Mini Project Report

Titled as

Modelling of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) using

CMG

Department of Petroleum Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)

Dhanbad-826004

Year: 2024-2026

Submitted by

Sahil Tomar 24MT0378

Certificate

1
This is to certify that Sahil Tomar (24MT0378), student from Master of Technology (Petroleum
Engineering), Department of Petroleum Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (Indian
School of Mines), Dhanbad has worked under my supervision and completed his Project titled as
“Modelling of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) using CMG”.

Prof. Archana Balikram

Assistant Professor

Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)

Date: 01/12/2024

2
 Acknowledgement

I would like to extend my wholehearted gratitude for my mentor Assistant Prof. Archana
Balikram for his valuable advice, excellent guidance, patience, support and good wishes.
Without his undisputable support this work would not have been true in the light of daylight.

I would like to extend my wholehearted gratitude towards my fellow students who were there by
my side and helped me to make this project a grand success.

Sincerely,

Sahil Tomar – 24MT0378

Department of Petroleum Engineering

Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines)

Dhanbad-826004

3
 List of Figures

Chapter Title Page No

1 Introduction 5

2 Literature Review 8

3 Details about UCG and Key Topics 9

4 Methodology 14

5 Case Study 19

6 Recent Developments

7 Conclusion

4
 Chapter 1

Introduction

Background

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) offers a sustainable alternative to conventional coal

utilization, addressing challenges such as resource depletion and environmental impacts. Unlike
surface gasification, UCG eliminates the need for mining and reduces capital costs. This report
investigates the use of CMG software to model UCG, emphasizing cavity formation, syngas
production, and the interplay of physical and chemical phenomena.

Objectives

The primary objectives of this study are:

 To develop a comprehensive model for UCG using CMG software.

 To analyze the impact of various operational parameters on syngas quality and quantity.
 To assess the environmental implications of integrating carbon capture and sequestration
with UCG.

Scope of the Study

This study focuses on the following aspects:

 Physiochemical processes during UCG.

 Application of CMG for simulation.
 Evaluation of operational and environmental parameters.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study contribute to advancing clean coal technologies by optimizing UCG
operations and minimizing environmental impacts. Insights from this research are valuable for
industries seeking to harness coal reserves sustainably.

5
 Chapter 2

Literature Review

Fundamentals of UCG

Underground coal gasification (UCG) is a promising option for the future use of un-worked coal.
UCG permits coal to be gasified in situ within the coal seam, via a matrix of wells. The coal is
ignited and air is injected underground to sustain a fire, which is essentially used to “mine” the
coal and produce a combustible synthetic gas which can be used for industrial heating, power
generation or the manufacture of hydrogen, synthetic natural gas or diesel fuel. UCG offers four
potential advantages over conventional mining and the subsequent surface processing of coal:

(1) The health hazard to miners is minimized, thereby improving safety;

(2) The product gas may be cheaper due to the elimination of some surface plants and lower
capital investment.

(3) It has ecological benefits,

because the land surface is left intact and the capture and storage of CO2 is easier in this process.

(4) It is a feasible method for exploitation of deep and thin coal seams that are not economic

to mine using current mining technology

6
 Fig. 1 View of the reverse & forward combustion linking in UCG.

Modeling Strategies for UCG

UCG is a complicated process, which occurs in the presence of different phenomena, such as

combustion, gasification, fluid flow, and rock mechanics. There are only a few measurable

parameters, such as the coal and seam properties, a gas production rate, gas composition,

temperature at certain locations, and operating conditions. Therefore, modeling and simulation is
essential to predicting and controlling UCG processes, particularly for pilot tests at great depth.

Current UCG models are mostly based on a one-dimensional study of combustion and
gasification of coal using a complex computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approach. These
models were used to interpret and predict the performance of laboratory-scale experiments that
were generally performed at lower pressures 5 MPa and shallow depths to 600 m.

7
Some current UCG models assume complicated velocity equations, including the turbulent gas
flow inside the cavity, and utilize chemical engineering correlations for a particle size and the
porosity of the reactor. In addition, the cavity geometry and growth rate were modeled with an
initially pre-assumed shape, either a tiny rectangular cube or a cylinder. Moreover, most of these
studies focused on one cavity and only a few considered interactions with the overburden.

