Underground Coal Gasification Conclusions (Finance) UCG represents an exciting economic prospect • Significant world resources of currently un-minable coal Only available technology to mine such reserves • • Can resolve issues of security of supply • Can be economic source of energy without subsidy • Real possibilities for dealing with Co2 Economics can be very site specific • Competing energy sources • Coal seam characteristics Hurdles to jump • Perception of coal as a dirty fuel source • Funding of nascent technology
Underground Coal Gasification Basic Licencing Issues • Licensing policies for UCG now being written • Mining is usually the base reference • Important to work with Government to achieve a workable system • UCG Association able to assist • All concerns should be addressed at the outset • Modern UCG is a new industry and therefore new to everyone, the public, the media and also regulators
Underground Coal Gasification Standard Issues relating to UCG Application area Target seams Past mining & geology Water Environmental Issues Working method Health & Safety issues Interaction Issues
Underground Coal Gasification Some Points to Answer or Note(1) • Are you financially able to undertake the proposal and deal with any liabilities? • Can you provide security against any liability such as subsidence, sealing of boreholes, non-payment of rent and other leasehold liabilities? • Can you obtain other necessary permissions and consents such as planning permission and surface access rights? • You will need to agree leasehold payment for the coal / product of coal if you are not the owner of the coal
Underground Coal Gasification Some Points to Answer or Note(2) • Unlikely to proceed without dealing with CCS. • How will you convince the public? • Subsidence • Ground Water Contamination • Health and Safety will need to be satisfied • .....so will the Environment Agency • ....especially if it is under buildings, farms, ....where people live • How do you convince the regulator you can control the burn?
Underground Coal Gasification Some Points to Answer or Note(3) • Regulators will need to deal with competing bids and other users of coal. Sometimes difficult for a new industry since others are already licensed • Offshore licensing involves other activities – oil pipelines, shipping lanes, natural habitats, conservation areas, pressure groups • Security of installations increases costs • ...so does distance for Syngas to travel (also reduces potential heat value and therefore economic viability...not to mention drilling costs)
Underground Coal Gasification Some Points to Answer or Note(4) • Distance can be a huge issue. In Australia the pilots are long distances from town centres so planners happy but the costs of transporting equipment, oxygen, syngas is high • Wyoming, USA presents similar issues • Never underestimate the power of protest • The issuers of the licence, environmental go ahead, health and safety approval and the inspectorate of post operation, will almost certainly be different bodies. Each body is governed by national plans, guidance papers etc.
Underground Coal Gasification Some National Planning Objectives • Prudent, efficient and sustainable use of resources • Conserve mineral resources through appropriate domestic provision and timing of supply • Working practices which prevent or reduce impacts on the environment and human health • Protect internationally and nationally designated areas of landscape value and nature conservation importance • National Objectives and Policies delivered through Regional and Local Plans and Control of Development • Is UCG development more than a local issue? The planning officer may have a brief outside of his capacity
Underground Coal Gasification Planning Development Control UK Pre applications and consultations • • Submission of application (Likely to need Environmental Impact Assessment) • Accompanied by Risk Impact Assessment (Optional) • Consult Other Statutory and non Statutory Bodies and Organisations especially Environment Agency/Health and Safety Executive (Other Consent Regimes) • Consult the Local Community • Evaluate and Assess • Decision made by Democratically Elected Committee based on Officer Report and Recommendations
Underground Coal Gasification Key UK Planning Determinants and Issues Reactive, Supportive or Restrictive • • Fixed Resource but a Number of Locations for Processing Type or Project: • Underground and/or Surface Facilities • Experimental (Drilling/Gasification) • Sub Commercial/Commercial • Carbon Capture and Storage Site Selection: • Key Constraints Considered • Alternative Locations – Co-ordination/Across Local Authority Boundaries • Answer the Question : Why Here?
Underground Coal Gasification The Site • Environmental and Human Health Impacts • International/National/Local Designations • Site Characteristics • Noise and Vibrations • Landscape Character • Air Quality and Dust • Visual Impacts • Ground and Surface Water • Transportation • Extent and Duration
Underground Coal Gasification Consultations Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures/Regulatory Controls and • Agreements • Outcome from Consultations • Public Response : Individual Land and Property - New technology – Fears of High Level of Risk - Perceived benefits/gains to the local community - Extent, level and duration of impacts - Monitoring/Enforcement and Effectiveness of Regulatory Controls
Underground Coal Gasification The Planning Balance Sheet Material Benefits Environmental Costs Site Location – Compromise Carbon Capture/Storage Environmental Effects – Surface Employment Regeneration Brownfield Site Control of Pollutants Local Environmental Gains Site Rehabilitation Local Energy Source Size/Duration of Project
Underground Coal Gasification Environmental Issues EU • Pollution Prevention and Controls Regulations • Groundwater Directive – Groundwater Regulations • Water Framework Directive - Water Resources Act • Large Combustion Plant Directive • Permitting • Discharge of Pollutants Directive • Directive on Control of Major Accident Hazards • Carbon Capture and Sequestration • Strategic Environmental Assessment • Security of Energy supply
Underground Coal Gasification Australia- Queensland (1) With thanks to Peter Sallens and Cliff Mallett: • Queensland Government policy on UCG announced Feb 2009 • State Govt put an embargo on UCG progress, except for allowing 3 pilots, when confronted with the problem that they had issued overlapping tenements for the same coal to both CBM and UCG operators. Generally, the CBM tenements were issued prior to the UCG tenements. • The Three pilots were already well advanced when the Govt decided to embargo future growth in UCG until the dust settled with the CBM complaints. • Others may be approved at the discretion of the Minister for Mines and Energy • Independent scientific expert panel will review and assess the findings although they have stated they are not involved in environmental issues . The “scientific panel” was thought to be a way for the State Government to validate the embargo, and the embargo was a quick reaction when CBM (especially BG) complained loudly that they were are big energy industry, with massive investments, threatened by UCG tenements. • The policy did not resolve the issue of tenement overlaps between UCG and CBM. There is a problem with tenement overlap in that the Govt issued Petroleum tenements to CBM and minerals tenements to UCG for the same coal. • The Queensland Government has appointed an Expert Panel to advise it on the technical requirements, environmental performance and implications of UCG with respect to the over-lapping tenure issue. This will be based on the performance of the three approved UCG pilot operations (Linc Energy at Chinchilla, Carbon Energy at Kogan and Cougar Energy at Kingaroy). The pilots are due to report on the trials by March 2011, and the Expert Panel will report to Government towards the end of 2011. A new Government policy on UCG is expected to be announced in 2012. The Expert Panel is working closely with the three companies, jointly on common issues, and separately on proprietary technology issues. • Link: http://www.dme.qld.gov.au/mines/underground_coal_gasification_policy.cfm
Underground Coal Gasification Australia-Other States • Linc Energy has tenements in South Australia. Cougar, Clean Global Energy and others in Victoria and there is activity in Western Australia and discussion in New South Wales • South Australia and Victoria have been quite positive. • Information on Victoria is at • http://www.envirolaw.org.au/articles/natural_resource_management/ mdra_1990 • From local member Mark Babidge: • Western Australia Department of Mining and Petroleum is of the recommended view that the W.A. Mining Act 1978 should be amended to enable UCG process to be used in WA. Consultation is currently taking place and was expected to be finalised in August 2010. • In South Australia UCG is regulated under the Petroleum Act, not Mining and Minerals.
