International Journal of Coal Geology 35 1998.

283310

Status of worldwide coal mine methane emissions and use

Carol J. Bibler ) , James S. Marshall, Raymond C. Pilcher
Raen Ridge Resources Incorporated, 584 25 Road, Grand Junction, CO 81505, USA Received 10 January 1997; revised 27 June 1997; accepted 27 June 1997

Abstract Underground coal mines worldwide liberate an estimated 2941 = 10 9 m3 of methane annually, of which less than 2.3 = 10 9 m3 are used as fuel. The remaining methane is emitted to the atmosphere, representing the loss of a valuable energy resource. Methane is also a major greenhouse gas and is thus detrimental to the environment when vented to the atmosphere. Coal mine methane recovery and use represents a cost-effective means of significantly reducing methane emissions from coal mining, while increasing mine safety and improving mine economics. The worlds ten largest coal producers are responsible for 90% of global methane emissions associated with the coal fuel cycle. China is the largest emitter of coal mine methane, followed by the Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS particularly Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan., the United States, Poland, Germany, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia, India and the Czech Republic. Most of these countries use a portion of the methane that is liberated from their coal mines, but the utilization rate tends to be low and some countries use none at all. Coal mine methane is currently used for a variety of purposes. Methane is used for heating and cooking at many mine facilities and nearby residences. It is also used to fuel boilers, to generate electricity, directly heat air for mine ventilation systems and for coal drying. Several mines in the United States sell high-quality mine gas to natural gas distributors. There are several barriers to decreasing methane emissions by increasing coal mine methane use. Many of the same barriers are common to a number of the subject countries. Technical barriers include low-permeability coals, variable or low gas quality, variations in gas supply and demand and lack of infrastructure. Economic and institutional barriers include lack of information pertinent to development of the resource, lack of capital and low natural gas prices. A possible option for

Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-970-2454088; fax: q1-970-2452514; e-mail cbibler@ravenridge.com.

0166-5162r98r$19.00 q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII S 0 1 6 6 - 5 1 6 2 9 8 . 0 0 0 3 8 - 4

284

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

encouraging coal mine methane recovery and use would be international adoption of a tradeable permit system for methane emissions. q 1998 Elsevier Science B.V.
Keywords: coalbed methane; global warming; coal mining; natural gas

1. Introduction In recent years, coalbed methane has gained attention as a saleable natural gas resource. Methane can be extracted either from coal seams which will never undergo mining, or it can be produced as a part of the coal mining process. This paper focuses on methane which is produced in conjunction with coal mining operations coal mine methane.. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA, 1994a., underground coal mines liberate an estimated 29 to 41 = 10 9 m3 of methane annually, of which less than 2.3 = 10 9 m3 are used as fuel. The remaining methane is vented to the atmosphere, representing the loss of a valuable energy resource. This paper examines the potential for recovering and using the methane which is currently being emitted from coal mines. There are three primary reasons for recovering coal mine methane. The first reason is to increase mine safety. Worldwide, there have been thousands of recorded fatalities from underground mine explosions in which methane was a contributing factor. Using methane drainage systems, mines can reduce the methane concentration in their ventilation air, ultimately reducing ventilation requirements. The second reason is to improve mine economics. By reducing emissions and preventing explosions and outbursts, methane drainage systems can cost effectively reduce the amount of time that the coal mine must curtail production. Moreover, recovered methane can be used either as fuel at the mine site or sold to other users. The third reason for coalbed methane recovery and use is that it benefits the global and local environment. Methane is a major greenhouse gas and is second in global impact only to carbon dioxide; methane thus is detrimental to the environment if vented to the atmosphere. Although the amount of carbon dioxide accumulating in the atmosphere each year is orders of magnitude larger than that of methane, each additional gram of methane released to the atmosphere is as much as 22 times more effective in potentially warming the Earths surface over a 100-year period than each additional gram of carbon dioxide USEPA, 1994a.. Compared with other greenhouse gases, methane has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime. The lifetime of methane defined as its atmospheric content divided by its rate of removal. is approximately 10 years. Due to its short lifetime, stabilizing methane emissions can have a dramatic impact on decreasing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Coal mine methane recovery and use represent a cost-effective means of significantly reducing methane emissions from coal mines. Methane, moreover, is a remarkably clean fuel. Methane combustion produces no sulfur dioxide or particulates and only half the amount of carbon dioxide that is associated with coal combustion on an energy equivalent basis. Because of the environmental impact of coal mine methane emissions, the USEPA, the International Energy Agencys Coal Advisory Board CIAB., and others have

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

285

Table 1 Estimated 1990 coal fuel cycle a methane emissions from the ten largest coal producing countries 10 9 m3 . Country China Former Soviet Union United States Germany South Africa United Kingdom Poland Australia India Former Czechoslovakia Total
a

United States EPA best estimate USEPA, 1994a. 14.024.4 7.18.8 5.38.4 1.51.8 1.23.4 0.91.3 0.82.2 0.71.2 0.6 0.40.7 31.952.8

Coal industry advisory board estimate IEA, 1994. 11.3 7.4 5.3 1.8 1.3 1.3 2.1 0.7 0.7 0.4 32.3

CIAB estimates do not include emissions associated with coal combustion.

investigated methane emissions from coal mining worldwide. The USEPA 1994a. estimates that the coal fuel cycle which includes coal mining, post-mining coal transportation and handling, and coal combustion. emits 35 to 59 = 10 9 m3 of methane to the atmosphere annually. Table 1 shows methane emissions from the worlds ten largest coal producers, which are responsible for 90% of global methane emissions associated with the coal fuel cycle. Underground coal mining is the primary source of these emissions, accounting for 70 to 95% of total emissions. There are many opportunities for decreasing coal mine methane emissions by increasing recovery of this abundant fuel. Section 2 examines the status of methane recovery and use in key countries worldwide.

