Abstract
Underground coal gasification (UCG) is a promising technology to reduce the cost of producing syngas from coal. Coal is gasified in place, which may make it safer, cleaner and less expensive than using a surface gasifier. UCG provides an efficient approach to mitigate the tension between supplying energy and ensuring sustainable development. However, the coal gasification industry presently is facing competition from the low price of natural gas. The technology needs to be reviewed to assess its competiveness. In this paper, the production cost of syngas from an imaginary commercial-scale UCG plant was broken down and calculated. The produced syngas was assumed to be used as feedstock in liquid fuel production through the Fischer-Tropsch process or methanol synthesis. The syngas had a hydrogen (H2) to carbon monoxide (CO) ratio of 2. On this basis, its cost was compared with the cost of syngas produced from natural gas. The results indicated that the production cost of syngas from natural gas is mainly determined by the price of natural gas, and varied from $24.46 per thousand cubic meters (TCM) to $90.09/TCM, depending on the assumed price range of natural gas. The cost of producing UCG syngas is affected by the coal seam depth and thickness. Using the Harmon lignite bed in North Dakota, USA, as an example, the cost of producing syngas through UCG was between $37.27/TCM and $39.80/TCM. Therefore, the cost of UCG syngas was within the cost range of syngas produced by natural gas conversion. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate how the cost varies with coal depth and thickness. It was found that by utilizing thicker coal seams, syngas production per cavity can be increased, and the number of new wells drilled per year can be reduced, therefore improving the economics of UCG. Results of this study indicate the competitiveness of UCG regarding to natural gas conversion technologies, and can be used to guide UCG site selection and to optimize the operation strategy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aasberg-Petersen K, Christensen T, Nielsen C, Dybkjær I (2003) Recent developments in autothermal reforming and prereforming for synthesis gas production in GTL applications. Fuel Process Technol 83(1):253–261. doi:10.1016/S0378-3820(03)00073-0
Callari R, Magalhaes T, Matai P (2007) Production of liquid hydrocarbons employing natural gas: a study of the technical and economical feasibility of a GTL plant in Brazil. Stud Surf Sci Catal 167:135–140
Chevron (2014) Gas-to-liquids transforming natural gas into superclean fuels. http://www.chevron.com/deliveringenergy/gastoliquids/. Cited 10 April 2014
Ellis S, Gunther L, Ochs M, Keighin W, Goven E, Schuenemeyer H, Power C, Stricker D, Blake D (1999) 1999 Resource assessment of selected tertiary coal beds and zones in the Northern Rocky Mountains and Great Plains Region, Part II: Williston Basin, Chapter WN, Coal Resource. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1625-A
Elvers B (2001) Ullmann’s encyclopedia of industrial chemistry. Wiley, New York
Gary D. (2004) Potential application of coal-derived fuel gases for the glass industry: a scoping analysis. Technique report for the National Energy Technology Laboratory. http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/GlassIndustry-FinalRpt.pdf. Cited 25 May 2014
GasTech, Inc. (2007) Viability of underground coal gasification in the “deep coals” of the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Report prepared for the Wyoming Business Council, Business and Industry Division State Energy Office. http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/DocumentLibrary/Energy/WBC_Report_061507_SPM.pdf. Cited 2 April 2014
Geosits R, Schmoe L (2005) IGCC—the challenge of integration. Paper presented at the GT2005 ASME turbo expo 2005: power for land, sea, and air. Reno-Tahoe, Nevada
Guo J, Hou Z, Zheng X (2010) Autothermal reforming of CH4 and C3H8 to syngas in a fluidized-bed reactor. Chin J Catal 31(9):1115–1121. doi:10.1016/S1872-2067(10)60109-X
Integrated Environmental Control Mode, version 7.0. (2012). The Carnegie Mellon University: Pittsburgh
Kent C (2010) ad valorem taxation of coal property in West Virginia and Other States—Part 2. http://www.marshall.edu/cber/docs/2010_XX_XX_Kent-AdValoremTaxation-p2-2010.pdf. Cited 30 March 2014
Lewis W, Radashc A, Lewis H (1954) Industrial stoichiometry. McGraw-Hill, New York
