability, and economy of the UCG project. We
have systematically analyzed the impact of different character-
istics of coal on UCG and selected eight key factors such as
total moisture, ash, volatile matter, sulfur, reactivity, cohesive-
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf
ness, ash fusibility, and thermal stability from many coal quality
indexes to measure the UCG characteristics of the coal, and
discussed the reasonable value range of each index.13
2.2.4. Associated Factors of Large-area Roof Collapse.
The large-scale collapse of the overburden in the UCG cavity
will destroy the aquiclude and lead to accidents, such as surface
subsidence, water bursting of the gasifier, gas leakage, and so
on, and the falling rubble will cover the unreacted coal to
prevent it from contacting with the gasification agent, thus
affecting the gasification process. This risk is mainly related to
factors such as coal seam thickness, dip angle, and roof
strength. In addition, it is also related to the design size and
mining scale of the gasification face, but these factors are not
considered in the geological site selection stage.
2.2.5. Associated Factors of Discontinuity of the Coal
Seam. Discontinuities in coal seams will interrupt the UCG
process, resulting in a production stoppage. The main factors
that destroy the continuity of coal seams are geological
structures such as faults, collapse columns, and magmatic rock
intrusion. The coal seam pinchout is also an important reason,
which can be measured by the tonstein thickness coefficient
and minability index. Besides that, the coal reserves that can be
exploited by the UCG technology are also important factors to
ensure the continuous production of the UCG project.
2.2.6. Associated Factors of Instability of Seam
Occurrence. Previous UCG tests have shown that the seam
occurrence, such as burial depth, thickness, dip angle, and
stability, should be within a reasonable range and should not
fluctuate too much, otherwise it may affect the gas production
stability of the UCG project. Although the design of the
gasification face can be adjusted to adapt to the impact of the
unstable occurrence of coal seams, those with suitable and
stable occurrence conditions should be given priority in the
geological site selection stage.
To sum up, inappropriate coal resource conditions may
bring many potential threats to UCG projects and even lead to
production accidents. We have sorted out the relationship
between coal resource conditions and potential risks and
production accidents of UCG, as shown in Figure 2. The
analysis results show that there are 23 factors strongly related
to the risk of UCG, which are belonging to six dimensions:
geological structure, hydrological conditions, coal seam
occurrence, coal quality characteristics, reserves, and roof
lithology of coal resource conditions, on which an evaluation
index system can be constructed.
2.3. Framework of the Evaluation Index System.
Based on the above analyses, 23 main interfering factors were
selected as evaluation indexes from six dimensions of coal
resource endowments, including geological structure, hydro-
geology, seam occurrence, coal properties, reserves, and roof
lithology. Due to a large number of evaluation indicators, a
hierarchical model consisting of the target layer, category index
layer, and index layer was constructed to avoid the
submergence of indices with small weights during the
evaluation process. The influence of each index on UCG and
its reasonable value range were systematically analyzed. The
evaluation index system for the UCG site selection is shown in
Table 1.
3. CONSTRUCTION OF THE EVALUATION MODEL
FOR THE UCG SITE SELECTION
Based on the UCG technical characteristics and the research
status of the UCG site selection evaluation, an evaluation
11547
Article
model for the UCG site selection was constructed using
mathematical methods, such as the improved AHP, CRITIC
method, combination weighting method with game theory, and
fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method, which mainly
includes five steps: establishing the evaluation index set,
creating the comment set, building the synthetic judgment
matrix, calculating the index weight and determining the
evaluation result. The modeling procedure is shown in Figure
3.
3.1. Establishing the Evaluation Index Set. The
evaluation index set U = (U1, U2, ..., Um)T can be constructed
based on the evaluation index system of the UCG site
selection. According to the determination approach of index
values, indices can be divided into two categories: quantitative
and qualitative index. U1‑1, U1‑2, and U1‑3 are qualitative
indicators, and the rest are quantitative ones. The index value
can be calculated by the determination method of the index
value presented in ref 17 based on the actual resource
condition of the evaluation object.
3.2. Creating the Comment Set. The work in this phase
is mainly to create the field of comment grade, also known as
the comment set V = (V1, V2, ..., Vn), and determine the
hierarchical cutoff value of each comment grade. The number
of comment grades should avoid too many or too few. The
evaluation model constructed in this study aims to provide a
more scientific method to evaluate the suitability of coal
resource conditions for UCG technology. Its comment set
could be divided into three grades: suitable, basically suitable,
and unsuitable. The reasonable value range of different indices
was determined through the analysis of their influence on the
feasibility of UCG projects; see Table 1 for details. The cutoff
value of each comment grade is presented in ref 17
3.3. Building the Fuzzy Synthetic Judgment Matrix.
The work in this stage is mainly to determine the well-designed
membership function A(x) of indices according to their impact
on the evaluation object. The membership degree rij of each
evaluation grade can be calculated by substituting the index
value aij into A(x) to establish the fuzzy synthetic judgment
matrix R = (rij)m×n, (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n) of the
evaluation index system.
Considering different dimensions between different types of
indices, it is necessary to process the index values with
membership functions to convert the index values of different
dimensions into a unified dimension which is a membership
degree in the interval [0, 1]. Membership functions can fall
into linear and nonlinear types based on their curve shapes.
The former mainly contains the form of the rectangle, triangle,
and trapezoid, while the latter consists of parabolic type,
normal type, Cauchy type, etc. The linear membership
function is applied widely due to the convenience of
calculation. Based on the impact on the UCG, evaluated
indices can be classified into three categories: benefit-type (the
index with a larger value is expected), cost-type (the index with
a smaller value is expected), and interval-type (the index with a
specific interval value is expected); see Table 1 for details. The
distribution curves of membership functions corresponding to
the three types of indices and membership functions of
different kinds of indices are shown in ref 17
3.4. Calculating the Index Weight. 3.4.1. Calculating
the Subjective Weight. AHP is one of the most common
methods for calculating the subjective weight, but it is easy to
produce the phenomenon that the judgment matrix does not
meet the consistency test in the actual application process; in
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
 Table 1. Architecture and Hierarchical Definition of the Evaluation Index for the UCG Site Selectiona
category index
target layer layer index layer unit impact of the index on UCG and its suitable value range
A: site selec- U1: geological U1‑1(−): fault - the fault will destroy the continuity of the coal seam, with broken surrounding rock, which is easy to communicate with the aquifer. Therefore, it should be avoided to place the
ACS Omega