2. Coal mine methane recovery and use in selected countries 2.1. China The Peoples Republic of China China. produces about 1.2 = 10 9 raw tons of hard coal annually EIA, 1996.. In 1990, coal mining activities in China emitted an estimated 14 to 24 = 10 9 m3 10 to 16 = 10 6 ton. of methane to the atmosphere, contributing one-third of the worlds total from this source. Not only is China the largest coal producer in the world; it is unique in that underground mines produce over 95% of the nations coal. Because of the great depth and high rank of Chinas coals, underground coal mines have higher methane emissions than surface mines. There are currently 108 Coal Mining Administrations CMAs. in China Fig. 1., which manage more than 650 mines. These state-owned mines are responsible for most of Chinas methane emissions, but there are numerous gassy local, township, and private mines that cumulatively produce over one-half of Chinas coal. However, these non-state owned mines are not gassy International Energy Agency or IEA, 1994..

286 C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

Fig. 1. The four coal regions in China, with locations of coal mining administrations, selected local mining areas and mines after USEPA, 1996a..

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310 Table 2 Methane emissions from key state-run underground coal mines in China, 1994 Region as depicted in Fig. 1. North South Northeast Northwest Total No. of mines total with drainage 255 217 168 29 669 53 56 20 2 131 Volume of methane in 10 6 m3 . vented drained total drained liberated and used 1,966.1 1,530.2 1,114.2 51.7 4,662.2 175.8 225.2 157.3 3.0 561.3 2,141.9 1,755.5 1,271.4 54.8 5,223.6 135.4 133.0 126.7 0.0 395.1 emitted to atmosphere 2,006.4 1,622.4 1,114.6 54.8 4,798.2

287

Coal production 10 6 ton. 246.8 89.4 93.4 8.6 438.2

Source: USEPA, 1996a.

2.1.1. Methane recoery and use in China China has a long history of coal mine methane drainage, and the volume of methane drained has increased markedly during the past decade. Nationwide, coal mine methane drainage at state-run mines nearly doubled in 14 years, increasing from 294 = 10 6 m3 in 1980 to more than 561 = 10 6 m3 in 1994 Table 2.. However, this is still less than 11% of the total methane liberated annually. Approximately 131 state-owned mines currently have methane drainage systems. Less than one-half of these mines are set up to distribute and use recovered methane. Chinas state-run coal mining administrations use about 70% of the methane they drain USEPA, 1996a.. Most of the methane recovered from Chinese mines is used for heating and cooking at mine facilities and nearby residences. Methane is also used for industrial purposes, in the glass and plastics industries, and as a feedstock for the production of carbon black an amorphous form of carbon used in pigments and printers ink.. Methane is also being used, to a lesser extent, for power generation. In 1990, the Laohutai Mine at the Fushun Coal Mining Administration built a 1200 kW methane-fired power station, the first in China. Several barriers currently prevent China from developing economic methane recovery from coal mining to its full potential. Critical barriers include the lack of an appropriate policy framework, limited capital for project investments and equipment, the need for additional information and experience with technologies and the lack of a widespread pipeline network. Artificially regulated low gas prices and difficulty with repatriation of profits, create barriers to foreign investment in joint ventures for production of domestic energy resources USEPA, 1993.. 2.1.2. The future of methane deelopment in China Recognizing the need for a unified effort in advancing coalbed methane development, Chinas highest governing body, the State Council, established the China United Coalbed Methane Company China CBM. in May 1996. As a single, trans-sectoral agency, China CBM is responsible for developing the coalbed methane industry by commercializing the exploration, development, marketing, transportation and utilization of coalbed methane. The State Council has also granted China CBM exclusive rights to

288

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

undertake the exploration, development and production of coalbed methane in cooperation with foreign partners China Energy Report, 1996.. More than 20 coalbed methane projects are underway or planned in China, and at least half of them are taking place at active mining areas. Some of the projects are state-sponsored, while others involve joint ventures with foreign companies. The future of the coalbed methane industry in China appears bright. The government recognizes coalbed methanes potential for meeting the nations burgeoning energy needs and is generally supportive of efforts to develop this resource. With deregulation of energy prices, increased capital investment in pipeline infrastructure, and ongoing research efforts, China can likely overcome its remaining barriers to widespread coalbed methane use. 2.2. Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan In 1994, Russia produced more than 169 = 10 6 ton of hard coal, Kazakhstan produced nearly 104 = 10 6 ton and Ukraine more than 90 = 10 6 ton. The coal mining regions of these republics liberate approximately 5.3 = 10 9 m3 of methane annually Table 3., of which less than 3% is utilized. This amount represents about 20% of world methane emissions from underground coal mining. The energy sectors of these Republics are at a turning point. The coal mining industry, in particular, is undergoing restructuring, a process which includes decreasing or eliminating subsidies, and closing many of the most unprofitable mines. The industry is being compelled to become more efficient in order to increase profitability. Mining regions are also seeking to mitigate environmental problems resulting from producing

Table 3 Comparison of characteristics of selected CIS coal basins Kuznetsk Hard coal production 10 6 ton. Hard coal reserves at active mines 10 9 ton. No. of active mines No. of mines draining methane Annual methane liberated 10 9 m3 . Annual methane drained 10 6 m3 . Annual methane used 10 6 m3 .
a b

Donetsk 98 b,g 11.6 c 274 d 87 e 2.9 e 400 e 70 e

Lvov-Volyn 5 b,g 0.2 c 18 b 4b 0.2 c 6c 0b

Karaganda 103 b NrA NrA 24 f 1.1e 182 e 65e

Pechora NrA NrA NrA 10 f NrA 206 e 102 e

58 a 10.0 c 76 a 32 c 1.1a 196 a 0a

1994 data EIA, 1996; USEPA, 1996b.. 1995 data Saprykin et al., 1995; EIA, 1996.. c 1991 data USEPA, 1994a.. d 1996 data written correspondence from Valentin Tchoukhalyov of Partners in Economic Reform PIER. in Donetsk, Ukraine.. e 1993 data Saprykin et al., 1995; Serov, 1995.. f 1989 data Serov, 1995.. g Coal production in the Donetsk and Lvov-Volyn Basins is estimated based on total 1995 hard coal production in Ukraine, and 1991 coal production from mines in the Russian portion of the Donetsk Basin.