These models did not consider interactions between cavities. Due to the enormous complexity
and computational cost of these models as the grid numbers increase, they cannot be efficiently
used to simulate large-scale field trials. Using the CRIP technology, the coal is gasified in
several stages and a sequence of cavities are developed according to the applied retraction
strategies.

These cavities are known to influence each other thermally. For this reason, the current models
are not appropriate to investigate the performance of different UCG technologies at a large scale.

A comprehensive study of complicated UCG processes requires an integrated model composed

of several submodels:

 A coal submodel to investigate evaporation, pyrolysis, self-gasification and

combustion of char, the effect of water influx, and heat and mass transport

phenomena.

 A cavity submodel to study cavity growth mechanisms, a growth rate, cavity

geometry, formation of a rubble pile at the bottom of the cavity, and fluid flow and

mass transfer within the cavity.

 Gas cleaning and environmental submodels that focus on the separation of

undesired gas species from the product gas, the surface treatment of the syngas for

final use, and handling of the produced CO2, H2S, etc.

8
The UCG models can be divided into two main categories,

 Global models.

 Process models.

Global models describe the overall field performance of UCG, while the process models are
simple models of specific parts of the process, such as rock and coal spalling and the 4 effect of
water influx. The global models incorporate several approaches, such as packed bed models,
coal block models, and channel models.Because of the intricate nature of UCG, modellers have
used various available tools to examine different aspects of UCG. The popular software packages
used with UCG are COMSOL Multiphysics, Ansys Fluent, CMG STARS, FLAC3D, and
MODFLOW.Although not purposefully built for modelling UCG, each modelling tool has its
own strengths and weaknesses.

Fig2.The temperature profile in an underground coal gasification cavity from CMG modelling

9
 Chapter 3

Details about UCG and Key Topics

Fundamental Concepts

The fundamental concepts used in Underground Coal Gasification (UCG),are-

1) In-Situ Gasification Process:

In-Situ Gasification Process involves converting coal into synthetic gas (syngas) directly
within the coal seam, eliminating the need for mining. Syngas, composed of H₂, CO, CH₄, and
CO₂, flows to the production well and is extracted for processing and utilization.Below are the
detailed steps and concepts of the process as derived from the paper:

Key Steps of the In-Situ Gasification Process are-

 Drilling and Well Placement:

Injection and production wells are drilled into the coal seam to provide pathways for gasifying
agents and syngas extraction.Horizontal or vertical wells are used based on the coal seam's depth,
thickness, and dip.

 Pathway Creation:

A high-permeability path is established between the wells through methods like hydraulic
fracturing, reverse combustion linking, or forward linking techniques. This ensures gas flow
across the seam.

 Ignition:

Coal is ignited near the injection well using an oxidizing agent like air, oxygen, or steam.The
combustion initiates the generation of high temperatures required for subsequent gasification
reactions.

 Gasification Zones:

Oxidation Zone: Combustion of coal produces heat and carbon dioxide.

Reduction Zone: Generated heat drives reactions between char, steam, and carbon dioxide,
producing syngas components such as hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

Pyrolysis Zone: Coal decomposes into volatile gases, tar, and char under thermal stress.

10
 Cavity Formation and Growth:As gasification progresses, an underground cavity forms.
Its growth is influenced by thermal effects, mechanical stresses, and coal seam
characteristics.Roof collapse and rubble accumulation within the cavity regulate its shape
and size.

 Post-Gasification Activities:

Once gasification concludes, the cavity can be flushed with steam or water to remove
pollutants.Sealing and monitoring are done to prevent groundwater contamination and
environmental hazards.

Fig 4.. Schematic of the significant events in underground coal gasification

 Key Reactions in UCG:

1. Heterogeneous Reactions: Reactions occur on the coal's surface, such as the combustion of
carbon to carbon dioxide and the water-gas reaction to produce hydrogen and carbon

11
 monoxide.