tion evalu- structure complexity UCG panel in the high-density area of the fault structure. Z1 of the evaluation block (EB) should be less than 1 and not be more than 3.
ation of index Z1
UCG U1‑2(−): col- % the collapse column will also destroy the continuity of the coal seam, with broken surrounding rock, which is easy to communicate with the aquifer. Therefore, it should be
lapse column avoided to place the UCG panel in the high-density area of the collapse column. Z2 of EB should be less than 5% and not be more than 30%.
complexity
index Z2
U1‑3(−): mag- % magmatic rock intrusion will cut, intersperse, nibble, or swallow the coal seam, affecting its continuity, changing the thickness and coal quality, and significantly increasing the
matic intru- ash content. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid arranging UCG panels in the high-density area of the magmatic intrusion. Z3 of the evaluation block should preferably be less
sion index Z3 than 5% and not exceed 30%.
U2: hydrogeol- U2‑1(−): relative m3/t a small amount of water yield is favorable to the UCG process. Still, excessive water yield will reduce the gasifier temperature, causing a decrease in the gas heat value and even
ogy water yield q interrupting the gasification process. The appropriate water yield should be less than 0.4 m3/t and not exceed 0.7 m3/t.
U2‑2(+): dis- m the distance between the aquifer floor and the gasification coal seam roof should be greater than the maximum height of the water-flowing fractured zone in the overlying strata
tance to roof of the UCG cavity, and it is better to have a protective layer with a thickness of more than 30m.
aquifer H
U2‑3(+): thick- m aquiclude refers to a water-resisting rock stratum with low permeability. It is necessary to ensure that the fractured zone in the overburden of the cavity does not entirely
ness of roof penetrate the aquiclude. In general, a thicker aquiclude is expected.
aquiclude t
U2‑4(+): floor MPa/m when the floor contains a confined aquifer, it is necessary to ensure that the strength of the floor aquiclude can withstand the aquifer pressure. In general, the bursting
water bursting coefficient Ts is used as the index for predicting the water inrush from the floor. For safety, Ts should preferably be less than 0.06 MPa/m and not exceed 0.15 MPa/m.
coefficient Ts
U3: seam oc- U3‑1(±): m when the coal seam is buried shallowly, fissures in the overburden of the cavity are easy to communicate with the surface, leading to gas leakage. When the seam is buried
currence depth H deeply, the gasifier is more airtight, which is conducive to increasing the gasification pressure. Still, the technical difficulty, equipment investment, and running costs of UCG
will increase. The buried depth of previous UCG industrial tests is 100−500m for the well type and 100−1500 m for the well-less type.

11548
U3‑2(±): m when the coal seam is thin, the gas calorific value and thermal efficiency of UCG will decrease. When the seam is thick, the gas calorific value will increase, but the recovery
thickness m ratio will decrease, and it is easy to cause cracks in the surrounding rock to expand to the aquifer or surface. The thickness of coal seams in previous UCG industrial tests
ranges from 1.2 m to 12.0 m.
U3‑3(±): dip (°) a coal seam with a small inclination is conducive to the construction of the gasifier. Still, rubble and ash are easy to cover the seam during the gasification process, which will
angle η prevent the unreacted coal from contacting the gasifying agent. When the seam dip angle is large, it is favorable for gasification. Still, it will increase the difficulty of drifting
and drilling during the construction process of the well-type gasifier. The seam dip angle of previous UCG industrial tests ranges from 12° to 65°.
U3‑4(-): tonstein - the tonstein will reduce the coal thickness and increase the ash content, then bring a harmful effect on UCG. Tonstein thickness coefficient Kg of the gasified coal seam should
http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf

thickness co- not exceed 0.30.

efficient Kg
U3‑5(+): mine- - to avoid the influence of a thin coal seam (less than 0.8 m) on gas production, the mineability index Km of the gasified coal seam should be greater than 0.95 and not be less
ability index than 0.6.
Km
U4: coal prop- U4‑1(−): total % appropriate moisture content in the raw coal is conducive to the generation of hydrogen and the reduction of steam consumption of the gasifying agent. However, when the
erties moisture Mt moisture content is too high, the phase change and decomposition of water will consume a lot of heat energy, which will reduce the gasifier temperature and gas quality. The
suitable range of total moisture of the raw coal could refer to the ground gasification requirements.
U4‑2(−): ash Ad % ash does not directly take part in the reaction during the gasifying process but will reduce the thermal efficiency, gas yield, and gasification efficiency of UCG. Ash content Ad
of the gasified coal seam should preferably be less than 18% and not exceed 30%.13
U4‑3(+): volatile % the higher volatile content of raw coal will be produced more light hydrocarbons and hydrogen during the carbonization process of UCG, which can improve the gas calorific
Vd value. Vd of the gasified coal seam should be greater than 20%.13
U4‑4(−): sulfur % gasification with high-sulfur coal will produce high-sulfur gas, which will corrode the gas transmission pipeline and equipment and increase the investment in gas purification
St,d devices and project operating costs. St,d of the gasified coal seam should be less than 0.5% and not exceed 1.5%.13
U4‑5(+): reactiv- % gasification with high reactivity coal shows some advantages, such as low initial reaction temperature, low slagging rate, and high gasification efficiency. α (1000 °C) should be
ity α(1000°C) greater than 30%, referring to the specification of the ground gasification.13
U4‑6(−): cohe- - using high-caking coal as the raw material is prone to form coke during the UCG process, which will lead to the reduction of coal seam permeability, and then adversely affect
siveness CRC the gasification reaction rate, gas quality, and economic indicators. The char residue characteristic (CRC) is one of the leading indicators to measure the adhesion
performance of raw coal. The UCG technique is suitable for exploiting noncaking coal (CRC < 3) and should avoid high-caking coal (CRC > 5).13
Article

ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
 Table 1. continued
category index
target layer layer index layer unit impact of the index on UCG and its suitable value range
U4‑7(+): ash fu- °C when the coal ash fusion temperature is lower than 1200 °C, it is easy to cause ash slagging, which prevents unreacted coals from contact with gasifying agents. Generally, the
ACS Omega

sibility ST ash softening temperature (ST) is taken as the ash fusion temperature. It is suggested that the ST of the raw coal should be higher than 1300 °C and not be lower than 1200
°C.
U4‑8(-): thermal % the poor thermal stability of the raw coal will lead to the rapid fracture and slope deviation of the coal wall after heating at a high temperature, which is good for improving the
stability TS+6 gasifying speed. UCG is suitable for extracting low thermal stability seams (TS+6≤60%) but not high thermal stability ones (TS+6≥80%).
U5: reserves U5‑1(+): recov- Mt the recoverable reserves have no impact on UCG on the technical level. Still, the service life of the gasification block should be longer than the investment recovery period of
erable the UCG project (related reserves Q1) and preferably longer than the service life of the equipment (related reserves Q2).
reserves Q
U6: roof lithol- U6‑1(+): roof m large roof falling of the UCG cavity will block the unreacted coal from the most paths to the gasifying agent and form a large number of cracks that may connect the
ogy strength τr groundwater, roadway, or surface. Generally, the average initial caving interval τr of the immediate roof is adopted to measure the roof strength of the coal seam. UCG
panel’s τr should be greater than 28 m and not be less than 8 m.
U6‑2(+): roof - the UCG cavity roof should have good airtightness to prevent the underground gasifier from communicating with the outside. The permeability of the rock is generally
permeability measured by the permeability coefficient −lg K, and the larger its value is, the worse the permeability is. The immediate roof of the UCG panel should preferably be
−lg K impermeable and water-free rock stratum (−lg K > 7), and the roof with poor permeability and rich water should be avoided (−lg K ≤ 5).
a
Note: (+) represents the positive or beneficial index; (−) represents the negative or cost index; (±) represents the interval index.

11549
indices

indices.
http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf

ranking result is x1 ≥ x2 ≥ ··· ≥ xm.

which includes the following four steps.21

Step 3: Constructing the judgment matrix

Step 1: Determining the index-ordered relation
Article

Figure 3. Evaluation modeling flowchart of the UCG site selection.

principle of undiminished importance. Suppose that the

simple calculation, etc. Therefore, the improved AHP was
consistency test standard (C.R. < 0.1).20 Aiming at these

ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555

Step 2: Determining the important relationship between
influence level of each index on the evaluation object and the
evaluator subjectively ranks each index according to the

1, 2, ..., m − 1) should meet the following requirements: a. pij >

The constructed judgment matrix P = (pij)(m−1)×(m−1), (i, j =
consistency test and has the advantages of high reliability,
scale-extending method fully satisfies the requirement of the
improved AHP.21 The judgment matrix constructed with the
addition, there are still doubts about the scientific nature of the

obtain the scale values t1, t2, ···, tm−1 between all adjacent
Assume there are m evaluation indices: x1, x2, ···, xm. The

record their corresponding scale values xi/xi+1 as ti, and finally

adopted to determine the subjective weight of indices here,
problems, some scholars proposed a new construction method