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310 289

Fig. 2. Major coal basins of Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan after USEPA, 1994b..

290

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

and using coal. Thus, there is an impetus to utilize more natural gas and decrease dependency on low grade coal. Increasing recovery and use of coalbed methane is a potential means of improving mine safety and profitability while meeting the regions energy and environmental goals. There are five coal basins in the Commonwealth of Independent States where hard coal is mined and which have the potential for coalbed methane development Fig. 2.. They are: 1. the Donetsk Basin Donbass., located in southeastern Ukraine and western Russia, 2. the Kuznetsk Basin Kuzbass., located in western Siberia south-central Russia., 3. the Lvov-Volyn Basin, located in western Ukraine, which is the southeastern extension of Polands Lublin Basin, 4. the Pechora Basin, located in northern Russia and 5. the Karaganda Coal Basin, located in Kazakhstan. Of the five basins, the Donetsk and Kuznetsk Basins appear to have the largest near-term potential for coalbed methane development USEPA, 1994b.. Both of these regions are heavily industrialized and present many opportunities for coalbed methane use. Table 3 compares methane emission and use in these five basins. 2.2.1. Options for methane use in the CIS 2.2.1.1. Heating mine facilities. Currently, most mines use coal-fired boilers to produce steam heat for drying coal, heating mine facilities and heating ventilation air. In some cases, mine boilers also supply thermal energy to the surrounding communities. Boilers can be retrofitted to co-fire methane with coal, a relatively simple and low-cost procedure. More than 20 mines in the Donetsk and Pechora Basins use methane to fuel boilers and several mines also use it for directly heating air for the mines ventilation systems and for coal drying Serov, 1995; Saprykin et al., 1995.. 2.2.1.2. Use in furnaces in the metallurgical industry. Another viable market for methane use is the metallurgical industry. For example, the city of Novokuznetsk, in the southern portion of the Kuznetsk Basin, contains numerous gassy mines and is one of the biggest centers of metallurgy in Russia. The regions metallurgical industry consumes about 54 PJ of natural gas annually, which is equivalent to about 1.4 = 10 9 m3 of methane USEPA, 1996b.. 2.2.1.3. Power generation at mine facilities. Most mines purchase electricity from the power grid. Co-firing coalbed methane with coal to generate electricity on-site may be a more economical option for these mines. Coalbed methane can be used, independently of or in conjunction with coal, to generate electricity using boilers, gas turbines and thermal combustion engines USEPA, 1994b.. 2.2.1.4. Use as a motor ehicle fuel. The Donetskugol Coal Production Association in Ukraine is draining methane in advance of mining using surface boreholes. The recovered methane is compressed on-site and used as fuel for the Associations vehicle fleet. The refueling station, which has been operating for more than three years, produces about 1,000 m3 of compressed gas per day. Based on estimated gas reserves it is expected to operate for a total of eight years Pudak, 1995..

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

291

While many mines in the CIS are utilizing their methane resources, the majority are not. Certain barriers must be overcome before recovery and use of coal mine methane becomes widespread. These barriers and their potential solutions, are discussed in greater detail in Section 3 of this paper. 2.3. The United States There are five major coal producing regions in the United States from which hard coal is mined and which have the potential for coalbed methane development Fig. 3.. They are: 1. the Appalachian Basin, located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, 2. the Warrior Basin, located in Alabama, 3. the Illinois Basin, located in Illinois, Indiana and western Kentucky, 4. the Southwestern region, including the Uinta, Piceance, Green River and San Juan Basins located in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico and 5. the Western Interior region, including the Arkoma Basin of Oklahoma and Arkansas. Table 4 shows that in 1994, an estimated 4.2 = 10 9 m3 of methane were liberated by underground mining in these regions, of which less than 0.7 = 10 9 m3 were used USEPA, unpublished data.. Currently in the United States, at least 17 mines in six states Alabama, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. recover methane for profit, primarily through sale to gas distributors. In 1995, the total methane recovered from these mines, including vertical wells draining methane in advance of mining, exceeded 1 = 10 9 m3. By maximizing the amount of gas recovered via drainage systems, these mines have greatly reduced their ventilation costs, improved safety conditions for miners and have collected and sold large quantities of high-quality gas. Following is a brief description of selected coal mine methane recovery activities in the United States. 2.3.1. Warrior basin: Alabama Six of the seventeen US mines with commercial methane recovery systems are located in the Warrior Basin of Alabama. Today, energy companies recover methane from the Warrior Basin by horizontal wells, gob wells in areas being mined. and vertical wells in both mined and unmined areas.. Most of this gas is sold to regional natural gas distributors, although there is some on-site mine use. In 1995, four mines operated by Jim Walter Resources produced more than 380 = 10 6 m3 of methane for pipeline sale and USXs Oak Grove Mine recovered an estimated 117 = 10 6 m3 of methane for use. 2.3.2. Appalachian region Eight mines in Virginia and West Virginia have developed successful methane recovery and use projects. The Consol mines in Virginia are the most well-documented examples. Consol produces gas from a combination of vertical wells that are hydraulically stimulated, horizontal boreholes and gob wells drilled over longwall panels. In 1995, Consol produced approximately 688 = 10 6 m3 of saleable methane from three mines. Methane recovery efficiency at these mines is higher than 60%.

292 C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

Fig. 3. Principal coal-bearing basins of the US and estimates of in-place coalbed methane resources after Rice et al., 1993..