Underground Coal Gasification Australia - Royalties • Cliff Mallett reports the existing Queensland situation is Commodity Rate Coal A two tier coal royalty schedule applies. companies pay 7% of value up to A$100 per tonne and 10 per cent of the value thereafter. • For example, a price of A$100 per tonne attracts a rate of 7% of coal value, A$200 per tonne • The Federal Government is proposing a resource tax of 40% on profit, that will return the State royalty (eg for Queensland as above) to the State, with the remainder being pocketed by the Federal Government.attracts 8.5% and A$300 per tonne attracts 9%. • – new Federal tax update (we changed our Prime minister on this issue)The Labor Government now proposes a notional 30% super profits tax, only applying to coal and iron ore, leaving other mining products with the existing State royalty. Natural gas and coal seam gas will now all come under the existing Petroleum Resource provisions currently only applying to offshore oil and gas projects, which is less onerous than the new mining resource tax, but higher than State royalties. There has been no mention of UCG, which is regulated as petroleum in some States and as coal mining in others. • As State royalty is based on the sale price of the coal, the Queensland Government has not decided what to do with UCG as it is unlikely that the syngas would be sold at a market price before use, but be part of some larger project. They have not replied to requests for clarification of their policy. • Coal Seam Gas is levied at 10% of wellhead value by the State, but the CSG industry is trying to cut a special deal with respect to the new Resource Tax.
Underground Coal Gasification The Cougar Shutdown (1) • July 2010. Department of Energy and Mines of the Queensland Government ordered a shut down of the UCG facility at Kingaroy, following the detection by Cougar Energy of carcinogenic chemicals, benzine and toluene, in monitoring bores. According to press coverage the company would not be allowed to reopen its operation until further tests are conducted. The Government said the low levels of benzine and toluene do not pose a health risk, and were looking at levels that were below Australian drinking water guidelines. • Cougar Energy released an announcement refuting the claims and identified discrepancies in laboratory reporting from tests on the Kingaroy monitoring wells as the cause. • From the information released it appears, apart from one sample the analytical laboratory now acknowledges was an error, all Cougar samples are at levels of contamination similar to the range in virgin water in the coal seam, and no contamination from operations has been detected and all water meets the Government's claimed drinking water standard of 1ppb benzene. A neighbouring farmer claimed to have found toluene in bore water but in the experience of other operators, UCG generates an order of magnitude greater levels of benzene than toluene, and if toluene alone is found it will be contamination from other sources.
Underground Coal Gasification The Cougar Shutdown(2) • See latest releases from DERM http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/media- room/2010/07/kingaroy-test-results-25-07.html • Nothing in the farmer‟s bore water but still won‟t lift their ban on bore water usage. • Cougar's site was located within a fairly intensively farmed area. There had been long running disputes with local land holders and operators of nearby surface coal mines and exploration and plans for new surface coal mines have been highly controversial. There is a well organised local network of anti-mining activists. Through 2009 there were a number of local meetings attacking Cougar. • Australia was in election mode federally. The State government was deeply unpopular and had abysmal poll results, although they were not due for an election for a while. The incumbent labor party was desperate for support from the Green Party to bolster its position. The local State member of Parliament was actively involved in the issue with Cougar. • The DERM (Government department with environmental responsibility) has little technical depth with respect to UCG, and has massive environmental issues with respect to coal seam gas, which the State Government is pushing through as it is viewed as a lifesaver for their massive state deficit. What we are seeing is environmental management being dictated by politicians and appropriate departmental advice either not being available, not being sought or over-ruled, apparently to play to the environmental lobby.
Underground Coal Gasification The Cougar Shutdown (3) • Example. In the sensitive electorate of Prosperpine an Oil Shale project was put into a 20 year embargo to encourage Green Party preference support in a seat under threat. This order came directly from the Premier‟s Office on a weekend before any environmental assessments could even commence They had to pass a special law later in parliament as the action was not legal at the time. On Coal Seam Gas, the environmental management plan submitted by British Gas for their CSG-LNG project was approved in super quick time despite it including the statement that they were going to produce gigantic volumes of saline water that they did not know how to deal with, and hence were not asking for a permit for the water management process. The State Government gave conditional approval for this as the operating guidelines for managing the coal seam gas environmental processes. • The Australian UCG companies are trying to manage their relationship with the Government but the mix of community concerns, an emerging CSG-LNG industry exerting powerful lobbying efforts, politicians worrying about their own future, an under-resourced public service caught between their official responsibilities and political imperatives - is not an environment for rational discussion.
Underground Coal Gasification The Cougar Shutdown (4) • Cougar lay off 20 operational staff • Financial concerns over ability to continue trading
Underground Coal Gasification Bangladesh (1) Our local member Akhtar Sharif reports: • Bangladeshi coal is very high grade good quality bituminous coal. • As of today five major coalfields have been discovered in Bangladesh by the end of 2004. They are: • 1. Jamalganj (1962),2. Barapukuria (1985),3. Khalashpir (1989),4. Dighipara (1995), • 5. Phulbari (1998). • Coal fields and reserves in Bangladesh (source: Petrobangla): • - Jamalganj, 1962, depth of coal seam in meters 640 - 1158, number of coal seam 7, reserve in million ton 1053. • - Barapukuria, 1985, depth of coal seam 118 - 506 meters, No. of coal seam 6, reserve in million ton 303, underground mining started. • - Khalashpir, 1989, depth of coal seam 257 - 451 meters, No. of coal seam 8, reserve in million ton 147, undeveloped.
Underground Coal Gasification Bangladesh (2) • - Dighipara, 1995, depth 250 meters, No. of coal seam 7, reserve 200 million ton, undeveloped. • - Phulbari, 1997, depth 152- 246 meters, No. of coal seam 1, reserve 380 million ton, open pit mining planned • Licensing: only one coal seam was given to a British Company for mining, progress is very poor due to political issues. • Environmental approvals: very lengthy and politically motivated. • Planning: poor and in some cases none. • Health and safety: poor and unplanned. • National Coal Policy: None. A new policy is on the table for approval. • Present Government is keen to see a pilot project on UCG to add in the New National Coal Policy. Country have no expertise on this field.