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
Refer to Table 2 to compare the importance of xi and xi+1,
of judgment matrix called the scale-extending method or
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Table 2. Scale Value and Its Connotation (Adapted from Suppose there are m evaluation indices and n samples, and
Huang21) the attribute value of the ith index in the jth sample is aij. Then,
the evaluation matrix A = (aij)m×n, (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n)
scale value connotation
can be constructed. Assume that the normalized value of aij is
1.0 xi and xi+1 are equally important xij, and the normalized formulas of benefit, cost, and interval-
1.2 xi is slightly more important than xi+1 type indices are shown in eqs 3−5, respectively.
1.4 xi is obviously more important than xi+1
1.6 xi is strongly more important than xi+1 aij aimin
1.8 xi is absolutely more important than xi+1 xij =
aimax aimin (3)
0; b. pii = 1; c. pij = 1/pji; d. pij = pikpkj, (k = 1, 2, ···, m − 1), aimax aij
where pij means the scale value of the ith index relative to the jth xij =
index, which can be obtained according to the transitivity of aimax aimin (4)
the importance of adjacent indices. Finally, the judgment
matrix P can be constructed, as shown in eq 1. |aij aiopt|
xij = 1
ij yz m 1 max(|aimax aiopt|, |aimin aiopt|) (5)
jj1 ti zzzz
jj t1 t1t 2 ...
jj z
jj i=1 z zz where amax
i , amin
i ,
and aopt
are the maximum, minimum, and
i
jj zz th
optimal values of the i index in n samples, respectively.
jj m 1 z zz
jj 1 z Step 2: Constructing the standard matrix
jj t1
1 t2 ... ti zzz
jj z With the normalized index value xij, the standard matrix X =
jj i=2 z zz
jj zz (xij)m×n, (i = 1, 2, ..., m; j = 1, 2, ..., n) can be constructed.
jj z
P = jjj m 1 z
zz Step 3: Calculating the information amount of the index
jj(t t ) 1
t2 1 1 ... ti zzz
jjj 1 2 zz The calculation process of the information amount of the
jj i=3 z zz index includes three steps. First, the standard deviation of
jj z
jj M O M zzzz
jjj
M M indices is adopted to represent the size of the value difference
jj zz
1 jji m 1 y
1 1 zz of the same index in different samples, that is, the contrast
ij m 1 yz ij m 1 yz
jjjj z zz
j z zz between samples. Second, the quantified expression represent-
jj
jj
z
jjjj
tizzz jjj
jjjj tizzzz
ti zzz ... 1 zz
j i= 2 z j i=3 z
jk i = 1 z{ zz ing the conflict can be constructed to reflect the conflict
k { k
k { { (1) between indices based on the correlation coefficient between
The judgment matrix constructed with the improved AHP indices. Finally, the information-carrying capacity of the index
completely meets the consistency demand (C.R. = 0), so the can be obtained by multiplying the standard deviation and the
consistency test is not necessary. conflicting quantitative indicator.
Step 4: Calculating the subjective weight (1) Based on the standard matrix X, eq 6 is adopted to
With the judgment matrix P, the subjective weight wsi of the calculate the standard deviation si which is the variability of the
ith index can be obtained by eq 2. ith index for measuring the volatility of the value difference of
the same index in different samples. If the si of one index is
m 1 larger, the weight assigned is more prominent, and vice versa.
m p
j = 1 ij
wsi = n
m m 1 1
j= 1
m p
j = 1 ij (2) si = (xij xi)2 i = 1, 2, ... , m
n 1 j =1 (6)
Finally, the subjective weight vector Ws = (ws1, ws2, ..., wsm)T
can be obtained. The subjective weight values of indices at the where x̅i is the average value of the ith index in n samples.
category index layer and index layer can be determined by the (2) Eq 7 can be used to determine the correlation coefficient
above method. of the ith and i′th indices.
3.4.2. Calculating the Objective Weight. With the
objective weighting method, the index weight of the index cov(Xi , X i )
ii
=
can be determined by mathematical methods according to the sisi
n
relationship between the evaluation index data, so its judgment (x
j = 1 ij
xi)(x i j xi )
results are independent of the subjective judgment of the =
n n
evaluator. Common approaches include the entropy method, (x
j = 1 ij
xi)2 j= 1
(x i j x i )2
coefficient of variation method, CRITIC (CRiteria Importance
Through Intercriteria Correlation), principal component i , i = 1, 2, ... , m (7)
analysis, etc. The CRITIC method22 is based on the variability
and conflict among evaluation indices to weigh synthetically where cov(Xi, Xi′) represents the covariance of the i and i′th th

the objective weight, which is more accurate than other rows of the standard matrix X and x̅i′ the average value of the
methods, with wide application. Therefore, the CRITIC i′th index in n samples.
method was employed here to determine the objective weight, (3) The amount of information Ci of the ith index can be
whose procedure includes the following four steps.22 obtained with the standard deviation si and the correlation
Step 1: Normalizing the index value coefficient ρii′ by eq 8.
The dimension and influencing tendency on UCG of each m
index in the evaluation system are different, so it is necessary to Ci = si (1 ii
) i = 1, 2, ... , m
normalize all indices. i =1 (8)

11550 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Table 3. Subjective, Objective, and Combined Weights of Evaluation Indices

index no. subjective weight objective weight combined weight
U1 U1‑1 0.1816 0.4330 0.2225 0.3262 0.1894 0.4262
U1‑2 0.3093 0.3373 0.3111
U1‑3 0.2577 0.3365 0.2627
U2 U2‑1 0.1816 0.3219 0.1589 0.1906 0.1773 0.2527
U2‑2 0.2683 0.2360 0.2512
U2‑3 0.2235 0.2303 0.2271
U2‑4 0.1863 0.3432 0.2690
U3 U3‑1 0.1513 0.1541 0.1835 0.2235 0.1574 0.1626
U3‑2 0.3107 0.2053 0.2977
U3‑3 0.1284 0.1484 0.1309
U3‑4 0.2219 0.1870 0.2176
U3‑5 0.1849 0.2357 0.1912
U4 U4‑1 0.2542 0.1660 0.1583 0.1434 0.2361 0.1634
U4‑2 0.0706 0.1214 0.0764
U4‑3 0.0490 0.1305 0.0584
U4‑4 0.0988 0.1184 0.1011
U4‑5 0.1992 0.0955 0.1873
U4‑6 0.2390 0.1216 0.2255
U4‑7 0.1186 0.1551 0.1228
U4‑8 0.0588 0.1141 0.0652
U5 U5‑1 0.1051 1.0000 0.1343 1.0000 0.1106 1.0000
U6 U6‑1 0.1261 0.6429 0.1425 0.4796 0.1292 0.6210
U6‑2 0.3571 0.5204 0.3790