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310 Table 4 Estimated 1994 methane emissions from underground mines in the United States 10 6 m3 . Region as depicted in Fig. 3. Appalachian Basin Warrior Basin Illinois Basin Southwestern region basinsb Western Interior basins Total
a

293

Total liberated during mining 2,337.6 1,245.7 334.8 261.3 1.0 4,180.4

Drained and used a 313.3 351.0 0 0.4 0 664.7

Emitted to atmosphere 2,024.3 894.7 334.8 260.9 1.0 3,515.7

This figure does not include methane produced by vertical wells draining methane in advance of mining. In 1994, the Appalachian Basin produced about 337.4 million m3 of saleable methane from vertical wells in advance of mining. b Includes the Uinta, Piceance, San Juan and Raton Basins. Source: USEPA, unpublished data compiled for draft report in progress. on United States methane emissions estimates.

2.3.3. Southwestern region The Soldier Canyon Mine in Utah recovered about 10.9 = 10 6 m3 of methane for sale annually until early 1994, when production was curtailed and gas sales ended due to low market prices. 2.3.4. Summary While methane recovery has been economically implemented at the above-described mines, safety and high coal productivity remain the impetus for their degasification efforts. Methane drainage at many gassy mines in the United States is limited or nonexistent. Section 3 of this paper discusses potential avenues for increasing methane recovery and use in the United States and other countries. 2.4. Germany Germany produced nearly 54 million tons of hard coal in 1995, all from underground mines Schiffer, 1995.. Of this total, 43 million tons were mined from the Ruhr Basin in northwestern Germany Von Sperber et al., 1996. and most of the remainder was mined from the Saar Basin in southwestern Germany Fig. 4.. Until recently, hard coal mining was heavily subsidized in Germany, and the industrys future is in question Schiffer, 1995.. Even mines that are closed, however, can continue to liberate methane for long periods of time. An estimated 1.8 = 10 9 m3 of methane are liberated annually from underground mining activities in Germany, of which 520 = 10 6 m3 , or 30%, are drained IEA, 1994.. About 371 = 10 6 m3, or 71% of all drained methane, is used, primarily for heating or power generation. Government officials suggest that as much as 45% of the methane emitted from coal mining activities could be drained and used in a variety of applications. The primary barrier to increased methane recovery is low methane concentrations in the gas mixture. Safety regulations in Germany prohibit any utilization if the methane content is less than 25%. If the average recovery efficiency at German mines is to be increased, it will be necessary to adopt practices that will recover methane in a more concentrated form. These measures are discussed further in Section 3.

294

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

Fig. 4. Principal coal-bearing basins of Germany after IEA, 1994..

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

295

2.5. South Africa South Africas major coal operations are centered in the northern Karoo Basin in the Transvaal and Natal regions of the eastern part of the country Fig. 5.. More than 98 million tons of hard coal were produced from underground mines in 1994 Walker, 1995.. Underground mining is expanding as surface mineable resources become less widely available.

Fig. 5. Principal coal-bearing basins of South Africa after IEA, 1994..

296

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

An estimated 1.1 = 10 6 m3 of methane is liberated by underground mining activities in South Africa annually IEA, 1994.. No information on methane drainage is available, and while underground horizontal drilling is done in some mines, the primary purpose is exploration and not methane recovery. None of the recovered methane is utilized. South African coals are considered to have relatively high permeability, and IEA estimates that recovery efficiencies of 25 to 35% could be supported. South African mines have a record of disastrous methane outbursts, including three major disasters in the 1980s. Increasing methane recovery could avert future disasters and increase coal output, while at the same time producing valuable gas for sale or use Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants Ltd., 1991.. 2.6. United Kingdom Coal is mined throughout the UK Fig. 6. which produced 43 = 10 6 ton of coal from underground mines in 1994 World Coal, 1995.. About 1.1 to 1.3 = 10 9 m3 of methane are liberated from underground mining annually, of which nearly 0.4 = 10 9 m3 are drained and 0.1 to 0.2 = 10 9 m3 are used IEA, 1994; USEPA, 1994a.. Large-scale drainage and utilization of coal mine methane began in Britain in the 1950s at the Point of Ayr Colliery in North Wales Young et al., 1994.. By the mid-1960s, mine gas utilization in Britain was well established at numerous mines. Recovered methane was used primarily to generate steam for mine facilities, but coal mine gas was also sold to domestic and industrial users as town gas. In 1977, the Point of Ayr Colliery brought a gas turbine system on line to generate electricity from recovered methane and the 1.3 MW system used about half of the mine gas produced to provide 30% of the collierys electricity needs. The most recent advances in mine gas utilization have been at the Harworth Colliery in Nottinghamshire, where a 15 MW gas turbine electricity generator, fueled entirely by mine methane, has been brought on line. This is the largest turbine fueled by coal-mine methane in Europe. Increased recovery and use of mine methane in the United Kingdom has been restricted by the relatively low permeability of the coal, low gas pressures and the resulting difficulty in using horizontal in-seam boreholes to recover methane. Furthermore, vertical holes for draining methane from the surface in advance of mining have not been drilled due to concerns over the effects of hydraulic stimulation on mining, drilling costs, the potential disturbance of aquifers and environmental objections to multiple surface facilities and pipelines IEA, 1994.. If these barriers can be overcome, methane recovery from United Kingdom mines could be increased. 2.7. Poland and the Czech Republic About three-fourths of the Upper Silesian Coal Basin USCB. lies in southern Poland Fig. 7. and the remaining one-fourth is in the northeastern Czech Republic Fig. 8., where it is known as the Ostrava-Karvina Coal Basin OKR.. The USCB accounts for about 97% of all hard coal production and more than 98% of underground coal mine methane emissions in Poland and the Czech Republic. Therefore, this paper will not discuss the much smaller hard-coal producing basins of the region, such as the Lower Silesian Coal Basin and Central Bohemian Coal Basins.

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

297

Fig. 6. Principal coal-bearing basins of the United Kingdom after IEA, 1994..

