Simple field test model for underground coal gasification

1983 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 538-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Galli ◽  
George E. Jones ◽  
Fred E. Kiviat
Keyword(s):  
Field Test ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Test Model ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification

Field test of large-scale hydrogen manufacturing from underground coal gasification (UCG)

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 1275-1285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lanhe Yang ◽  
Xing Zhang ◽  
Shuqin Liu ◽  
Li Yu ◽  
Weilian Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Field Test ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification

scholarly journals Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 5. Hanna III field test research report

1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.C. Bartke ◽  
D.D. Fischer ◽  
S.B. King ◽  
R.M. Boyd ◽  
A.E. Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
Data Base ◽  
Field Test ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification

scholarly journals Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 3. The Hanna II, Phase I field test

1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.C. Bartke ◽  
D.D. Fischer ◽  
S.B. King ◽  
R.M. Boyd ◽  
A.E. Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Data Base ◽  
Field Test ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification

scholarly journals Development of gasification agent injection tool for underground coal gasification

2021 ◽  
Vol 267 ◽  
pp. 02056
Author(s):  
Zhi Chen ◽  
Feng Zhu ◽  
Youjun Zhang ◽  
Weiping Lv ◽  
Zheng Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Pressure Drop ◽  
Field Test ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Low Pressure ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification ◽  
Injection Point ◽  
Coiled Tubing ◽  
System Pressure ◽  
Downhole Temperature ◽  
New Generation

The underground coal gasification (UCG) technology is basically mature, but the influence of its own process and tools slows down its industrialization progress. This paper introduced the development and field test of two new UCG coiled-tubing gasification agent injection tools. The test results show that the two kinds of gasification agent injection tools ensure the injection point under control by conducting downhole temperature measurement and ground monitoring jointly. The problem that the tool is burnt by the backfire is solved by designing a backfire prevention device. To realize low pressure drop, the gasification agent flow channel inside the tool is designed optimally to keep the tool pressure drop not more than 0.5 MPa and the system pressure drop not more than 3 MPa. The tool overall has the characteristics of low pressure drop, high temperature resistance, backfire prevention and anti burning to satisfy the demand of the field test. This technology is a new achievement in the development of UCG technology and equipment in China. The research conclusions can provide technical reference for developing a new generation of UCG technology.

scholarly journals Hanna, Wyoming underground coal gasification data base. Volume 2. The Hanna I field test

1985 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.C. Bartke ◽  
D.D. Fischer ◽  
S.B. King ◽  
R.M. Boyd ◽  
A.E. Humphrey
Keyword(s):  
Data Base ◽  
Field Test ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification

Comparison of results from air-acceptance and hydrogeological tests associated with underground coal gasification

1981 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 443-447
Author(s):  
W. C. Edwards ◽  
R. I. J. Vogwill
Keyword(s):  
Field Test ◽  
Coal Gasification ◽  
Initial Pressure ◽  
Air Injection ◽  
Acceptance Testing ◽  
Underground Coal Gasification ◽  
Flow Parameters ◽  
Pressure Distributions ◽  
Permeability Anisotropy ◽  
Acceptance Tests

Air-acceptance testing of a coal aquifer was conducted prior to a field test of underground coal gasification to investigate the characteristic flow parameters of the aquifer and the flow patterns developed in the vicinity of the injection well. Pressure distributions developed during air injection were found to be similar to those developed during prior hydrogeological testing, but gave a more local indication of permeability anisotropy. Values of kL/μ from the initial pressure build up during the air-acceptance tests were 4.8–9.5 times those from the hydrogeological tests, indicating that significant differences between the permeability, pumping well height, and viscosity exist for the two flow situations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document