Underground Coal Gasification Botswana • Our local member Alan Golding reports: • Regulations in place yet but the Government is aware of the potential and will likely seek advice. They are rewriting the Mines and Minerals Act to take into account ISG and our local Advisory Council member, Alan Golding, is pushing for UCG to be included. • Goverment has revised legislation which now allows for IPPs
Underground Coal Gasification Bulgaria • Our local Member Hristo Rusev reports: • One UCG project is currently on hold as they are still structuring the entity that will take a leading role in the process. This entity will have public-private ownership and it will be supported by the ministry of Energy and Economics. Outlook for the project is to get it rolling sometime in September this year. • Recently Chevron announced its plans to develop Shale Gas fields in Bulgaria (see: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07- 13/chevron-seeks-permit-for-shale-gas-exploration-in-bulgaria.html ) • Overgaz have participated in a tender for complex prospecting the so called “1 - 11 Vranino” basin for shale gaz, which is located in North - East Bulgaria but this tender have been won by a Canadian company Park Place Energy Corp.Overgaz are participating in an international project to develop a UCG project in the so called “Dobrudza” basin. They have applied for a permit to prospect it but have not received that yet.Overgaz is a mainly Gazprom company and for the moment in Bulgaria there is quite significant resistance, politically, for the Russian attempts to totally occupy their energy market.
Underground Coal Gasification Canada (1) • From our members in Canada Dick Wright and David Alderson • Alberta is just coming to grips with the UCG issue and modifying their resource application and development regulations for both mining and gas resources. Alberta is the location for the only existing and proposed projects that I‟m aware of in Canada • I have had some feedback from our people involved with reporting in Canada that indicates there is a specific process to be followed for Canadian listed companies or Canadian companies publically reporting on foreign exchanges (whether their projects are in Canada or overseas) that are bound by the appropriate Canadian legislation that deals with the reporting of reserves and resources. At present we have to treat UCG products in the same way as CBM. This puts us squarely and legally obliged to perform our work in compliance with Canadian law which is regulated under NI 51-101 and which specifies that the procedures and methods of the COGE handbook be followed. This is not something that is open to debate. • . I believe we have developed a very good relationship with open communication with our government, regulators, and influencers within the province of Nova Scotia, as well as federally. Discussions are proceeding favorably
Underground Coal Gasification Canada (2) Update from Dick Wright Please note the following regarding the Alberta Regulatory regime in addition to your notes in the powerpoint presentation: • 1. The Alberta provincial government is planning on revising the Coal Conservation Act & Regulations, and the OIl & Gas Conservation Act & Regulations, to incorporate the inclusion of both In-Situ Coal Gasification (ISCG) and In-Situ Coal Liquification (ISCL) in Spring 2011. • 2. Currently they require that all pilot projects and applications proponents control both the coal and gas rights for the seams in question, but the leasing situation is currently under review by the Energy Department. • 3. Environmental approvals under current legislation will be required, with the requirements for an EIA assessed on a case by case basis. • 4. Currently scheme approvals are under the Alberta Coal Conservation Act, but approvals for the wells and facilities will be licences under the Alberta Oil and Gas Conservation Act, with reporting and monitoring project specific. • 5. The ERCB is working on an application directive for ISCG projects that is expected by end of 2011.
Underground Coal Gasification Chile From Dr Cliff Mallett There has been no formal promulgation of UCG regulations in Chile, but the Mulpun UCG project is proceeding on the basis of coal exploration and mining permits. Operations will require additional environmental performance approvals.
Underground Coal Gasification China (1) • From our local member, • UCG as a commercial technology is new to China. As such, there is no “official” policy towards UCG yet, and very few precedents. To get a UCG project done will require a series of approvals, but this is not unusual in China, and certainly not unusual for any project that impacts energy production, natural resources and the environment. Below is a list of agencies/approvals that it is believed will be required to get a UCG project off the ground. For a first-time project, it is expected these approvals may be slower in coming. After the first project is underway, and assuming that it is commercially successful, approvals will be easier to obtain.
Underground Coal Gasification China(2) • National Development and Reform Commission (NDRS). The main required report: Feasibility Study Report issued by a certified and authorized institution (such as CPECC). Required time for approval: 20 working days (minimum, excluding the time for consulting external experts and/or other government departments‟ opinion) • Water Resources Ministry. The main required report: Soil Erosion Protecting Plan issued by a certified institution. Required time for approval: 20 days
Underground Coal Gasification China (3) • Ministry of Environmental Protection. The main required report: Environmental Impact Assessment Report issued by a certified evaluation institution. Required time for approval: 60 days • State Administration of Coal Mine Safety. The main required reports: A Safety Assessment Report issued by a certified evaluation institution and a Safety Facility Design Report issued by a certified design institution. Required time for approval: 30 days • Ministry of Land and Resources. The main additional required reports: mineral resource development and utilization plan and coal mine reservation report issued by certified institutions and evaluated by certified experts respectively. Required time for approval: 28 days
Underground Coal Gasification China (4) • Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM). The main issues needed to be noted: (1) the cash to be injected into the JV/WOFE shall be no less than 30% of the registered capital (the total value of the land, resource, equipment, intellectual property and etc.) (2) if the intellectual property is to be injected into the JV/WOFE, the property right shall be transferred (not licensed) to the JV/WOFE. Required time for approval: 90 days
Underground Coal Gasification China (5) • State Administration of Industry and Commercial (SAIC) Required time for approval: 30 days • State Grid and Southern Power Grid These two state owned power grids control almost all the power production and supply in China, the UCG project itself does not need their approval, but if you want to sell the gas to the power plants as you may need to negotiate contracts with them.
Underground Coal Gasification Czech Republic • As with Hungary it is possible that a UCG project can be carried out by using existing regulations for traditional gas extraction and CBM drainage
Underground Coal Gasification Germany • From our correspondent in Germany. Ralph Schlueter • German research programme and involvement in Belgium Thulin pilot in the 1980s. Since then almost no activity in UCG. Only recent R&D regarding UCG- CCS (without support from coal industry). • Government preparing second attempt of CCS legislation which should be in draft form shortly. Current (negative) public debate on CCS is overshadowing political position towards UCG (“hot iron”). • Legally, UCG is probably regarded as a type of coal mining, meaning that coal mining regulations would apply and it would be possible to carry out a UCG project under the existing regulations. No final statement from politics and regulators yet on this issue. • Virtually all prospective coal areas belong to RAG- DSK. No “license free” areas available. Overlapping of coal and hydrocarbon license areas. Also only few hydrocarbon license areas available. Where conflicts arise these are dealt with on a case by case basis. • Regional and local boards determine environmental approvals and monitoring as well as approval for land use for surface facilities and operations with conditions attached to approval.