Both Poland and the Czech Republic began actively draining methane, for safety reasons, in the late 1950s. About 18 of the 62 mines in the Polish portion of the USCB and all ten in the Czech portion, have methane drainage systems USEPA, 1995a; USEPA, 1992.. Methane is drained simultaneously with coal extraction at the working face, from gob areas and from development areas. Underground mining in the USCB

298

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

Fig. 7. Principal coal-bearing basins of Poland after USEPA, 1991..

liberated approximately 1,109 = 10 6 m3 of methane in 1993, of which nearly 331 = 10 6 million m3 were drained Table 5., for an average recovery efficiency of nearly 30%. About 83% of the methane drained from USCB mines in Poland and the Czech Republic is used, mostly in boilers at the mines, and also by nearby industries such as steel mills and combined heat and power plants. While this utilization rate is very high compared to most countries, many opportunities exist for increasing development of coal mine methane resources, as both countries import most of the natural gas they use. For coal mine methane to achieve its full potential as a viable, economical fuel source in Poland and the Czech Republic, however, substantial investment will be required.

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

299

Fig. 8. Principal coal-bearing basins of the Czech Republic after USEPA, 1992..

2.8. Australia Australia produces coal primarily from the eastern portion of the continent in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria Fig. 9.. Total coal reserves are estimated at
Table 5 Methane liberation data, Upper Silesian Coal Basin, Poland and the Czech Republic. 1993 data except where otherwise noted. Poland Basin area km2 . Active mining concessions in 1996 Hard coal production 10 6 ton. Methane liberated by mining 10 6 m3 . Methane drained 10 6 m3 . Methane used 10 6 m3 . Methane emitted to atmosphere 10 6 m3 .
a

Czech Republic 1,600 10 a 127.2 355.8 117.9 105.3 250.5

Total 7,400 72 143.5 1,109.3 330.7 273.0 836.3

5,800 62 16.3 753.5 212.8 167.7 585.8

Estimated based on 1992 data. Sources: USEPA, 1995a; Takla et al., 1995.

300

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

Fig. 9. Principal coal-bearing basins of Australia after IEA, 1994..

nearly 325 = 10 9 ton IEA, 1994.. About 53 = 10 6 ton of coal are produced from underground mines annually. In 1990, Australias underground mines liberated an estimated 594 to 1,162 = 10 6 m3 of methane, of which 70 to 122 = 10 6 m3 were used IEA, 1994; USEPA, 1994a., primarily for electricity generation. A new power generation project was completed in 1996 and managed by the Appin Power Partnership. The project is scheduled to use at least 155 million m3 of coal mine methane annually, supplied by BHPs Appin and Tower collieries, to generate electricity using state-of-the art lean-burn gas engine technology. A total of 94, 1 MW gas engines are operating at the two collieries, 54 of them at Appin and 40 at Tower. In addition, Appin uses 65 m3rsecond of ventilation air to produce between 4 and 8 MW of electricity, depending on the methane content of the ventilation air. Use of mine ventilation air increases the overall output of the power plant by 7 to nearly 15%. Tower

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

301

Colliery is currently unable to utilize its ventilation air, however, as the exhaust shaft nearest to the power generation facility is scheduled to be converted to an intake shaft Hammonds, 1996, written communication.. The power generated at Appin and Tower Collieries is sold and distributed locally for use in about 60,000 homes. In addition to reducing Australias coal mine methane emissions, the project has created 30 new jobs and improved the reliability of the local power supply. With continued success, this project should serve as a model for methane use at gassy underground coal mines worldwide.

Fig. 10. Principal coal-bearing basins of India after IEA, 1994..

302

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

2.9. India The largest coalfields in India are located in the eastern and central states of Bihar, West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh, but other resources are scattered throughout the country Fig. 10.. Most of Indias coal is produced from surface mines, but its 355 underground mines produce nearly 64 = 10 6 ton of coal annually Wilcox, 1995.. Mitra 1992. reported that only a small portion 3.5 million tons annually. of Indias underground-mined coal is produced from gassy mines, and that these mines liberate an average of 20 m3 of methane per ton of coal mined. IEA 1994. estimates that underground mining in India liberates 576 = 10 6 m3 of methane annually, a relatively small amount compared to other countries examined in this paper. However, government reforms and industrialization are contributing to rapid increases in coal demand, which may cause underground coal production to increase in the future. Therefore, methane emissions from underground mining may also increase. Coal mine methane drainage attempts in India have been limited, and no known drainage programs are in place. Serious mine methane explosions have occurred, however, and many lives have been lost. Implementation of methane drainage programs at Indias gassy mines would clearly be desirable from the standpoint of safety and mine productivity. IEA 1994. estimates that India could recover 25 to 35% of the methane it currently emits. The market potential for this methane will be strong, given Indias growing need for domestic energy sources.

3. Barriers to decreasing coal mine methane emissions There are several barriers to decreasing methane emissions by increasing coal mine methane use. Some are technical, such as low coal permeability, while other are institutional, such as low gas prices. In a few cases, certain barriers are country- or region-specific, but most cases, many of the same barriers exist in a number of countries. This section discusses obstacles to increased coal mine methane use, and potential ways to overcome these obstacles. 3.1. Technical issues 3.1.1. Low-permeability coals Coal seams that exhibit low permeability pose special problems for developing successful methane drainage and recovery systems. Methane desorbs and flows through natural pores and fractures until the gas reaches the mine face or borehole. Stimulation technology that enhances the flow of gases from the seam into a recovery system has been successfully used in the past several years. Early efforts to modify fracturing techniques for application in coal seams were largely unsuccessful IEA, 1994.. The current practice of hydraulic stimulation in coals, however, minimizes roof damage while achieving extensive fracturing. Under ideal conditions, 60 to 70% of the methane contained in the coal seam can be removed using vertical degasification wells drilled more than 10 years in advance of mining assuming a permeability of at least 110 md..