where Σm i′=1(1 − ρii′) is the quantitative indicator of conflict
between the ith index and other indices.
The stronger the positive correlation between one index and
other indices, the greater the conflict between this index and
others, the smaller the amount of information, and the smaller
the assigned weight.
Step 4: Calculating the objective weight
With the amount of information, the objective weight woi of
the ith index can be calculated by eq 9.
Ci
woi = m
C (9)
i=1 i
T
The objective weight vector Wo = (wo1, wo2, ..., wom) can
thereby be obtained.
For the hierarchical model, objective weight values of indices
at the index layer can be determined by the above method.
Still, indices at the category index layer (referred to as the
category index) cannot be calculated directly due to the lack of
the category index value. However, the objectivity of the
evaluation results will be weakened using quantitative methods
such as the expert scoring method to assign values to category
indices. To solve this problem, the standard matrix element
value xij and its objective weight woi of the index layer can be
used to assign values to category indices by eq 10.
m The multiobjective game set model can be employed to
aiuj = woixij i = 1, 2, ... , m ; j = 1, 2, ... , n
i=1
aui′j
where represents the comprehensive evaluation value of the
i′th index in the jth sample and m’ is the number of category
indices.
Take the comprehensive evaluation value of the category
index as its attribute value, and then repeat steps 1 to 4 to
obtain its objective weight value.
3.4.3. Calculating the Combined Weight. To avoid the
one-sidedness of the subjective or objective weighting
methods, we introduce a combination weighting method
with the game theory to coordinate and reorganize the weights
determined by the improved AHP and CRITIC methods to
improve the scientificity of index weight assignment. The
determination of the combined weight includes four steps.23
Step 1: Constructing the weight vector set
Suppose l weighting methods assign weights to m evaluation
indices, and l index weight vectors Wk can be obtained, as
shown in eq 11.
Wk = (w1k , w2k , ... , wmk)T k = 1, 2, ... , l (11)
Step 2: Building the linear combination of the weight vector
Assume that an arbitrary linear combination of l weight
vectors is W.
l
W= kWk
k=1 (12)
where αk refers to the linear combination coefficient of the
weight determined by the kth weighting method.
Step 3: Optimizing the linear combination coefficient
optimize l linear combination coefficients αk to minimize the
(10)
deviation between W and Wk. Then, the game model can be
derived (see eq 13).
l
min || kWk Wk ||
k=1 2 (13)
The equivalent linear simultaneous equations (see eq 14)
can be obtained by solving the first derivative of eq 13.
11551 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Figure 4. Comparison of weights determined by the subjective, objective, and combined weighting methods.

Table 4. Attribute and Hierarchical Cutoff Values of the Index of Resource Conditions of Zhongliangshan (ZLS), Huating
(HT), and Shanjiaoshu (SJS) UCG Pilot Projects
ZLS HT SJS
hierarchical cutoff values of the hierarchical cutoff values of the hierarchical cutoff values of the
index index index
index index index index
no. values u1 u2 u3 values u1 u2 u3 values u1 u2 u3
U1‑1 16.09 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
U1‑2 0.00 5.00 17.50 30.00 0.00 5.00 17.50 30.00 0.00 5.00 17.50 30.00
U1‑3 0.00 5.00 17.50 30.00 0.00 5.00 17.50 30.00 0.00 5.00 17.50 30.00
U2‑1 1.21 0.40 0.55 0.70 0.48 0.40 0.55 0.70 0.61 0.40 0.55 0.70
U2‑2 55.00 23.91 28.91 53.91 114.00 32.00 37.00 62.00 14.07 19.54 24.54 49.54
U2‑3 50.00 1.04 1.55 2.07 114.00 21.20 31.80 42.40 6.11 1.35 2.03 2.70
U2‑4 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.10 0.15
U3‑1 450.00 100.00 300.00 500.00 130.00 100.00 300.00 500.00 412.15 100.00 300.00 500.00
U3‑2 1.15 1.20 6.60 12.00 10.60 1.20 6.60 12.00 1.50 1.20 6.60 12.00
U3‑3 67.50 12.00 35.00 65.00 28.00 12.00 35.00 65.00 24.00 12.00 35.00 65.00
U3‑4 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.15 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.30
U3‑5 0.97 0.60 0.70 0.80 1.00 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.91 0.60 0.70 0.80
U4‑1 1.06 2.00 6.00 10.00 8.79 2.00 6.00 10.00 1.18 2.00 6.00 10.00
U4‑2 18.38 12.00 18.00 30.00 6.23 12.00 18.00 30.00 28.00 12.00 18.00 30.00
U4‑3 16.21 10.00 20.00 30.00 26.28 10.00 20.00 30.00 25.21 10.00 20.00 30.00
U4‑4 2.55 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.44 0.50 1.00 1.50 0.16 0.50 1.00 1.50
U4‑5 30.50 20.00 30.00 40.00 56.60 20.00 30.00 40.00 25.95 20.00 30.00 40.00
U4‑6 7.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
U4‑7 1360.00 1200.00 1250.00 1300.00 1218.06 1200.00 1250.00 1300.00 1500.00 1200.00 1250.00 1300.00
U4‑8 97.76 60.00 80.00 100.00 70.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 61.80 60.00 80.00 100.00
U5‑1 25.00 4.50 7.25 10.00 49.45 4.50 7.25 10.00 3.85 3.19 4.15 10.00
U6‑1 8.00 8.00 18.00 28.00 13.00 8.00 18.00 28.00 13.35 8.00 18.00 28.00
U6‑2 8.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

