Exploring geological parameters sensitive to underground coal gasification

Authors

ZHOU Ze, Coal Mine Exploration Bureau of Guizhou Province, Guiyang 550025, China; Guizhou Youchi Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang 550014, China; Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory of Fluidized Mining of Coals, Guiyang 550014, ChinaFollow
YI Tongsheng, Coal Mine Exploration Bureau of Guizhou Province, Guiyang 550025, China; Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory of Fluidized Mining of Coals, Guiyang 550014, ChinaFollow
QIN Yong, Guizhou Youchi Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang 550014, China; China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
ZHOU Yongfeng, Guizhou Youchi Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang 550014, China
WANG Lingxia, Coal Mine Exploration Bureau of Guizhou Province, Guiyang 550025, China; Guizhou Provincial Key Laboratory of Fluidized Mining of Coals, Guiyang 550014, China
KONG Weimin, Guizhou Youchi Energy Technology Co., Ltd., Guiyang 550014, China

Abstract

Compared to ground coal chemical plants, underground coal gasification (UCG) requires gasifiers as geological bodies. Accurately understanding geological conditions is a critical prerequisite for UCG. To minimize the geological risks involved in UCG siting, this study systematically explored the geological parameters sensitive to UCG based on the intricate geological conditions of Guizhou Province, China. By collecting and organizing the exploration data of coal resources in Guizhou, this study established mathematical models for normalized, graded parameter value assignment, the algorithm of parameter weight vectors, and the algorithm of parameter weight product, with the purpose of obtaining the accurate quantitative data of geological parameters of the study area. Building on the geological parameter set comprising 26 geological parameters, this study identified the cross effects of critical geological risk factors on the feasibility of UCG in coal seams of a complex structural area using a mathematical statistics method. Finally, this study determined the geological risk sources sensitive to four indices: the feasibility of gasifier construction, process-related easy controllability, gasification safety, and the economy of development. The results show that the geological parameters of the four indices exhibit different sensitivities, which gradually weaken in the order of the feasibility of gasifier construction, process-related easy controllability, gasification safety, and the economy of development. The feasibility of UCG manifests the greatest dependence on the feasibility of gasifier construction, succeeded by process-related easy controllability. In contrast, the remaining two indices exhibit significantly reduced sensitivity due to their relatively high discreteness. Regarding the degree of sensitivity, the most sensitive parameter among 26 geological is the firmness coefficient of coal seams, with other eight dominant geological parameters including coal seam thickness, coal seam dip angle, coefficient of coal thickness variation, gangue thickness coefficient, fault index, coal seam burial depth, Audibert–Arnu dilatation, and bond index. These major parameters affect the feasibility of gasifier construction and process-related easy controllability. For the geological parameters sensitive to UCG in Guizhou, the key to the success of UCG projects lies in the feasibility of gasifier construction, and gasifier siting should first consider structural characteristics and their effects on coal seam conditions. To continuously promote the UCG industry, it is feasible to establish unified assessment criteria for the geological risks of UCG based on the abovementioned four indices, as well as the actual features and occurrence conditions of coal resources in China. Accordingly, a scientific basis can be provided for the siting of pilot test areas with typical geological conditions.

Keywords

shaftless, underground coal gasification (UCG), sensitivity factor, geological parameter, principal component analysis, gasifier siting

DOI

10.12363/issn.1001-1986.23.08.0473

Recommended Citation

ZHOU Ze, YI Tongsheng, QIN Yong, et al. (2024) "Exploring geological parameters sensitive to underground coal gasification," Coal Geology & Exploration: Vol. 52: Iss. 3, Article 4.
DOI: 10.12363/issn.1001-1986.23.08.0473
Available at: https://cge.researchcommons.org/journal/vol52/iss3/4

Reference

[1] 刘峰，郭林峰，赵路正. 双碳背景下煤炭安全区间与绿色低碳技术路径[J]. 煤炭学报，2022，47(1)：1−15.

LIU Feng，GUO Linfeng，ZHAO Luzheng. Research on coal safety range and green low–carbon technology path under the dual–carbon background[J]. Journal of China Coal Society，2022，47(1)：1−15.

[2] 国家发展改革委，国家能源局. 关于印发《“十四五”现代能源体系规划》的通知(发改能源[2022]210号)[EB/OL]. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xxgk/zcfb/ghwb/202203/t20220322_1 320016. html?code=&state=123，2022-07-04.

[3] 滕吉文，王玉辰，司芗，等. 煤炭、煤层气多元转型是中国化石能源勘探开发与供需之本[J]. 科学技术与工程，2021，21(22)：9169−9193.

TENG Jiwen，WANG Yuchen，SI Xiang，et al. Diversified transformation of coal and coalbed methane：China’s fossil energy exploration，development，supply and demand[J]. Science Technology and Engineering，2021，21(22)：9169−9193.

[4] 秦勇，王作棠，韩磊. 煤炭地下气化中的地质问题[J]. 煤炭学报，2019，44(8)：2516−2530.

QIN Yong，WANG Zuotang，HAN Lei. Geological problems in underground coal gasification[J]. Journal of China Coal Society，2019，44(8)：2516−2530.

[5] 秦勇，易同生，杨磊，等. 中国煤炭地下气化现场试验探索历程与前景展望[J]. 煤田地质与勘探，2023，51(7)：17−25.

QIN Yong，YI Tongsheng，YANG Lei，et al. Underground coal gasification field tests in China：History and prospects[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration，2023，51(7)：17−25.

[6] 金黎黎，杨磊，吴亚荣，等. 欧盟国家煤炭地下气化先导试验历程与进展述评[J]. 煤田地质与勘探，2023，51(7)：43−51.