Underground Coal Gasification Hungary • From our local member Johan Brand • A UCG project can be carried out under existing regulations for traditional gas extraction and for CBM drainage • However there is confusion since exploration permits have been issued for the same area for both mining and CBM. Best to hold rights for both • The company is continuing to advance its key asset, the Mecsek Hills UCG Project in Hungary, after the positive results from its Scoping Study with the next major step to be the coal exploration drilling. • The company‟s scoping investigated two syngas scenarios, 200MW t and 500MW t , as well as the supply of synthetic natural gas into regional markets • The Scoping Study conducted by independent engineering firm Uhde Shedden, a subsidiary of Thyssen-Krupp Technologies, with inputs from other international consultants. • Following the success of the Scoping Study, WildHorse Energy also commenced the Pre- Feasibility Study to supply Syngas as fuel stock to local power producers. • In addition, WildHorse Energy was also granted a coal exploration licence over a 47.5 sq km coal deposit in northern Hungary, with recognised potential UCG to enhances WildHorse‟s existing UCG project in Hungary
Underground Coal Gasification India • Policy announced in March 08 to allot coal blocks for UCG • Rules now permit UCG as the end use • The Ministry of Coal has notified the rule change, which amended the Coal Mines ( Nationalization) act of 1976. • Interested parties are applying to get coal blocks allotted • Allotment of blocks will be based on the data available with CMPDI. • Draft coal vision 2025 envisaged the development of UCG • Coal Ministry announced in June 09 that operational guidelines for UCG would be produced by end September 09 • Update from our local member Dr Anil Khadse • For UCG development in India following are major steps by Govt. of India. • Ministry of Coal has issued guidelines for allocation of UCG captive coal / lignite blocks and conditions of allotment • CIL has invited EoI for selection of suitable collaborators for development of commercial UCG in CIL command area • Related documents are attached. Hope this will help you for coming presentation. We will post these documents on the website
Underground Coal Gasification Indonesia From our local member Triyatno Atmodiharjo – Last year we have very eager to start with the UCG project in Indonesia. We had made some presentation in front of Government Officers. The Director General of Mineral and Coal very supportive to our dream. He asked us to propose some input to prepare the Government Regulation on UCG project. Then we presented in front of Director General of Oil and Gas. Unfortunately she did not support the dream. She wanted to postpone the UCG project after the CBM Project. If in one area the CBM project fails then we may start with the UCG project. This situation made our eagerness dropped very bad. We tried to negotiate with her but she does not want to step back. We would wait until the Director General of Oil and Gas changes her policy.
Underground Coal Gasification Ireland From our local member Richard Vernon • Exploration licenses for UCG are the responsibility of the Exploration and Mining Division (EMD) of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. One licence was issued in August 2007, which is still currently active. • Regulations for development activities are under review”
Underground Coal Gasification Japan • From our local member Gota Deguchi • Although over 30 billion tons of coal resources have been estimated (by Underground Resources Innovation Network, NPO “URI - net” based on the existing reports and geological data in 2008), METI is rather negative to develop and demonstrate UCG technology for domestic coal field. • The Japan Forum on Underground Coal Gasification (JUCG) was established in 2008. • The Forum consists of 14 company members and 8 individual members such as professors, scientists and researches. • Secretariat of JUCG has been changed from JCOAL to URI-net since the end of 2009. • Major activities of JUCG are as follows: – Collection and exchanging information on UCG. – Development of UCG simulation model analysis by Kyushu University, from 2008 to 2010. – UCG laboratory test using coal blocks (several kg) by Muroran Institute of Technology, Hokkaido University and URI-net, from 2009 to 2010. Major target is to develop useful tools to evaluate the UCG reactor using AE/MS monitoring methods as well as to determine the fundamental parameters affect UCG process and to assist the verification of the developed simulation model. – Since the approval cannot be obtained, small scale UCG test being planned to carry out at an outcrop of a coal seam has been not realized.
Underground Coal Gasification Kazakhstan • From our local member Valeriy Kondruk • If you want to begin collaboration with Government you have to have an effective business plan with explanation of mining technology. The other important demand is the verified financing scheme. • A project MUST be approved by 8 various ministries including Ministry of Ecology to undertake ANY minerals activity. Inspite of the fact that the decisions of most of the ministries have a formal nature, Ministry of Minerals and Ministry of Ecology are the main ones. • If a private company wants to explore any coal deposit it MUST do it with the participation of a Government company. Participation consists of sharing the equities in your project
Underground Coal Gasification Netherlands • From our local member Alexander Kronimus • I had a look on your comprehensive presentation and I couldn't figure out anything to comment/improve. Concerning the situation in the Netherlands: There aren't any prospects for underground coal gasification within the next years. Therefore, there are currently no regulations concerning UCG. Recently, a few gas concessions have been granted in the eastern Netherlands. Due to the regional geology there, we suspect that these concessions are targeting on unconventional coal-related gas and probably shale gas. However, there is no official statement. • In the mid-term I don't expect any UCG field projects in the Netherlands.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (1) • From the Regulator Alan Sherwood (and former attendee of the UCG Basic Training Course) • One New Zealand company (State-owned Solid Energy) is developing a UCG project to the pilot stage (see attached), and another has applied for prospecting rights to explore for UCG opportunities. • New Zealand has significant coal resources that are too deep for conventional mining but present opportunities for UCG. • There is no specific regulatory regime for UCG in New Zealand but existing legislation may cover it. • The Crown licences rights to extract Crown-owned coal. UCG could be carried out in existing mining licences (Coal Mines Act 1979) or permits (Crown Minerals Act 1991) under a variation to existing conditions. A new permit application for coal extraction would be tested against provisions for coal mining under the Crown Minerals Act which defines mining as "take, win, or extract by whatever means, a mineral existing in its natural state in land or a chemical substance from that mineral, for the purpose of obtaining the mineral or chemical substance; ........" Our view is that this allows UCG to be permitted under that Act. Appropriate conditions for such a permit have not yet been applied for or tested against the Act. The Crown Minerals Act is also being currently reviewed and UCG will be covered in that review.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (2) • A royalty regime for UCG of Crown-owned coal has not been established, but could be based on a back-calculation of coal consumed or on some other basis. • Permitting and royalties for UCG are complicated by complex patterns of coal ownership. The Crown only regulates the use of coal it owns. Permitting under the Crown Minerals Act does not give land access rights, which are controlled by the land owner, or to carry out activities that have any environmental effects. • Environmental regulation in New Zealand is managed under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) under which local government authorities issue consents for effects-based activities. This covers all environmental effects on land, air and water and so covers all potential environmental impacts of UCG. Land use and development within local government territorial boundaries is also managed under the RMA which requires that Councils prepare a District Plan for that purpose. The RMA is also the vehicle for public participation in the consenting process. Consents are granted for a specific time period, commonly for the duration of a project, giving considerable certainty to activities so long as defined conditions are met. • Health and Safety is regulated under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. It is anticipated that this will cover relevant UCG activities as it does for petroleum and coal mining.