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

303

These efforts have been successful in the United States and other industrialized countries. Transfer of this technology to other countries can help increase coal mine methane recovery. 3.1.2. Variable or low gas quality Often, the gas drained during mining contains low concentrations of methane, sometimes as low as 30%. In some countries, use of gas at concentrations of less than 25% is prohibited. Clearly, it is desirable to produce the highest quality gas possible and to ensure that quality concentration. variations are minimized. In the short term, there are several relatively inexpensive, low-technology methods of improving the quality of recovered mine gas in many countries. These include shutting in old wells in-mine., reducing leaks in the in-mine and surface gas gathering systems pipelines. and improving grouting of standpipes. In the long term, there are several methods for improving gas quality which require some investment and higher technology than some mines currently have. There are three primary means of improving the quality of gas recovered from coal mines USEPA, 1995a.. The first of these is improved monitoring and control. One of the most economical methods to improve the quality of gas is to reduce air entrapment in the gas stream during the production process. Since the ratio of methane liberated generally declines with time, it is necessary to adjust critical production parameters frequently in order to control the pressure and maintain a high methane concentration in the product gas. Continuous monitoring of the oxygen content at the wellhead, adjusting the production rate and monitoring the mine ventilation system can all help improve gas quality. Second, gas quality can be improved by increasing pre-mine drainage. Gas drained in advance of mining usually has a higher methane content than that drained from working faces or gob areas. Advanced pre-mine drainage techniques include use of vertical wells drilled from the surface and use of more numerous and more strategically placed, cross-measure boreholes drilled in advance of mining. Third, gas quality can be improved by enriching gas through removal of one or more of the following contaminants: nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and moisture. Cryogenic processes for separating nitrogen and air from methane have been successful for large-scale conventional natural gas operations, but most require high capital investment and are economically viable only for very large gas flows millions of m3 per day.. There are a number of enrichment processes currently being evaluated for use at small-scale operations, including a pressure swing adsorption process that was tested at the Buchanan Mine in the United States Shirley et al., 1997.. 3.1.3. Variations in gas supply and demand Many mines that currently use methane for heating purposes face a shortage of gas during the winter months when demand is high, yet vent large quantities to the atmosphere during summer months when demand is low. Fluctuations in methane supply due to seasonal or market demand are a common barrier to implementing or expanding methane use projects. This barrier can be overcome by developing or expanding gas storage capacity. In many gas producing areas of the world, underground storage is the

304

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

most common means of storing gas to meet peak seasonal market requirements. The most commonly used storage sites are porous reservoirs, including depleted oil and gas fields, as well as aqueous reservoirs. In China, the primary means of coalbed methane storage is surface storage tanks using the Higgins floating lid design Fig. 11.. Coalbed methane drained from underground mines is transported to the storage tanks, and then supplied to nearby houses, schools and other consumers via pressure adjustment stations and pipelines. The largest-capacity surface storage tank is only 10,000 m3, however, which is much less than most subsurface reservoirs. In addition to conventional storage facilities, another available option is gas storage in abandoned coal mines or shafts. Since the early 1980s, two abandoned mines in Belgium have stored imported natural gas Moerman, 1982.. In Poland, coalbed methane

Fig. 11. 10,000 m3-capacity Higgins floating top storage tank at the Kailuan Coal Mining Administration, China.

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

305

is being stored in an inactive shaft at the gassy Morcinek Mine Gatnar, 1994.. The storage facility, developed in 1994, has a capacity of 35,000 m3. Methane drained from this mine is normally delivered to its preparation plant drying station and its boiler house. When there is no demand at those facilities, the gas is delivered to the storage reservoir. When the demand for methane exceeds that which can be supplied by the drainage station, methane flows from the storage reservoir to the drainage station and then to the boiler house andror preparation plant. 3.1.4. Lack of infrastructure Many coal mining areas lack pipelines or gathering systems to collect and transport gas. In such cases, it is most economical to use coal mine methane locally where compression and long-distance transportation is unnecessary. 3.2. Economic and institutional issues In addition to the technical obstacles described above, there are a variety of other issues that have prevented coal mine methane recovery from becoming more widespread. These issues include lack of information, lack of capital, low natural gas prices and risks associated with foreign investment. Each of these issues is explored below. 3.2.1. Lack of information In the United States and other countries, one of the problems that has slowed coal mine methane project development is that some coal mine operators do not have adequate information regarding coal mine methane projects. While much has been published on the subject, methane recovery is still seen as a relatively new concept to many coal operators. A related constraint is that some coal operators simply do not have the time or resources to investigate the potential to develop a profitable project at their own coal mine. The key strategy for overcoming informational barriers in the United States has been to develop outreach programs. Outreach programs work well when companies are shown that they can profit while at the same time reducing emissions or improving mine safety. Examples of outreach programs include the USEPAs Coalbed Methane Outreach Program, which is conducted in the United States, and the Coalbed Methane Clearinghouses in Poland, China and Russia. These institutions distribute information and link together interested parties, provide technical training, and in some cases perform pre-feasibility assessments for specific projects. 3.2.2. Lack of capital Even when a pre-feasibility assessment has demonstrated that the economics of a coal mine methane project are attractive, a lack of financing may prevent projects from taking place. Coal companies often do not have surplus capital available to invest in coalbed methane recovery and use projects because available capital must be invested in their primary business of coal production. Additionally, some lending organizations may be unfamiliar with the relatively new concept of coal mine methane recovery and use, and project developers may thus be unable to secure the necessary up-front financing