jij w1· w1T w1·w2T ... w1· wlT zyzi y jij w1· w1T zyz *= k
jj zzjj 1 zz jj zz k l
jj zzj z jj zz
w2 ·w2T ... w2·wlT zzzjjjj 2 zzzz jjj w2·w2T zzz
(15)
jj w ·w T k=1 k
jj 2 1 zzjj zz = jj zz
jj zzjj M zz jj z
jj M zzjj zz jj M zzz where αk* means the linear combination coefficient of the index
jj M O M
jj zzzjj zz jjj zz
z weight determined by the kth weighting method after
jj w ·w T wl ·w2T ... wl ·wlT zz{k l { jk wl ·wlT z{
k l 1 (14) normalization.
Then, the combination weight vector W* of the game theory
The optimal linear combination coefficient vector α = (α1, can be obtained with eq 16.
α1, ..., αk) can be obtained by solving eq 14.
Step 4: Determining the combined weight l
Normalize the optimal linear combination coefficient αk with W* = *Wk
k
eq 15. k= 1 (16)

11552 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf
The attribute values of evaluation indices of the UCG site
selection at 10 mining areas, including Zhongliangshan,
Huating, and Shanjiaoshu mines, were collected. Based on
these data, the subjective, objective, and combination weights
of the evaluation indices were determined with the improved
AHP, CRITIC method, and game theory, respectively. See
Table 3 for weight calculation results.
For visualization, convert the data in Table 3 into a graph, as
shown in Figure 4. The result indicates significant differences
in the weight values and order of some indices determined by
the improved AHP and CRITIC methods. The weight value
and ranking of indices are optimized and reorganized by taking
subjective and objective factors into account through the
combined weighting of game theory. The combined weight
value (or importance) of the category index is ranked as
follows: U4 (coal properties) > U1 (geological structure) > U2
(hydrogeology) > U3 (seam occurrence) > U6 (roof lithology)
> U5 (reserves).
3.5. Determining the Evaluation Result. Multiply the
combined weight vector W* obtained above and the fuzzy
comprehensive judgment matrix R to get the evaluation result
matrix B = W*R = (b1, b2, ..., bn) and then judge the evaluation
result of the corresponding candidate site according to the
maximum membership principle after normalization.
For a single coal seam, the above method can be directly
used to evaluate its suitability to UCG technology. If there are
multiple coal seams in a mining area, when the distance
between coal seams is large, this model can be used to evaluate
different coal seams one by one. However, if the distance
between coal seams is less than 0.5m and the cumulative
thickness of the rock interlayer is less than 30% of the total
thickness of coal and rock strata, it can be considered as a
whole for evaluation.
4. APPLICATION OF THE EVALUATION MODEL FOR
THE UCG SITE SELECTION
The suitability of resource conditions of UCG pilot projects at
Zhongliangshan (ZLS), Huating (HT), and Shanjiaoshu (SJS)
mines were evaluated by the evaluation model for the UCG
site selection, and the evaluation results were compared and
analyzed to confirm the model reliability.
4.1. Project Profile and Evaluation Index Value. The
purpose of ZLS, HT, and SJS UCG pilot projects is to verify
the feasibility of underground gasification with difficult mining
coals such as high outburst coal seams and industrial square
pillars. Man-built galleries were adopted to construct the UCG
panel, and trial production systems such as the underground
gasifier, gasification agent preparation, raw gas purification,
measurement and control, and aided production were built at
these projects, with a running time of 3−6 months.2,24,25 The
index values of resource conditions of three UCG pilot projects
were obtained through field investigation, laboratory tests, and
other methods. See Table 4 for details.
4.2. Evaluation Results. The result is shown in Figure 5.
The comprehensive evaluation results of resource conditions
suitability on UCG at ZLS, HT, and SJS pilot projects are
(0.5349, 0.0825, 0.3826), (0.7197, 0.1543, 0.1261), and
(0.4498, 0.2837, 0.2665), respectively. According to the
maximum membership principle, results indicate that compre-
hensive evaluation grades of resource conditions of the three
pilot projects are suitable. Still, there is a gap in their suitability,
especially significant differences between the evaluation values
of some category indices. Evaluation grades of six category
11553
Article
Figure 5. Evaluate results of the resource condition suitability on
UCG of Zhongliangshan (ZLS), Huating (HT), and Shanjiaoshu
(SJS) pilot project.
indices of the HT UCG pilot project are suitable; five of them
are superior to that of the other two projects except for the
occurrence condition of the coal seam. For the resource
conditions of the ZLS UCG project, ratings of three category
indices, including geological structure (U1), hydrogeology
(U2), and reserves (U5), are suitable. In contrast, ranks of seam
occurrence (U3), coal properties (U4), and roof lithology (U6)
are unsuitable. However, the suitable membership values of
U1−U3, and U5 of ZLS are greater than those of SJS. For the
SJS UCG project, evaluation grades of U1−U4 are suitable, but
suitable membership values of U2 and U3 are not high, and
grades of U5 and U6 are basically suitable. As a whole, the
suitability on UCG of resource conditions of the three pilot
projects is ranked as HT > ZLS > SJS. From the actual running
state, with a similar gasifying process, the HT project has the
optimal comprehensive performance with the best gas
production effect, stability, and controllability, followed by
the ZLS project with the highest syngas heat value (owing to
the high methane content from the high gas-containing seam)
and poor gas production stability, and finally the SJS project
which has relatively poor gas calorific value and production
stability. To sum up, the actual running effects of these three
UCG pilot projects are consistent with their evaluation results,
which indicates that the evaluation model of the UCG site
selection built in this paper is reliable.
4.3. Model Comparison. For the site selection evaluation
of the UCG project, in addition to the model built in this
study, evaluation models with the constant weight-fuzzy
hierarchy16 and variable weight-fuzzy hierarchy17 methods
were built in previous research. For the same coal resource
conditions, the evaluation results of the new model and the
constant weight and variable weight models are basically the
same, but the performance of the variable weight model is
better than that of the constant weight model.17 However,
although the index weight of the variable weight model can be
changed according to the index attribute value of the
evaluation object, the determination of its weight depends
on the subjective consciousness of the evaluator, and the value
of the coefficient α (also used T in some references) in the