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (3) • Coal seam gas (CSG/CBM) is also managed under the Crown Minerals Act, but under petroleum regulations, and all CSG is therefore government -owned. Any conflicts arising between CSG and UCG are expected to be resolved on a case by case basis. There are not expected to be conflicts between UCG and conventional coal mining as they are both expected to be managed under the same regualtions. • From our operating correspondent • Solid Energy plans Underground Coal Gasification pilot plant in Waikato • Solid Energy plans to build and commission, by the beginning of 2011, a $22 million Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) pilot plant in the Waikato. • The successful application of the UCG process will open up access to coal seams which would otherwise be nearly impossible to mine using conventional mining technology. UCG complements traditional mining because it works best where conventional mining does not – in deep, difficult-to-reach coal seams. • Solid Energy will shortly lodge the necessary consent applications to build and operate the UCG plant which will convert up to 30,000 tonnes of coal into synthetic gas (syngas). The pilot will operate for up to two years on private property within the company‟s existing Huntly West Coal Mining Licence area. Work will begin on the proposed plant once consents are granted.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (4) • Solid Energy‟s General Manager New Energy Brett Gamble, says the launch of the pilot plant is the culmination of five years‟ investigation by Solid Energy into UCG‟s suitability for New Zealand conditions. Solid Energy is working with Ergo Exergy, a proven technology supplier who has successfully developed UCG projects in several countries around the world, meeting stringent safety and environmental standards. • The UCG process gasifies coal very deep underground, producing syngas that can be used in electricity generation, the production of pure hydrogen and to make a range of high-value products such as methanol, synthetic transport fuel, fertilisers or waxes, plastics and detergents. • “UCG technology represents a huge opportunity for New Zealand to further ensure our energy security by using our most ample mineral resource, coal,” Mr Gamble says. “This is a safe, credible technology which is carried out deep below the ground yet is fully controlled by operators on the surface. • “An operator pumps air hundreds of metres deep into an ignited coal seam which, when combined with the huge pressure of the earth above it, causes a reaction that turns coal into syngas. By controlling the air flow into the seam, the operator regulates the speed of the gasification reaction and, if needed, can put it out rapidly and completely,” Mr Gamble says.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (5) • For the pilot plant, Solid Energy plans to drill up to seven wells about 25 to 50 metres apart into an underground coal seam 400 metres below the surface. The company is also installing a number of other wells on site to gather process and environmental data. The surface plant, including wells, is expected to be contained within an area measuring 300 metres long and 150 metres wide. • The pilot plant will yield process, technical and geological information, and verify modelled environmental effects. Once the required information has been gathered, Solid Energy will shut down the pilot plant. Results from the pilot will determine whether Solid Energy takes the project further to a commercial operation. • The project builds on an earlier UCG trial undertaken in 1994 by the then Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) in partnership with Glencoal Energy and Energy International. The ECNZ trials were abandoned because UCG did not prove cost-effective at that time. Increasing energy prices and further advances in UCG technology, however, make UCG a viable energy option again. • Note: Solid Energy currently operates an opencast and an underground coal mine in the Waikato and is trialling the production of coal seam gas in the area. •
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (6) • Solid Energy plans Underground Coal Gasification pilot plant in Waikato • Solid Energy plans to build and commission, by the beginning of 2011, a $22 million Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) pilot plant in the Waikato. • The successful application of the UCG process will open up access to coal seams which would otherwise be nearly impossible to mine using conventional mining technology. UCG complements traditional mining because it works best where conventional mining does not – in deep, difficult-to-reach coal seams. • Solid Energy will shortly lodge the necessary consent applications to build and operate the UCG plant which will convert up to 30,000 tonnes of coal into synthetic gas (syngas). The pilot will operate for up to two years on private property within the company‟s existing Huntly West Coal Mining Licence area. Work will begin on the proposed plant once consents are granted • Solid Energy‟s General Manager New Energy Brett Gamble, says the launch of the pilot plant is the culmination of five years‟ investigation by Solid Energy into UCG‟s suitability for New Zealand conditions. Solid Energy is working with Ergo Exergy, a proven technology supplier who has successfully developed UCG projects in several countries around the world, meeting stringent safety and environmental standards.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (7) • The UCG process gasifies coal very deep underground, producing syngas that can be used in electricity generation, the production of pure hydrogen and to make a range of high-value products such as methanol, synthetic transport fuel, fertilisers or waxes, plastics and detergents. • “UCG technology represents a huge opportunity for New Zealand to further ensure our energy security by using our most ample mineral resource, coal,” Mr Gamble says. “This is a safe, credible technology which is carried out deep below the ground yet is fully controlled by operators on the surface. • “An operator pumps air hundreds of metres deep into an ignited coal seam which, when combined with the huge pressure of the earth above it, causes a reaction that turns coal into syngas. By controlling the air flow into the seam, the operator regulates the speed of the gasification reaction and, if needed, can put it out rapidly and completely,” Mr Gamble says. • For the pilot plant, Solid Energy plans to drill up to seven wells about 25 to 50 metres apart into an underground coal seam 400 metres below the surface. The company is also installing a number of other wells on site to gather process and environmental data. The surface plant, including wells, is expected to be contained within an area measuring 300 metres long and 150 metres wide.
Underground Coal Gasification New Zealand (8) • The pilot plant will yield process, technical and geological information, and verify modelled environmental effects. Once the required information has been gathered, Solid Energy will shut down the pilot plant. Results from the pilot will determine whether Solid Energy takes the project further to a commercial operation. • The project builds on an earlier UCG trial undertaken in 1994 by the then Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ) in partnership with Glencoal Energy and Energy International. The ECNZ trials were abandoned because UCG did not prove cost-effective at that time. Increasing energy prices and further advances in UCG technology, however, make UCG a viable energy option again. • Note: Solid Energy currently operates an opencast and an underground coal mine in the Waikato and is trialling the production of coal seam gas in the area.
Underground Coal Gasification Pakistan • Government has announced plans to develop UCG in Sindh Province and Cougar Energy signed an MOU for another project in the same area
Underground Coal Gasification Poland • Government preparing CCS legislation which should be in draft form shortly • Minister can give UCG approval within existing Geological and Mining Law • The Ministries of Environment and Economics have formed a group of experts with the goal to accelerate the work on UCG projects • Local UCGA Members in touch with Government • Update from our local member Jan Palarski • In Poland, work on the changes in geological and mining law has not been completed. Discussion continues on CO2 storage, in particular, who in the future will be responsible for storage area, after finishing of injection. The same applies to UCG. How many years after finishing of gasification process the owner of UCG concession will be responsible for the "mining area". I hope that now the Polish Parliament (after the election of president) will accelerate work on these regulations. Changes in laws are necessary because there are three new technologies for which there is no legislation (UCG, CO2 storage and exploitation of shale gas). • 4. In Eastern Europe is growing interest in UCG. Unfortunately, the interest does not go hand in hand with legal regulations.
Underground Coal Gasification Romania From Jan Palarski • All minerals are Government owned and regulated under Mining Low. • Romania has good Petroleum and Gas Regulations. Probably license for the UCG would be considered by those rules. • Romania has large coal reserves in steep seams, mostly lying in mountainous region Petrosani. • The existing coal mines will be privatized. Regulations are discussed at the Ministry and Parliament. • The interest in UCG is observed, but it is not large. Opportunities for private investors.
Underground Coal Gasification Serbia From Jan Palarski • It is possible to carry out a UCG project under the existing regulations for traditional gas and mineral extraction. • In Serbia there is a growing interest in UCG. • Serbia has large reserves of lignite. • Researchers from the University of Belgrade wants to start in the near future UCG research project. • In the former Yugoslavia UCG experiments were conducted.