306

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

needed to cover the large capital investments required for such projects. Following are two types of solutions to this obstacle that are currently available or could readily be implemented in some countries; a third, the concept of tradeable permits, is discussed separately in Section 3.3. 3.2.2.1. Tax incenties. Governments can use a variety of different tax incentives to spur development. Coal mine methane projects may qualify for tax incentives that have been developed for certain types of environmental, energy, and economic development projects. One type of incentive is tax exemptions, which exclude an item or activity from the base upon which tax is computed. Poland, for example, grants an unusually generous 10 yr corporate tax exemption to entities engaged in oil, gas, and coal mine methane prospecting. Tax credits, another form of incentive, reduce the overall tax liability of a project, thereby increasing profitability. Depending on the size of the credit, tax credits can have a very large impact on encouraging the development of certain types of projects. For example, the United States coalbed methane industry benefitted greatly from the Federal Section 29 Tax Credit, which was designed to promote the development of unconventional energy projects. A third type of incentive is tax deductions. Tax deductions are frequently associated with business income taxes, and like exemptions, they reduce the base upon which tax is computed. Unlike tax credits however, deductions cannot offset the total tax liability for the year and cannot be carried forward and applied to future tax years. 3.2.2.2. Capital access assistance. This type of assistance provides access to capital through grants, loans, loan guarantees and venture capital USEPA, 1995b.. Coal mines or joint ventures may be able to use these types of assistance to finance coal mine methane projects. 3.2.3. Low natural gas prices In some countries natural gas prices are held at artificially low rates. Even in countries whose gas prices are at market levels, prices may be low due to low demand. In such cases, special types of incentives to encourage coal mine methane recovery could be implemented. For example, legislation could be enacted requiring local distribution companies to purchase recovered coal mine methane if it is sold at a competitive price. China has recently established preferential policies for projects which involve gas recovery and use from coal mines. The government has also passed a law exempting coalbed methane producers from royalties and land occupation fees for production of up to 2 = 10 9 m3 of methane per year. 3.3. A possible option for encouraging coal mine methane recoery and use: The tradeable permit system Section 2 of this paper mentions several profitable examples of mine methane use worldwide. For the most part, however, large-scale coal mine methane recovery and use projects are undertaken only by large, well-funded coal companies. In general, mining

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

307

companies have implemented degasification projects in situations where safety and mine productivity necessitate them. On-site utilization andror sale of the recovered methane has been secondary and while it has been profitable in certain instances, it is has not proven highly lucrative. Despite the various solutions described above to overcoming capital constraints associated with implementing methane recovery programs, most mining companies, especially the smaller ones, do not have a sufficient incentive to do so. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in June, 1992, 155 countries signed a Framework Convention on Climate Change whose goal is to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, including methane, at a level that does not interfere with the climate system UNCTAD, 1995.. The convention came into force in March 1994. The means chosen to implement the convention have not yet been determined. Among the possibilities under consideration are emissions taxes, external offsets and tradeable permits. Emissions taxes would be inherently punitive and probably difficult to enforce, especially on an international scale. External offsets would allow countries to meet their targets by financing emission reductions in other countries where reductions can be achieved more easily or more cheaply, or both. One objection to this approach is that the wealthy countries would, in the process, increase their ownership of assets in the poorer countries, a situation which poorer countries could find objectionable. The third option, tradeable permits, involves defining an overall emissions reduction target for all participating countries. Individual countries would then be issued permits to emit carbon to a certain level. The sum of these permits would equal the overall target. Participants would have to hold permits equal to the value of their emissions. If they proved insufficient, they would have to buy or lease permits from other participants which had permits in excess of their requirements. There are a number of precedents from which valuable insights can be gained about how such as system might work. One is the tradeable emission permit system first introduced by the USEPA during the 1970s. The USEPAs Emissions Trading Program allowed polluters to reduce their emissions below a set standard and then apply for a credit which could be used to offset excess emissions at other places. The USEPA allowed these credits to become transferable and tradeable. This concept has been applied in several ways in the United States and other countries and its versatility has been proven. One example from the United States involved the introduction of lead-free gasoline. A permit program was introduced which allowed gasoline refiners that reduced lead levels below those required in one quarter of the year to bank credits for subsequent quarters. The credits could also be transferred from one refiner to another. Refiners that could not immediately meet the required levels were saved from the expense of legal action by buying credits to give them time to comply. Another example is the control of acid rain precursors in the United States. Reducing discharge of sulfur dioxide by imposing emissions fines would have been prohibitively expensive. Instead, companies who reduced emissions below established levels received a credit. A market quickly developed for sulfur dioxide allowances. As a result, scrubber technology has improved and many companies are actually over-complying with emissions regulations.

308

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

Coal mine methane emissions reduction lends itself to such a program because it meets the most important prerequisite of a tradeable permit commodity-the emissions can be measured from the source. If mines could receive a credit for the greenhouse gas reduction value of their methane, it could become a significant source of revenue for the mines. There are many ways that the system could work, but it would likely center on a pre-determined emissions level. For example, if it was determined that underground coal mines had to ensure that methane emissions were kept at 1990 levels, then mines whose emissions were less than that level could sell their excess permits into the market. Mines would thus have an incentive to reduce their emissions by utilizing the methane.

4. Conclusions As discussed above, coal mines worldwide emit large volumes of methane, much of which could be recovered and used as fuel. In many instances, countries whose mines emit large quantities of methane are in critical need of a domestic energy source, particularly one which is clean-burning. In countries whose economies are in transition, such as China, the former Soviet Union and the Eastern European nations, coal mine methane recovery offers economic benefits as a new industry that can help provide jobs for displaced coal miners or other workers. In countries whose economies are established, such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, coal mine methane recovery may help increase the profit margin of mining enterprises. The reduction of methane emissions can have a significant global impact, but incentives are needed to encourage more widespread recovery of coal mine methane. An incentive program offered on an international level would probably be the most effective means of stimulating development of the coal mine methane industry. Of the various options for international-level incentives, a system of tradeable permits for methane emissions would likely be the most cost effective. Due to various technical, economic and institutional barriers, it will never be possible to completely eliminate emissions of methane from coal mines. However, a worldwide coal mine methane utilization rate of 25% may be realizable, particularly if an international incentive program is implemented. This would reduce the estimated emissions of coal mine methane to the atmosphere by 7 to 10 = 10 9 m3 annually, substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions and curtailing the waste of a valuable energy source.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the United States Environmental Protection Agency USEPA. and the United Nations for giving them the opportunity to work on projects aimed at reducing methane emissions from coal mines in many of the countries discussed in this paper. The authors are grateful to Pramod Thakur of Consol, and Romeo Flores of the United States Geological Survey for their valuable insight and review of this manuscript. The Coalbed Methane Clearinghouses in China, Poland and

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

309

Russia have provided a large amount of background information used in this manuscript. Dina Kruger of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wal Hammonds of Appin Power Partnership and Mary DePasquale of ICF, also provided assistance.

