the green monster, page-20

fss,

just a brief reply now - I will address your issues one by one separately when I have more time.

I don't agree with your analysis.

There is uncertainty here and no one has accurate figures!
However, we have enough information to make first order estimates by looking at UCG-CTL in comparison with surface gasification based CTL. I have given my reasoned judgements which I continue to stand behind. I have done detailed calculations which I will post if you like.

At the end of the day, carbon emmissions are very much dominated by the conversion of the feedstock into the fuel you want. This comes from thermodynamic considerations.

In addition we know items such as mining and grinding are estimated to yield GHG of about 20 - 40 gCO2eq/km which is only about 10% of the conversion step; so given the uncertainties in the UCG conversion process itself we can ignore this as being only of marginal impact on the total which is 300 - 400 gCO2eq/km.

There are heaps of studies estimating syngas composition from UCG. In fact we can estimate it from thermodynamic considerations. There's considerable uncertainty but its not completely unknown.

Its funny that you end by stating:
"In my opinion, there isn't much point in trying to see if UCG produces more CO2 gram-for-gram compared to SG. There are too many variables involved that can be readily altered with UCG."

If you truly believe this statement then it invalidates your own attack on my analysis.

Have a nice day and lets hope for more SP rises!