Underground Coal Gasification Slovakia (Slovak Republic) • As with the Czech Republic and Hungary it is possible to carry out a UCG project under the existing regulations for traditional gas extraction and CBM drainage • Update from our local member Karol Kostur • Your presentation is excellent. Your comment (Slovakia-slide 31) is OK. We consulted the need adjusted lows, rules for UCG with Mine Mining office and Institution for safety and health of work of Slovak republic, last year. On base of these consultations, we will not see problem for realization UCG. • Our opinion about government encouragement of UCG you well-know. Europe has not sufficient supply of oil, gas. Of course, Europe has huge inaccessible coal seams which are possible to transform to low calorific gas- syngas. We can foresee that prices of oil, gas will rise rapidly and currently energetically sources (oil,gas) will bay out China, India, Indonesia and after some time will discover a new bigger consumer of energy-Africa. And I do not say about possible terrorist attacks on transport devices for oil / gas. • Similar accidence as in Mexico gulf does not environmental problem at case accidence of UCG- the flood and the end UCG. • Of course, I am aware of the need to improve UCG technology from statement economy/benefits first all. Therefore is necessary to encourage R & TD UCG. You should explain it to Brussels. Sorry, but somebody (politics) sure. • What is new in SR ? We prepared 2 new UCG projects and now we will expect the decision from national offices.
Underground Coal Gasification Slovenia From Jan Palarski • The Mining Law should be amended to enable UCG process and CO2 storage in Slovenia. • Currently Ministry will only consider UCG conditional licence application. • The Velenje lignite underground mine has been involved in the process of eliminating the negative effects of traditional mining operation; One suggestion is to consider the introduction of UCG technology.
Underground Coal Gasification Southern Africa • From our local member Alan Golding • No regulations in place yet and the Government is dragging its heels over formulating an IPP policy. Until this happens the only projects that are likely to go ahead (or continue) are those linked to Eskom and Sasol.
Underground Coal Gasification Turkey (1) • From our local correspondent at HEMA • • There at least two Ministries that may have authority: 1) Ministry of Environment and Forestry; and 2) Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources. All the regulations listed below fall under the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Any regulations that may fall under the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources are not known at this time. • EIA Regulations • Annex 1- List of the projects that EIA report must be prepared • 1. Refineries • b- Facilities (gasification and liquefaction of hard coal and bituminous materials) with the capacity of 500 tonnes/day or more. • 2. Thermal power plants • a- thermal power plants and other combustion plants with thermal power of 300 MWt (Megawatt thermal) or more.
Underground Coal Gasification Turkey (2) • Annex 2 - List of the projects that selection and election will be applied by the Ministry • Energy • 31- Industrial facilities designed to produce and/or transmission electricity, gases, steam a • nd hot water (10MW or more). • Mining 42-c- Extraction and storage of methane gas, 10 6 m 3 /year or more. • • 47- The projects listed in Annex 1 and prepared for testing and improving a new method or product for the operation time less than 2 years. • Industrial Air Pollution Control Regulation • Article 8- Prior Permission for Emissions • The facilities that do not need EIA Report but involved in Annex 8, Lists A and B needs to take prior permission. • Annex 5- Special Emission Limits • Annex 4- The Calculation of the Stack Height and Flue Gas Velocity
Underground Coal Gasification Turkey (3) • Annex 1- The Emission Limits • g) Special Dusts Emission Limits • h) Gas and Steam Emissions • 1) Inorganic Chlorine Emission • 2) Inorganic Fluorine Emission • 3) Inorganic and organic steam and gas emissions • Limits for Class I, II, III for Table 1.2 • i) Carcinogenic Compounds Emission Limits: • j) Extremely Dangerous Compounds • Water Pollution Control Regulation • Article 22-d) Any construction, solid or liquid waste disposal or transition is not allowed nearer than 50 m to the wells, springs and infiltration galleries which are used to supply drinking water supply. • g) The materials that can be dissolved by rain water or waste water and infiltrate into the underground water can not be stored directly on surface.The disposal limits for different types of industries are given in the tables in Annex parts.
Underground Coal Gasification Turkey (4) • Table 9: Limits of the discharge to the receiving environment for Coal preparation, Process and energy production plants • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATION • PART 4 • Selection, Election Criteria Application Procedure • ARTICLE 15 – (1) In this regulation, • a) projects listed in Annex-II, • b) after the capacity increase of a present facility, the projects that are involved in Annex II • are subject to the selection and election criteria. • Application and examination • ARTICLE 16 – (1) The project owner, for the investigation of the project about the necessity of the EIA applications, applies to the Ministry with a letter of application that includes Project Introduction File (3 copies), commitment writing that the given information is totally correct and circular of signature. • (2) The ministry examines the Project Introduction File according to criteria listed in Annex IV in 5 days. In the case of deficient information, ministry wants the applicant to complete the application files.
Underground Coal Gasification Turkey (5) • (3) The applicant should complete the deficient parts in 6 months or their application is cancelled. • (4) If the ministry wants, they can examine or make examined the project area. • ANNEX IV • SELECTION AND ELECTION CRITERIA THAT WILL BE THE PREDICATION ON PREPARATION OF PROJECT INTRODUCTION FILE • 1. Project specifications • 2. Project area • The subjects below should be considered during the assessment of the sensibility of the area that will possible be affected by the project • Present land use and quality (agricultural area, forest area, planned area, water surface and alike), • Wetlands, coastal areas, mountainous areas, timberlands, agricultural areas, national parks, special protection zones, areas with high population, historical, cultural, archaeological areas, erosion and landslide areas, forested areas, potential erosion and foresting areas and aquifer that needs to be protected according to the law about aquifers.