2. Homogeneous Reactions: Reactions in the gas phase, including the water-gas shift reaction
and methane formation.

Fig 5. Homogeneous Reaction

 Three Reaction Zones:

1. Oxidation Zone: Coal burns with oxygen, producing heat and primary gases (CO2 and CO).
Temperatures can reach up to 1,450°C.
2. Reduction Zone: Endothermic reactions between CO2, H2O, and hot coal produce H2 and
CO.
3. Dry Distillation Zone: Pyrolysis and devolatilization of coal occur, releasing tars,
hydrocarbons, and gases.

Fig 6.Reduction Zone Reaction

12
 Fig 7. Pyrolysis Zone Reaction

 Cavity Formation:

UCG occur as coal is gasified and consumed by the combustion and reduction reactions.
Initially, coal at the injection point burns, creating a high-temperature zone. As gasification
progresses, the coal around the cavity is consumed, and the rock above begins to collapse,
forming a void or cavity. The shape and size of this cavity depend on the coal seam’s properties,
gas flow, and reaction rates. The cavity's expansion is influenced by factors such as heat
distribution, mechanical stresses, and the accumulation of rubble and ash at the cavity's base,
stabilizing the structure.

 Gasifying Agents

1. Air, oxygen, steam, or combinations are injected to control reaction pathways and the
quality of syngas produced.
2. Oxygen-enriched environments increase syngas calorific value, while air results in lower
calorific value syngas.

Applications of UCG

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) offers a range of applications, primarily in energy

production, while also addressing environmental concerns and making use of previously
unmineable coal reserves.

1. Energy Production:
UCG produces synthetic gas (syngas), a mixture of hydrogen (H₂), carbon monoxide (CO),
methane (CH₄), and carbon dioxide (CO₂). Syngas is a versatile energy source used for
electricity generation, industrial heating, and as a chemical feedstock. It can be converted
into hydrogen for fuel cells, methanol, or other synthetic fuels. This makes UCG a key
technology for producing cleaner energy from coal, which traditionally has higher environmental
impacts.

2. Access to Unmineable Coal Reserves:

UCG enables the exploitation of coal seams that are too deep, thin, or difficult to mine using
conventional techniques. This is especially important as many high-quality, shallow coal

13
reserves are depleting. By converting coal in-situ, UCG increases the accessible coal reserves,
extending the lifespan of coal as an energy resource.

3. Reduced Surface Impact:

One of UCG's major advantages is its minimal surface footprint. Since the gasification process
occurs underground, it avoids the need for traditional mining operations, reducing land
disturbance, surface subsidence, and the environmental hazards associated with coal mining,
such as erosion and deforestation.

4. Integration with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS):

UCG can be integrated with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. The underground
cavities formed during gasification can be used for the storage of CO₂, helping to mitigate the
greenhouse gas emissions from coal-based energy production. This makes UCG a potential tool
for reducing the environmental impact of coal use while still providing energy.

5. Coal-to-Chemicals Industry:
UCG can also serve the coal-to-chemicals industry, producing syngas that can be converted into
valuable chemicals like ammonia, methanol, and fertilizers, making it an important component
in the global chemical manufacturing sector.

14
 Chapter 4

Methodology

CMG Software Overview

Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG) offers the STARS simulator, a powerful reservoir
simulation software package with extensive capabilities in modeling thermal and advanced

processes. This new generation reservoir simulator is equipped with robust reaction kinetics and
geomechanics functionalities. STARS presents various options to cater to complex

reservoir scenarios, including chemical and polymer flooding, thermal applications, steam
injection, horizontal wells, dual porosity/permeability, directional permeabilities, flexible

grids, and fireflood. Its versatility allows for the simulation of diverse processes, such as steam
flood, steam cycling, steam with additives, dry and wet combustion, and various chemical
additive processes. The software supports a wide range of grid and porosity models, enabling
simulation at both field and laboratory scales. With its comprehensive features and capabilities,
STARS is a cutting-edge reservoir simulator that addresses a broad spectrum of thermal and
advanced processes in the oil and gas industry.