variable weight theory is lack of basis, and these factors may
adversely affect the reliability of the evaluation results. Based
on the existing fuzzy hierarchical evaluation model, we
introduce the CRITIC method and game theory to build a
new evaluation model for the UCG site selection. In theory,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf
the objectivity of the index combination weight can be
improved with the increase of the collected samples, and the
reliability of the model will also be improved, which is an
advantage that the existing evaluation model does not have.
5. CONCLUSIONS
(1) The factors of coal resource conditions associated with
the potential risk of UCG were systematically analyzed.
On this basis, 23 evaluation indices were selected from
six dimensions of the geological structure, hydrogeology,
seam occurrence, coal properties, reserves, and roof
lithology to construct a hierarchy model consisting of
the target, category index, and index layers. The
reasonable value range and calculation method of each
index value were defined, thus forming the evaluation
index system for the UCG site selection.
(2) The improved AHP was adopted to sequence indices
and determine their subjective weights. And the
variability, conflict, and information amount of the
index data were analyzed by the CRITIC method to
determine the objective weight. Then the subjective and
objective weights were combined through the game
theory. On this basis, fuzzy theory was employed to
calculate the membership of indices and construct the
fuzzy comprehensive judgment matrix. Then, a new
evaluation model based on the combination weighting
method with the game theory for the UCG site selection
was erected.
(3) The created model was adopted to evaluate the
suitability on UCG of resource conditions of Zhon-
gliangshan, Huating, and Shanjiaoshu pilot projects. The
results show that the resource conditions of Huating are
the best, followed by Zhongliangshan and, finally,
Shanjiaoshu. Evaluate results are in accordance with
the actual performance of the three UCG pilot projects,
which suggests that the evaluation model can offer
reliable technical support for the UCG site selection.
(4) Compared with the existing models, it is found that the
new model constructed in this paper has the advantages
of strong reliability and objectivity. In theory, the
objectivity of its index combination weight can be
improved with the increase of collected samples, and the
reliability of the model will be further improved. The
construction of this model not only provides a new and
reliable evaluation method for the UCG site selection
but also has an evolutionary function that the existing
model does not have.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
Wen-gang Huang − Shanxi Key Laboratory of Coal and
Coal-measure Gas Geology, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030001, China;
School of Earth Sciences, East China University of
Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330013, China;
orcid.org/0000-0001-6570-6037; Email: wengang-
huang@hotmail.com
Authors
Shao-wei Zhang − Shanxi Key Laboratory of Coal and Coal-
measure Gas Geology, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030001, China
Guo-zhi Wang − School of Earth Sciences, East China
University of Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330013, China
11554
Article
Jun Huang − School of Earth Sciences, East China University
of Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330013, China
Xin Lu − Shanxi Key Laboratory of Coal and Coal-measure
Gas Geology, Taiyuan, Shanxi 030001, China
Shu-liang Wu − School of Earth Sciences, East China
University of Technology, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330013, China
Zuo-tang Wang − School of Mines, China University of
Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, Jiangsu 221116, China
Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the editors and reviewers for their
helpful comments and suggestions. This work was funded
jointly by Shanxi Key Laboratory of Coal and Coal-measure
Gas Geology (MDZ202103) and Jiangxi Provincial Natural
Science Foundation (20224BAB203049).
■ REFERENCES
(1) Pandey, B.; Gautam, M.; Agrawal, M. Chapter 10 - Greenhouse
Gas Emissions From Coal Mining Activities and Their Possible Mitigation
Strategies; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, 2018.
(2) Huang, W.-g.; Wang, Z.; Duan, T.; Xin, L. Effect of oxygen and
steam on gasification and power generation in industrial tests of
underground coal gasification. Fuel 2021, 289, No. 119855.
(3) Duan, T. H.; Lu, C. P.; Xiong, S.; Fu, Z. B.; Chen, Y. Z. Pyrolysis
and gasification modelling of underground coal gasification and the
optimisation of CO2 as a gasification agent. Fuel 2016, 183, 557−567.
(4) Jiang, L.; Chen, Z.; Ali, S. M. F. Feasibility of carbon dioxide
storage in post-burn underground coal gasification cavities. Appl.
Energy 2019, 252, No. 113479.
(5) Sheng, Y.; Benderev, A.; Bukolska, D.; Eshiet, K. I.; Da Gama, C.
D.; Gorka, T.; Green, M.; Hristov, N.; Katsimpardi, I.; Kempka, T.;
et al. Interdisciplinary studies on the technical and economic
feasibility of deep underground coal gasification with CO2 storage
in Bulgaria. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global Change 2016, 21, 595−
627.
(6) Olateju, B.; Kumar, A. Techno-economic assessment of
hydrogen production from underground coal gasification (UCG) in
Western Canada with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for
upgrading bitumen from oil sands. Appl. Energy 2013, 111, 428−440.
(7) Hyder, Z.; Ripepi, N. S.; Karmis, M. E. A life cycle comparison of
greenhouse emissions for power generation from coal mining and
underground coal gasification. Mitigation Adapt. Strategies Global
Change 2016, 21, 515−546.
(8) Pei, P.; Nasah, J.; Solc, J.; Korom, S. F.; Laudal, D.; Barse, K.
Investigation of the feasibility of underground coal gasification in
North Dakota, United States. Energy Convers. Manage. 2016, 113, 95−
103.
(9) Klimenko, A. Y. Early developments and inventions in
underground coal gasification. In Underground Coal Gasification and
Combustion, 1st ed.; Blinderman, M. S.; Klimenko, A. Y., Eds.;
Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, 2018; pp 31−52.
(10) Qin, Y.; Wang, Z.; Han, L. Geological problems in
underground coal gasification. J. China Coal Soc. 2019, 44, 2516−
2530.
(11) Zhou, H.; Wu, C.; Jiang, X.; Wang, Z. Construction of
geological selection index system and evaluation technology of
favorable area for underground coal gasification. Earth Sci. 2022, 47,
1777−1790.
(12) Huang, W. G.; Wang, Z. T.; Xin, L.; Duan, T. H.; Kang, G. J.
Feasibility study on underground coal gasification of No. 15 seam in
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555
ACS Omega http://pubs.acs.org/journal/acsodf Article