Underground Coal Gasification Turkey (6) • 3. Alternatives of the project and project area (Reasons for choosing the technology and project area) • Results • In this part, • -summary of the all explanations given above • -evaluation of the possible important environmental effects of the project and discussion of the alternatives • will be given. • ANNEX: • For the project area;(if any) landscaping plans, master plan, application zoning plan, site plan or offers for changing the plan, • For the evaluation of land usage of the project area and surrounding areas; the information listed below will be added to the map (1/25000 and if possible landscaping plan, if not to the topographic map) and short explanations needed to be given • -residential area • -transportation • -power lines • -present facilities • -areas should be protected according to the laws and international conventions (if present in and around the project area) • Geological scale map of the project area and display of the underground and surface water and seismological conditions on the map and explanations.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (1) • From our regulator and past attendee at the Training Course, Bill Denton • POLICY STATEMENT FOR LICENSING BY THE COAL AUTHORITY (DECEMBER 2009) • Policy Objective • The Coal Authority (“The Authority”) recognises the recent interest in UCG in Great Britain and its future potential for generating energy from its coal reserves. The Authority wishes to support its development and see UCG pilot operations established in order to assess the effectiveness and environmental impacts of this technology in Great Britain. • The Authority‟s duties and obligations are set out in the Coal Industry Act 1994 under which it is given the power to grant licences for the carrying on of coal- mining operations including UCG. • This policy relates to applications for new UCG licences and variations to existing UCG licences but at this stage of development of UCG in Great Britain it is anticipated that applications will be for conditional licences. • Licence Areas • The Authority will normally only consider UCG conditional licence applications for:
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (2) • Offshore areas. Offshore licence areas can also include an onshore access strip to facilitate the sinking of exploration boreholes during the conditional licence phase and for sinking directional access boreholes into the offshore UCG area during the operational phase. (see note 2) • Onshore areas, but only where it can be demonstrated that the surface is suitable for piloting this technology. (see note 3) • Areas where there are :- – no other Coal Authority Mining Licences & Agreements; – no existing Petroleum Licences; – no identifiable defence installations; and – no existing or proposed wind farm sites or other major structures on the seabed. • (see note 4) • A maximum initial application area of 10,000 hectares. (see note 5) • Areas where the Department of Energy & Climate Change, The Crown Estate, The Ministry of Defence or other relevant bodies do not raise objections. Consultation will be undertaken by the Authority with these relevant bodies on receipt of a conditional licence application. (see note 6)
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (3) • Licence Conditions • Licences will be subject to advertising by the Authority in order to stimulate competition. • The initial term of the Conditional Licence will normally be restricted to a maximum of three years. • The Authority will require Conditional Licence holders to undertake further discussions with the Department of Energy & Climate Change, The Crown Estate, The Ministry of Defence and other relevant bodies during the conditional period as they formulate the detail of their operations. • The conditions will include a requirement for the applicant to undertake an agreed programme of works during the term of the Conditional Licence. Failure to complete the agreed programme of works will result in the Licence being revoked unless the Authority can be satisfied that the Licensee is committed to the pilot project. • Where the proposed UCG operation and its ancillary activities have a potential to interact with or damage third party property interests then a condition will be included requiring the Licensee to provide evidence of the existence of a Commercial Agreement between the parties outlining the manner in which any interaction or damage so caused is managed, remediated and funded. • (see notes 8 & 9) • Further requirements for de-conditionalising a licence in whole or in part will be incorporated into the licence conditions and are set out in more detail in the Authority‟s Model Underground Coal Gasification Licensing Documents.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (4) • Fees and Payments • The licence application and grant fees will be the same as for underground and surface mining licence applications as published by the Authority. • The annual fee whilst the licence is conditional will be a fixed amount, currently £500 (reviewed and published from time to time) plus an agreed payment for holding an Option for a Lease of the property interest in the coal. • Policy Review • This policy shall be reviewed from time to time to ensure licence and lease terms are appropriate for developing technology.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (5) • NOTES ON POLICY • Licence Areas • The assumptions that the Authority has made are :- – The development of UCG will initially require pilot projects to evaluate the process in Great Britain. Once the process is proved in these conditions then larger scale projects may be established. – At this stage of the development of UCG in Great Britain, it will be easier for operators to get all the necessary permissions and consents for offshore UCG operations than onshore, hence the emphasis on offshore. – In addition to a licence from the Authority, consent for offshore UCG will be required from the Crown Estate for withdrawal of support from the seabed. – A pilot project will require an environmental impact assessment prepared by the operator rather than a strategic environmental assessment. – The syngas produced will be used for generating electricity or conversion to other petro-chemical products and the UCG operation itself will not require consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. – The process is outside the remit for carbon capture and storage.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (6) • DECC do not require the applicant for a UCG Licence to hold a Petroleum Licence for the area applied for but at the operational phase will issue a simplified licence akin to an underground mine‟s methane drainage licence to facilitate the lawful removal of any native methane in the strata in conjunction with the UCG operations. • The grant of an onshore access strip will be non-exclusive so as not to prevent conventional surface mining operations, exploration or coal methane operations in that area. • Onshore applications will only be accepted where the Authority considers that the applicant has a reasonable chance of bringing the project to fruition. By way of an example, an application for onshore UCG by, or with the agreement of, a surface landowner with ownership of all the surface land likely to be affected by the proposed UCG operation could be said to stand a reasonable chance of getting planning consent etc. • Limiting UCG licences to areas outwith existing Petroleum Licences, large or proposed seabed structures such as wind farms or Ministry of Defence installations will remove some of the potential objections to licence applications.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (7) • Introducing a size limit of 10,000 hectares for applications (unless there are site specific issues that dictate otherwise) limits UCG applications to areas comparable to existing or proposed underground mining operations. • Consulting with relevant bodies (DECC, Crown Estates and MOD etc) will minimise the risk of the Authority granting a licence for an operation that may turn out to be unworkable. • It should be noted that a licence can always be varied to include a previously excluded area after grant if, for example, a proposed surface installation isn‟t built or an existing one ceases to operate. • The Authority has taken legal advice and it is still uncertain whether the provisions of the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”) apply to offshore installations. The Authority intends to adopt a comprehensive approach and incorporate provisions in the licence to ensure that no one suffers a loss from subsidence damage arising from the actions or failures of a UCG Operator, whether or not the 1991 Act applies. • The requirement of the Authority to have a Commercial Agreement in place where UCG and ancillary activities have a potential to interact with or damage third party property interests is intended to be similar to the approach adopted in the Petroleum Industry.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (8) • Licence Conditions • Limiting the normal initial conditional licence period to three years will enable licensees to evaluate a project without sterilising the coal for an unacceptable length of time. This period can be extended by agreement if the licensee demonstrates that the agreed work programme has been carried out and further works are proposed. • Agreeing a work programme mirrors the current arrangements with Petroleum Licences and ensures that coal is not acquired as an asset with no intention of progressing with the operation. • Fees & Payments • The Licence will attract a normal annual licensing fee whether conditional and/or unconditional, as is the case with Underground and Surface coal mining licences. • There will be an agreed annual payment for the Option rights whilst the Licence is conditional. • Once the Licence is made un-conditional and a Lease is granted then rental payments under the Lease will commence. At present it is intended that these rental payments are the equivalent of the Coal Authority‟s standard Production Related Rent paid for the amount of coal gasified. • The method of assessing the amount of coal worked will be agreed with the Licensee prior to the Lease being granted. The options could include :- – a calculation from an agreed plan based on an accurate survey of the void(s) submitted to the Authority by the Licensee at an agreed interval; or – a calculation based on an agreed formula relating the amount of syngas generated to the amount of coal worked; the syngas measurements to be supplied to the Authority at an agreed (monthly) period.