As shown in Fig., the main advantage of the CMG software is that it is able to model nearly all
the fundamental phenomena involved in UCG in a 3D perspective without a large computational
burden. In addition, the hydrocarbon recoveryeoriented package exhibits some superior features
over other tools, such as complex geology, versatile well layouts, coal ignition and pyrolysis
modelling, and flexible injection schemes. Furthermore, CMG owns the package to

model the storage of CO2 in the post-UCG cavities.

15
 Fig 8.Underground coal gasification investigations with CMG reservoir simulator.

Model Development

4.2.1 Input Data

 Input parameters are derived from literature and field studies, including:
 Coal seam characteristics (e.g., porosity, permeability).
 Kinetic parameters for gasification reactions.

Simulation Workflow

 Define injection and production well configurations.

 Initialize chemical reactions based on coal and gasifying agent properties.
 Calibrate the model using experimental data.

16
 Chapter 5

Case Studies

Case Study 1: Simulation of Pyrolysis Process

The pyrolysis process is a critical component in coal gasification, involving the thermal
decomposition of coal in the absence of oxygen, typically between 350°C and 900°C. In this case
study, the objective was to simulate the pyrolysis of coal using two different modeling methods
and validate the results with experimental data. Pyrolysis leads to the production of low-
molecular-weight gases, light hydrocarbons, and solid char. The volatile gases are released from
coal at varying rates and temperatures, depending on the species involved. This case study used
both analytical and simulation models to capture the complexities of this process.

Modeling Approaches:

Two widely applied methods were employed to model the pyrolysis process:

1. Single-Step Decomposition Model: This simplified approach assumes that the evolution
of all species occurs through a single reaction. While computationally efficient, it cannot
capture the complex behaviors of individual components involved in pyrolysis.

17
 2. Simultaneous-Independent Reactions Method: This more detailed approach models
the decomposition of each species independently, with reactions considered to be of the
first-order and following the Arrhenius equation. This method allows for a more accurate
representation of the different gases produced during pyrolysis.

For the simulation, the coal was divided into two blocks in the model:

 Block 1: Contained coal and a heater that supplied the necessary heat to initiate pyrolysis.
 Block 2: This block did not contain coal and was primarily used to account for the
temperature gradient effects during the pyrolysis process.

Simulation Setup:

The simulation involved injecting nitrogen (N₂) as the carrier gas at a rate of 0.3 sm³/day into
Block 1. The goal was to model the evolution of nine different gas components during pyrolysis,
including H₂O, CO, H₂, CO₂, CH₄, ethane (C₂H₆), propane (C₃H₈), ethylene (C₂H₄), and tar. The
heating rate was set to 10°C/min, and the corresponding properties of these components and their
relevant reactions.

Fig 9. Comparison of cumulative mass of produced gas species during pyrolysis process for

18
analytical (lines) and simulation (symbols) results using simultaneous-independent
reactions model

Results and Analysis:

The simulation model aimed to replicate the temperature variation and the evolution of gases
over time in the first block. The heating rate and initial temperature were assumed to be
10°C/min and 25°C, respectively. During the experiment, the coal's solid content decreased over
time, and heat transfer through convection became more significant in the later stages. The
temperature profile was found to match experimental results, though some deviations were noted
in the later stages due to the dominance of convection.

The evolution of gas species was also monitored during the process. Nine distinct reactions were
considered in the model, and the corresponding release rates of volatile species were tracked.
The results were compared with analytical methods, and it was observed that the simulation
provided good matches in terms of the onset of gas evolution, the temperature range for
maximum evolution, and the evolution rates. However, some discrepancies arose due to the
limitations of the single-step decomposition model, particularly in capturing the different
temperature ranges and rates at which various species evolved.

Pyrolysis Reaction Kinetics:

In both models, the pyrolysis reaction was assumed to be first-order with respect to the
concentration of coal. The rate of evolution of volatile species was governed by an Arrhenius
relationship, where the pre-exponential factor and activation energy values were obtained from
experimental data in the literature. The values for these constants were as follows:

 Pre-exponential factor (A₀): 1.9E+17 day⁻¹

 Activation energy (E): 180.0 kJ/mol

These constants allowed the simulation to calculate the rate of volatile evolution over time and
estimate the cumulative release of gas species during the pyrolysis process. The simulation also
considered the formation of char as a byproduct, which is a key component in the subsequent
stages of coal gasification.