Fenghuangshan Mine. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2012, 112, 897−
903.
(13) Huang, W.; Wang, Z.; Xie, T.; Du, X. Feasibility study on
underground coal gasification of quality characteristics of 9 Chinese
coal types. Energy Sources, Part A 2020, 42, 131−152.
(14) Khadse, A.; Qayyumi, M.; Mahajani, S.; Aghalayam, P.
Underground coal gasification: A new clean coal utilization technique
for India. Energy 2007, 32, 2061−2071.
(15) Kapusta, K.; Wiatowski, M.; Stańczyk, K.; Zagoršcǎ k, R.;
Thomas, H. R. Large-scale Experimental Investigations to Evaluate
the Feasibility of Producing Methane-Rich Gas (SNG) through
Underground Coal Gasification Process. Effect of Coal Rank and
Gasification Pressure. Energies 2020, 13, 1334.
(16) Zhao, Y.; Huang, W.; Xu, Q.; Ping, L.; Huo, C.; Yang, H. Study
on evaluation of geological conditions for underground coal
gasification: Taking Zhuzhai minefield of Jiangsu province as an
example. J. Henan Polytech. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2018, 37, 1−11.
(17) Huang, W.-g.; Zhang, S.; Lu, X.; Wu, S.; Huang, J. Residual coal
distribution in China and adaptability evaluation of its resource
conditions to underground coal gasification. Sustainable Energy
Technol. Assess. 2022, 49, No. 101654.
(18) Zhang, P.; Wang, Z.; Huang, W.; Xu, Z.; Gui, J.; Lu, X.
Construction and application of cloud model of geological conditions
of underground coal gasification with narrow strip. J. China Univ. Min.
Technol. 2017, 46, 1231−1238.
(19) Li, G. Research on comperhensive benefit evaluation of
underground coal gasification project. Shandong University of Science
and Technology, Master thesis, Qingdao, 2012.
(20) Wang, X.; Guo, Y. Analyzing the Consistency of Comparison
Matrix Based on G1 Method. Chin. J. Manage. Sci. 2006, 14, 65−70.
(21) Huang, D.; Zheng, H. Scale-extending method for constructing
judgment matrix in the analytic hierarchy process. Syst. Eng. 2003, 21,
105−109.
(22) Diakoulaki, D.; Mavrotas, G.; Papayannakis, L. Determining
objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method.
Comput. Oper. Res. 1995, 22, 763−770.
(23) Chen, J. Research on combination weighting evaluation method Recommended by ACS
based on Game Theory. J. Fujian Comput. 2003, 15−16.
(24) Wang, J.; Zu, Z.; Wang, Z.; Xu, G. The design of ignition
systems and a study of the development of the high temperature zone Determination of Shale Gas-Bearing Properties Based on
in well-type underground coal gasification. Fuel 2020, 269, Carbon Isotope Fractionation Model: A Case Study from
No. 117281. Longmaxi Formation Shales in Jiaoshiba Area, Sichuan B...
(25) Xin, L.; Wang, Z.; Wang, G.; Nie, W.; Zhou, G.; Cheng, W.; Xiao Li, Jun Wang, et al.
Xie, J. Technological aspects for underground coal gasification in JULY 13, 2023
steeply inclined thin coal seams at Zhongliangshan coal mine in ENERGY & FUELS READ
China. Fuel 2017, 191, 486−494.

■ NOTE ADDED AFTER ASAP PUBLICATION

This paper originally posted ASAP on March 14, 2023.
Construction and Application of a Big Data System for
Regional Lakes in Coalbed Methane Development
Hongya Wang, Jiahuan Wang, et al.
Throughout the paper, instances of an ellipsis were incorrectly MAY 11, 2023
replaced with an “L”. These were corrected, and a new version ACS OMEGA READ
reposted March 15, 2023.
Organic Geochemical Characteristics and Organic Matter
Enrichment of the Upper Permian Longtan Formation Black
Shale in Southern Anhui Province, South China
Jianghui Ding, Huili Li, et al.
MAY 02, 2023
ACS OMEGA READ

Implications of Organic Matter Input, Sedimentary

Environmental Conditions, and Gas Generation Potential of
the Organic-Rich Shale in the Onshore Jiza-Qamar Basin...
Mohammed Hail Hakimi, Naira Magdy Lotfy, et al.
AUGUST 09, 2023
ACS OMEGA READ
Get More Suggestions >

11555 https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00626
ACS Omega 2023, 8, 11544−11555