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom (9) • The Coal Authority has issued thirteen conditional offshore licence • Further conditional offshore licences expected to be issued • Marine Bill may change regulatory position • Links- http://www.coal.gov.uk/publications/miningtechnology/ucgoverview.cfm?jHighlight s=ucg • http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/default.aspx • http://www.hse.gov.uk/
Underground Coal Gasification United Kingdom Royalties • The UK Coal Authority intends to apply the standard Coal Authority production related rent (as existing at the time) for each tonne of coal "worked" (e.g. gasified) and that is what is built into the lease in the option granted with each conditional licence. However until an operational site is imminent and the licence is de-conditionalised and a lease granted, then the method of calculating the tonnage worked is up for discussion. It is currently envisaged that either a measurement of produced gas with a conversion factor or a payment calculated from a survey of the area gasified will be used. The rate for a fixed production related rent has been at the rate of £0.10/tonne but the Coal Authority has recently reviewed this figure and has increased it to £0.17/tonne for leases granted after 31 st March 2011.
Underground Coal Gasification USA (1) • Approvals at State Level • Wyoming has approved the Process of UCG as being acceptable in their State. • Five other States (Alaska, Illinois, [Montana], North Dakota and Texas) are moving toward approving the Process of UCG • Once the UCG Process is approved the State regulators can approve individual projects • Several planned • R&D License or Commercial Permit • Adjudication Filing
Underground Coal Gasification USA (2) • Baseline Studies • Mine Plan • Reclamation Plan • Timeline • Air Quality Permit • NPDES Stormwater Permits • Class lll Injection Well Permits • Water Well Permits • Section 404 Clean Water Act Permits
Underground Coal Gasification USA (3) • Notification of Intent to Explore for Coal and Drilling • Local Permits • Site Selection • Lawsuits • Subsidence • Shutdown Procedures • Links - http://www.mhtrustland.org/index.cfm?section=Coal-Oil-and- Gas&page=Coal-Oil-and-Gas&viewpost=2&ContentId=671
Underground Coal Gasification USA (4) • From one of our local members Paul Ahner • “You may want to give an example of the details of the North Dakota land use restrictions as follows: • Larry Melvin, Minerals Program Manager for Dakota Prairie National Grasslands confirmed that areas with surface use restrictions identified in the Oil & Gas Stipulations shapefile and discussed in the Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan (RMP) apply to all surface disturbances, including coal facilities (Melvin, 2010). Described in Appendix D of the RMP, surface use restrictions in Grassland areas include the following: • No Surface Occupancy (NSO): Please describe a recognizable color legend for these areas the light blue doesn’t do it According to the RMP, “use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is prohibited to protect identified resource values.” Some NSO restrictions apply to specific geographic areas, while other NSO stipulations apply to topographical characteristics and wildlife habitat, including: • on slopes greater than 40 percent, • within developed recreation sites, • within 0.25 mile of a sharp-tailed grouse and sage grouse display ground, • within 0.5 mile of golden eagle, merlin and ferruginous hawk nests, • within one mile of bald eagle and peregrine falcon nests, • within one mile of bald eagle winter roosting areas, • within 0.25 mile of prairie falcon and burrowing owl nests,
Underground Coal Gasification USA(5) • within National Register eligible heritage sites, • within boundaries of backcountry non-motorized management areas, • in Bighorn Sheep habitat in Management Area 3.51 of the Little Missouri Grassland, • in the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Habitat of Management Area 3.63 of the Little Missouri Grasslands, and • within 0.25 mile each side of the Little Missouri River. • Controlled Surface Use (CSU): state the color used for these areas here According to the RMP, “use and occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation), but identified resource values require special operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. CSU is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for NSO or timing (seasonal) stipulations.” In addition to restrictions that apply to specific geographic locations, CSU stipulations apply to the following viewsheds and wildlife habitat: • New developments, including new facilities, roads, and concentrations of humans, within one mile of bighorn sheep lambing areas may be moved or modified to be out of view of the lambing areas. • If it is necessary to put a new road in a prairie dog colony or area known or thought to be occupied by black-footed ferrets, the road should be aligned to minimize habitat loss. • Surface occupancy and use in High Scenic Integrity Objective Areas is subject to operational constraints to maintain the landscape character intact. Deviations are allowed, but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character completely and to such scale that they are not evident.
Underground Coal Gasification USA (6) • Surface occupancy and use in Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective Areas is subject to operational constraints to maintain a landscape character that is no more than slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. • Areas Not Currently Available: state the color used here It is currently brown which is fine American Indian Traditional Use Areas and areas determined to be suitable for Wilderness designation that are not available for oil and gas leasing are also not available for coal and other developments (Melvin, 2010). • Surface occupancy and use in High Scenic Integrity Objective Areas is subject to operational constraints to maintain the landscape character intact. Deviations are allowed, but must repeat the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character completely and to such scale that they are not evident. • Surface occupancy and use in Moderate Scenic Integrity Objective Areas is subject to operational constraints to maintain a landscape character that is no more than slightly altered. Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed. • Areas Not Currently Available: state the color used here It is currently brown which is fine American Indian Traditional Use Areas and areas determined to be suitable for Wilderness designation that are not available for oil and gas leasing are also not available for coal and other developments (Melvin, 2010).
Underground Coal Gasification USA (7) From John Thompson [and Mark Fowler] of the Clean Air Task Force,Boston USA • We wanted to share with you the recommendations CATF made to the Obama Interagency CCS Task Force. We prepared them in report form. The report is called, The Carbon Capture and Storage Imperative, and it can be downloaded at http://www.catf.us/resources/publications/view/134. • We wanted to point out that we recommend building three UCG plants in the US by 2018. • In other areas, our modeling paints a pretty stark picture. Without significant financial incentives for CCS, the power sector shifts from uncontrolled coal to uncontrolled natural gas. While this shift cuts power sector emissions significantly, it‟s only a half -step. During a 10-year period between 2040 and 2050, the power sector would need to double the emissions reductions achieved in previous decades in order to meet mid-century climate stabilization targets. These deep, 10-year cuts are unlikely to be achieved however, because the needed carbon dioxide infrastructure of pipelines, injections sites, and cost- effective capture technology would not be in place. However, with financial incentives and performance standards on coal and gas power plants, CCS technology is deployed early, makes deep cuts in carbon dioxide, and avoids infrastructure bottlenecks.
Underground Coal Gasification USA (8) • We make 19 specific recommendations, which fall into three general categories: • • Build about 30 “pioneer” CCS projects by 2018 that overcome technical uncertainties with capturing carbon dioxide from coal and gas plants and injecting it deep underground in geological brine formations. This recommendation is about three times the number of projects President Obama has called for in the past. CATF has identified a $20 billion funding plan to finance these efforts, a level less than what the U.S. is spending to support wind energy. • Build more than 50 gigawatts of CCS projects between 2020 and 2040. This recommendation would drive innovation, lower costs of CCS by about 25% and vastly expand the network of carbon dioxide pipelines and storage sites. CATF recommends a competitive program to award incentives in this phase and performance standards on gas and coal power plants that drive the installation of CCS technology on power plants. • Finance these efforts through a combination of revenue from capping carbon emissions, wires charges on power bills, or portfolio standards that require utilities to purchase a portion of their power from sources that use CCS. • While many of these recommendations would involve additional Congressional actions, we identified several actions that the Administration could take right now, including:
Recommend
More recommend
