a monster, page-32

Capman

I will try one more time.

There is a lot of current research focussed on coincident, staged CBM/ucg projects.

The gist of why this might be so I believe is rooted in that CBM requires relatively large areas as typically only 5% of the calorific of a gassy coal seam is extracted as CBM.

When the CBM is pretty much extracted, about 95% of the calorific content remains insitu as coal. Therefore bring on a second phase ucg project to produce syngas (not methane) and you can get to utilise up to 80% of the calorific content of the coal.

Because of the 16x energy density of ucg (80%/5%) you only need find a suitable 1/16 sub area within (say the initial deleted wells) within a CBM permit to effectively double the productive output of the permit over a soley CBM producing asset.

The synergies are supposedly even greater when the CBM well field uses substantial lateral offtakes as in a second stage ucg project these are beneficial in circulating the oxidants and recovering the syngas.

That ucg captured CO@ could be piped several km away to a CBM producing portion of the permit to be sequestered into a deep gas producing coal seam to increase methane extraction would be a further plus imo.

Capman I am not trying to have a go at you ... do you see any merit in this idea?

Poyndexter