References
China Energy Report, 1996. State Council launches methane company. China Energy Rept. 3, 7. Energy Information Administration, 1996. World energy database for the International Energy Annual. US Dept. of Energy, Energy Infor. Adm. World Wide Web site, http:rrwww.eia.doe.govremeurworld. Gatnar, K., 1994. The problems of capturing and the optimum utilisation of coalbed methane from mining concessions of the Jastrzebie Coal Company. In: The Silesian International Conference on Coalbed Methane Utilisation Proceedings, Katowice, Poland. Polish Foundation for Energy Efficiency, Katowice, Poland. International Energy Agency, 1994. Global Methane and the Coal Industry. Int. Ener. Agency Coal Ind. Advisory Board, Paris, France, 67 pp. Industrial and Petrochemical Consultants Ltd., 1991. Coalbed Methane Resource Development. Natl. Ener. Council, Pretoria, South Africa, 59 pp. Mitra, A.P. Ed.., 1992. Global Change: Greenhouse Gas Emission in India. Sci. Rep., vol. 4. India Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and Ministry of Environment and Forests, 61 pp. Moerman, A., 1982. Internal Report on Gas Storage in Perrones-Les-Binche. S.A. Distrigaz, 19 pp. Pudak, V.V., 1995. Degassing of methane bearing geologic structures in the Donbass coal basin by the Donetsk Coal Association. International Unconventional Natural Gas Symposium Intergas 95. Proceedings. Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 517529. Rice, D.D., Law, B.E., Clayton, J.L., 1993. Coalbed gas: An undeveloped resource. In: Howel, D.D. Ed.., The Future of Energy Gases. US Geol. Surv., pp. 389404. Saprykin, V.L, Boxerman, Y.A., Karp, I.N., Pyatnichko, A.I., 1995. Technical and economic feasibility of coalbed methane production and utilization in the Ukraine. International Unconventional Natural Gas Symposium Intergas 95. Proceedings. Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 531540. Schiffer, H.W., 1995. What Future for German Coal? World Coal, July 1995, pp. 1622. Serov, V.I., 1995. Economical aspects of coalbed methane extraction and utilization by coal mines in the CIS. International Unconventional Natural Gas Symposium Intergas 95. Proceedings. Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 179183. Shirley, A., Porto, J., Hawk, E., 1997. A demonstration of methane recovery from coal mine gases by pressure swing adsorption. 1997 International Coalbed Methane Symposium. Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, unpublished presentation. Takla, G., Bezdek, J., Vavrusak, Z., 1995. Coalbed methane recovery in the Czech Republic. International Unconventional Natural Gas Symposium Intergas 95. Proceedings. Univ. of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp. 361368. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 1995. Controlling carbon dioxide emissions: The tradeable permit system. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTADrGIDr11, 39 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1991. Assessment of the potential for economic development and utilization of coalbed methane in Poland. US Env. Protection Agency, EPAr40011-911032. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1992. Assessment of the potential for economic development and utilization of coalbed methane in Czechoslovakia. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-92-1008, 76 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Options for Reducing Methane Emissions Internationally, vol. II: International Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions Report to Congress.. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-93-006B. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1994a. International Anthropogenic Methane Emissions: Estimates for 1990. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 230-R-93-010.

310

C.J. Bibler et al.r International Journal of Coal Geology 35 (1998) 283310

United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1994b. Reducing Methane Emissions from Coal Mines in Russia and Ukraine: The Potential for Coalbed Methane Development. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 430-K-94-003, 68 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995a. Reducing Methane Emissions from Coal Mines in Poland: A Handbook for Expanding Coalbed Methane Recovery and Use in the Upper Silesian Coal Basin. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-95-003, 122 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995b. Finance Opportunities for Coal Mine Methane Projects: A Guide for Southwestern Pennsylvania. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-95-008, 70 pp. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1996a. Reducing Methane Emissions from Coal Mines in China: The Potential for Coalbed Methane Development. US Env. Protection Agency, EPA 430-R-96-005. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1996b. Reducing Methane Emissions from Coal Mines in Russia: A Handbook for Expanding Coalbed Methane Recovery and Use in the Kuznetsk Coal Basin. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA 430-D-95-001, 65 pp. Von Sperber, M., Kunz, E., Juch, D., Gaschnitz, R., 1996. Potential Coalbed Methane Resources and Actual Exploration Efforts in Ruhr-District, Germany. Coalbed Methane Forum, Morgantown, West Virginia. November 1921, 2 pp., distributed unpublished report. Walker, S., 1995. South Africa looks to Better Times. World Coal, Oct. 1995, pp. 3546. Wilcox, S., 1995. Indian Coal: A Time of Change. World Coal, Sept. 1995, pp. 2029. World Coal, 1995. UK Coal-back to the Future. World Coal, April 1995, pp. 2231. Young, S.R., Baily, H.E., Holloway, S., Glover, B.W., 1994. The history of mine gas utilisation and status of coalbed methane development in the UK. The Silesian International Conference on Coalbed Methane Utilisation Proceedings, Katowice, Poland. Polish Found. for Ener. Efficiency, Katowice, Poland.