Validation and Comparison:

The results from the simulation were compared with experimental data. The temperature profiles
showed good agreement with the experimental results, particularly in the early stages of
pyrolysis. However, the cumulative release rates of gas species showed discrepancies between
the simulation and the analytical model. This discrepancy was attributed to the use of a single
activation energy value for all volatile species in the single-step decomposition model, which
oversimplified the complex nature of the pyrolysis process.

19
To address this, the simultaneous-independent reactions method, which accounts for the
individual behaviors of different species, was suggested as a more accurate approach for
simulating pyrolysis. This method allowed for better representation of the varying temperature
ranges at which different gases evolved during the process.

Conclusion:

This case study demonstrated the importance of selecting appropriate models and reaction
kinetics when simulating the pyrolysis process. The single-step decomposition method, while
simpler, was less effective in capturing the complexities of species evolution compared to the
simultaneous-independent reactions method. The simulation results indicated that the latter
method is better suited for capturing the intricate dynamics of pyrolysis, including the
temperature dependence of various gas species. Furthermore, the good agreement between the
experimental results and the simulation data confirmed the validity of the approach, making it a
promising tool for modeling pyrolysis in the context of underground coal gasification.

The study also highlighted the need for careful consideration of reaction kinetics, as well as the
limitations of simplified models, in accurately representing the pyrolysis process. The findings
provide valuable insights for improving the design and optimization of UCG processes,
especially in terms of accurately predicting gas evolution and heat transfer dynamics during
pyrolysis .

Chapter 6

Recent Developments

Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) is a transformative technology that converts coal into
syngas directly in situ, offering significant advantages over conventional mining and surface
gasification. With advancements in modeling, field applications, and environmental integration,
UCG is becoming an increasingly viable solution for sustainable energy production. This
summary consolidates insights from recent research and developments in UCG, emphasizing its
potential, challenges, and future directions.

Technological Advancements in UCG Modeling

Simulation and Modeling Tools

Modern simulation tools such as CMG STARS, COMSOL Multiphysics, and FLAC3D have
revolutionized UCG modeling. These platforms simulate complex phenomena, including
pyrolysis, heat transfer, and chemical reactions. Adaptations of commercial hydrocarbon
simulators have replicated UCG processes at depth, integrating key reactions like steam
gasification and the Boudouard reaction.

The modeling approach has shifted from simple 1D studies to multidimensional simulations.
These simulations account for factors such as cavity growth, thermo-mechanical failure, and

20
mass transfer. Advanced numerical models can optimize operational parameters like oxidant
flow rates and injection strategies. The use of simultaneous-independent reactions methods
enables accurate prediction of gas evolution rates, significantly improving the reliability of UCG
simulations.

Integration with Artificial Intelligence

The integration of AI into UCG modeling enhances real-time monitoring and predictive
capabilities. AI algorithms analyze large datasets from field operations, enabling dynamic
adjustments to improve efficiency and safety. This innovation is particularly valuable for
managing subsurface uncertainties and optimizing resource extraction.

Field Applications and Global Initiatives

Expanding Field Trials

China and Australia are at the forefront of UCG implementation. China’s five-year plans
emphasize UCG as a strategic method for decarbonizing coal utilization. Notable projects in
Australia, such as the Chinchilla and Bloodwood Creek trials, have demonstrated the feasibility
of UCG in diverse geological settings.

Recent field tests, like the Swan Hills pilot in Canada, explore UCG at unprecedented depths
exceeding 1,000 meters. These trials focus on enhancing safety and environmental compatibility,
particularly in high-pressure environments.

Innovative Well Configurations

Technological advancements in well configurations, including Linear and Parallel Controlled

Retracting Injection Points (L-CRIP and P-CRIP), enable more efficient gas extraction. These
configurations facilitate better control of cavity development and minimize energy losses. For
steeply dipping seams, innovative slant drilling techniques ensure consistent syngas production.