JIN Lili，YANG Lei，WU Yarong，et al. UCG pilot tests in EU countries：A review of history and progress[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration，2023，51(7)：43−51.

[7] 孔维敏，周永峰，易同生，等. 苏联煤炭地下气化产业化历史回顾与评述[J]. 煤田地质与勘探，2023，51(7)：26−33.

KONG Weimin，ZHOU Yongfeng，YI Tongsheng，et al. UCG industrialization in the Soviet Union：History and comments[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration，2023，51(7)：26−33.

[8] 周泽，汪凌霞，秦勇，等. 澳大利亚 UCG 工程示范历程与启示[J]. 煤田地质与勘探，2023，51(7)：52−60.

ZHOU Ze，WANG Lingxia，QIN Yong，et al. UCG engineering demonstrations in Australia：History and its implications[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration，2023，51(7)：52−60.

[9] 黄婉，王军，汪凌霞，等. 美国煤炭地下气化先导试验及其对现代 UCG 技术的贡献[J]. 煤田地质与勘探，2023，51(7)：34−42.

HUANG Wan，WANG Jun，WANG Lingxia，et al. UCG pilot tests in the United States and their contributions to modern UCG technologies[J]. Coal Geology & Exploration，2023，51(7)：34−42.

[10] PEI Peng，NASAH J，SOLC J，et al. Investigation of the feasibility of underground coal gasification in North Dakota，United States[J]. Energy Conversion and Management，2016，113：95−103.

[11] NIEC M，SERMET E，CHECKO J，et al. Evaluation of coal resources for underground gasification in Poland：Selection of possible UCG sites[J]. Fuel，2017，208：193−202.

[12] 秦勇，易同生，汪凌霞，等. 面向项目风险控制的煤炭地下气化地质条件分析[J]. 煤炭学报，2023，48(1)：290−306.

QIN Yong，YI Tongsheng，WANG Lingxia，et al. Analysis of geological conditions for risk control of UCG project[J]. Journal of China Coal Society，2023，48(1)：290−306.

[13] 张曼婷，付炜，王凯. 贵州省煤炭地下气化选址的地质影响因素[J]. 天然气技术与经济，2020，14(6)：29−32.

ZHANG Manting，FU Wei，WANG Kai. Geological factors influencing on site selection of underground coal gasification in Guizhou Province[J]. Natural Gas Technology and Economy，2020，14(6)：29−32.

[14] 贵州省能源局，贵州省科学技术厅. 关于印发《贵州省能源科技创新发展“十四五”规划》的通知(黔能源发〔2022〕7号)[EB/OL]. http://www.guizhou.gov.cn/zwgk/zdlygk/jjgzlfz/nyzy/nyjyhkjzbgl/202206/t20220601_74572300.html?isMobile=true，2022-05-31.

[15] 周泽，汪凌霞，郭志军，等. 贵州省六盘水煤田煤炭地下气化资源评价[J]. 中国煤炭地质，2020，32(3)：27−33.

ZHOU Ze，WANG Lingxia，GUO Zhijun，et al. Assessment of coal underground gasification resources in Liupanshui Coalfield，Guizhou Province[J]. Coal Geology of China，2020，32(3)：27−33.

[16] ZELENAK S，SKVAREKOVA E，SENOVA A，et al. The usage of UCG technology as alternative to reach low–carbon energy[J]. Energies，2021，14(13)：3718.

[17] 王创业，刘猛，葛藤泽，等. 煤炭地下气化的零碳排放能量转换技术研究[J]. 化工技术与开发，2022，51(5)：22−25.

WANG Chuangye，LIU Meng，GE Tengze，et al. Research on energy conversion technology of zero carbon emission from underground coal gasification[J]. Technology & Development of Chemical Industry，2022，51(5)：22−25.

[18] 秦勇，易同生，周永锋，等. 煤炭地下气化产业政策建设困境与破局对策[J]. 煤炭学报，2023，48(6)：2498−2505.

QIN Yong，YI Tongsheng，ZHOU Yongfeng，et al. Dilemma and countermeasure of policy construction of UCG industry[J]. Journal of China Coal Society，2023，48(6)：2498−2505.

[19] 兰继斌，徐扬，霍良安，等. 模糊层次分析法权重研究[J]. 系统工程理论与实践，2006(9)：107−112.

LAN Jibin，XU Yang，HUO Liang’an，et al. Research on the priorities of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process[J]. System Engineering Theory and Practice，2006(9)：107−112.

[20] 张亚飞，张松航，邓志宇，等. 基于层次分析–灰色定权聚类的煤层气开发甜点预测方法：以柿庄北区块为例[J/OL]. 煤炭科学技术，2023：1–11 [2023-08-01]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2402.TD.20230721.1626.001.html.

ZHANG Yafei，ZHANG Songhang，DENG Zhiyu，et al. A prediction method for coalbed methane development sweet spots based on grey relational clustering：Taking Shizhuangbei Block as an example[J/OL]. Coal Science and Technology，2023：1–11 [2023-08-01]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/11.2402.TD.20230721.1626.001.html.

[21] 苏为华. 多指标综合评价理论与方法问题研究[D]. 厦门：厦门大学，2000.

SU Weihua. Research on theory and method of multi–index comprehensive evaluation[D]. Xiamen：Xiamen University，2000.

[22] 赵焕臣，许树柏，和金生. 层次分析法：一种简易的新决策方法[M]. 北京：科学出版社，1986.

[23] 王雪，谢淼，周玲菲，等. 基于成分数据处理的主成分分析研究[J]. 科学技术创新，2023(18)：94−98.

WANG Xue，XIE Miao，ZHOU Lingfei，et al. Principal component analysis research based on component data processing[J]. Scientific and Technological Innovation，2023(18)：94−98.