Martelli E, Kreutz T, Consoni S (2009) Comparison of coal IGCC with and without CO2 capture and storage: Shell gasification with standard vs. partial water quench. Energy Procedia 1 (1): 607-614. DOI10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.080
Michael J (2005) The economics of gas to liquids compared to liquefied natural gas. Word Energ Mag 8(1):136–140
North Dakota Department of Commercial (2014) Utility cost. http://www.business.nd.gov/location/OperatingCosts/. Cited 30 March 2014
PetroSA (2014) Operations and refinery. http://www.petrosa.co.za/innovation_in_action/Pages/Operations-and-Refinery.aspx. Citied 15 April 2014
Probstein R, Hick E (2006) Synthetic fuel. Dover Publications, Mineola
Rapier, R (2010) Inside Shell’s Bintulu GTL plant. Energy Trends Report. http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2010/11/14/inside-shells-bintulu-gtl-plant/. Cited 30 March 2014
Regan T (2005) Gas to liquids: The future is gas—how gas-to-liquids technology becomes the reality that replaces oil. Presentation to the Institute of South East Asia Studies, 7 June 2005. http://www.trizeninternational.com/presentations/TRIZEN/GTL%20ISEAS%20presentation%20(2).pdf. Cited 30 March 2014
Rice F, Mann D (2007) Autothermal reforming of natural gas to synthesis gas. Sandia National Laboratory. http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/2007/072331.pdf. Cited 20 March 2014
Ruiz J, Passos F, Bueno J, Souza-Aguiar E, Mattos L, Noronha F (2008) Syngas production by autothermal reforming of methane on supported platinum catalysts. Appl Catal A Gen 334(1):259–267. doi:10.1016/j.apcata.2007.10.011
Slaughter A (2007) Gas to liquid. National Petroleum Council. http://www.npc.org/Study_Topic_Papers/9-STG-Gas-to-Liquids-GTL.pdf. Cited 28 March 2014
Smith R (2004) New developments in gas to liquids technologies. Presentation on the Canadian energy research institute (CERI). Petrochemical Conference, Kananaskis
Srivatsan J, Amani M (2012) Feasibility study of using excess heat from GTL process for seawater desalination. Energ Environ Res 2(1):182–194. doi:10.5539/eer.v2n1p182
SuperMethanol (2014) Fundamental of methanol synthesis. http://www.supermethanol.eu/index.php?id=21&rid=12&r=methanol_synthesis&PHPSESSID=1ug9k3onrg5nhta9vtb9uulg44. Cited 25 March 2014
Thomas T, Gregg D (1981) The chemistry of underground coal gasification. In: Elliott M (ed) Chemistry of coal utilization, second supplementary volume. Wiley, New York, pp 1801–1843
UCG Association (2014) UCG technology—why we need it? http://www.ucgassociation.org/index.php/ucg-technology/why-we-need-it. Cited 20 April 2014
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014a) U.S. natural gas well head price. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3m.htm. Cited 12 April 2014
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2014b) Costs of crude oil and natural gas wells drilled. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_wellcost_s1_a.htm. Cited 12 April 2014
U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory (2014) Fischer-Tropsch (FT) Synthesis. http://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/energy-systems/gasification/gasifipedia/ftsynthesis. Cited 22 March 2014
World GTL (2014) Current project—World GTL Trinidad Limited. http://www.world-gtl.com/current_projects/world_gtl_trinidad_ltd.html. Citied 10 April 2014
Wood D, Nwaoha C, Towler B (2012) Gas-to-liquids: a review of an industry offering several routes for monetizing natural gas. Nat Gas Sci Eng 9:196–20. doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2012.07.001
Yang B (2004) Techno-economic analysis of the process of making synthetic oil form LNG. Techno-Econ Petrochem 20(1):8–14. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-1099.2004.01.002
Acknowledgments
Partial funding for this research was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission, USA; however, this agency makes no warranty on its accuracy and assumes no liability with respect to its use.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pei, P., Korom, S.F., Ling, K. et al. Cost comparison of syngas production from natural gas conversion and underground coal gasification. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 21, 629–643 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9588-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9588-x