Environmental Considerations and Carbon Management

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

Integrating UCG with CCS technologies significantly reduces its environmental footprint. Post-
burn cavities formed during UCG serve as natural reservoirs for CO₂ storage, aligning with
global decarbonization goals.

Groundwater Protection

One critical challenge in UCG is preventing groundwater contamination. Recent developments

focus on robust monitoring systems and impermeable barriers to contain potential pollutants.
Advanced geomechanical models assess risks like subsidence, ensuring minimal impact on
surrounding ecosystems.

21
Economic and Energy Potential

Cost Efficiency

UCG eliminates the need for surface mining, reducing capital expenditures associated with
equipment, labor, and land acquisition. Studies estimate that UCG could increase recoverable
coal reserves by up to 300%, making it a cost-effective solution for energy production.

Syngas Utilization

The syngas produced via UCG is a versatile energy source, used in power generation, hydrogen
production, and as a feedstock for chemical synthesis. Enhanced hydrogen yields, achieved
through optimized oxidant mixtures, highlight UCG’s role in supporting the hydrogen economy.

Challenges and Future Directions

Technological Barriers

Despite significant progress, UCG faces challenges in scaling up. Complex subsurface
conditions and variations in coal seam properties complicate operational planning. Enhanced
modeling frameworks and real-time data integration are essential to overcome these barriers.

Policy and Regulation

Supportive policies are crucial for accelerating UCG adoption. Governments must establish clear
regulations to address environmental concerns, incentivize research, and promote clean coal
technologies.

Future Prospects

Emerging trends in UCG research include:

Hybrid Systems: Combining UCG with renewable energy sources to achieve net-zero emissions.

Advanced Materials: Developing high-temperature-resistant materials for well linings to

improve operational efficiency.

Global Collaboration: Strengthening international partnerships to share best practices and

standardize UCG technologies.

22
23
 Chapter 7

Results & Conclusion

The project modeled Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) using CMG software to evaluate
critical aspects such as cavity formation, syngas production, and environmental implications.
Key findings include:

Simulation Insights:

1. The developed UCG model successfully simulated essential processes such as pyrolysis,
gasification, and syngas generation under various operational scenarios.
2. The application of CMG software allowed detailed visualization of cavity growth,
temperature profiles, and gas species evolution, providing a realistic representation of
UCG dynamics.
3. The model validated experimental results and demonstrated a strong correlation between
predicted and observed gas composition and production rates

Gasification Parameters:

1. Injection methods and gasifying agents significantly influence syngas quality. Oxygen-
enriched agents produced higher calorific value syngas compared to air.
2. Key reactions, including pyrolysis, reduction, and oxidation, were accurately captured,
enabling improved predictions of syngas components (H₂, CO, CH₄).

Environmental Assessment:

1. Integrating Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) with UCG highlighted the potential to store
CO₂ in post-gasification cavities, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
2. Groundwater contamination risks were identified as critical challenges, emphasizing the
need for advanced geomechanical modeling and robust containment strategies.

Economic Feasibility:

1. UCG demonstrated cost advantages over traditional coal mining by eliminating surface
infrastructure requirements and utilizing previously inaccessible coal seams.
2. The scalability of UCG to deeper and thinner seams could extend coal reserve life by up to
300%.

24
Conclusion

The study confirms the viability of UCG as a sustainable and efficient energy technology, with
key conclusions as follows:

Technological Feasibility:

1. CMG modeling proved effective in simulating complex UCG processes, making it a

valuable tool for optimizing operational strategies and mitigating environmental risks.

Operational Implications:

1. Fine-tuning operational parameters, such as oxidant flow rates and well configurations, can
significantly enhance syngas production efficiency and quality.

Environmental and Economic Benefits:

1. Integrating UCG with CCS presents a promising path to decarbonizing coal utilization while
addressing environmental concerns like groundwater protection.
2. UCG offers a cost-effective alternative to conventional mining, particularly for otherwise
unmineable coal reserves.

Future Prospects:

1. Advanced simulation frameworks and real-time data integration are essential for overcoming
scalability challenges and refining UCG processes.
2. International collaboration and supportive policies are crucial for accelerating UCG adoption
and ensuring its role in global energy transition.

25