Advanced geophysical underground coal gasification monitoring
Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) produces less surface impact, atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gas than traditional surface mining and combustion. Therefore, it may be useful in mitigating global change caused by anthropogenic activities. Careful monitoring of the UCG process is essential i...
Saved in:
Published in | Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change Vol. 21; no. 4; pp. 487 - 500 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Dordrecht
Springer Netherlands
01.04.2016
Springer Nature B.V |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) produces less surface impact, atmospheric pollutants and greenhouse gas than traditional surface mining and combustion. Therefore, it may be useful in mitigating global change caused by anthropogenic activities. Careful monitoring of the UCG process is essential in minimizing environmental impact. Here we first summarize monitoring methods that have been used in previous UCG field trials. We then discuss in more detail a number of promising advanced geophysical techniques. These methods – seismic, electromagnetic, and remote sensing techniques – may provide improved and cost-effective ways to image both the subsurface cavity growth and surface subsidence effects. Active and passive seismic data have the promise to monitor the burn front, cavity growth, and observe cavity collapse events. Electrical resistance tomography (ERT) produces near real time tomographic images autonomously, monitors the burn front and images the cavity using low-cost sensors, typically running within boreholes. Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) is a remote sensing technique that has the capability to monitor surface subsidence over the wide area of a commercial-scale UCG operation at a low cost. It may be possible to infer cavity geometry from InSAR (or other surface topography) data using geomechanical modeling. The expected signals from these monitoring methods are described along with interpretive modeling for typical UCG cavities. They are illustrated using field results from UCG trials and other relevant subsurface operations. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1381-2386 1573-1596 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s11027-014-9584-1 |