Champion you clearly havent read the Gary Love's report, or you wouldnt be suggesting it was well design which resulted in issues for Linc Energy. Given you either haven't read it , or you cant comprehend it take a look below.
In essence Linc Energy operated outside of the conditions approved by the regulator (operating pressure greater than hydrostatic/formation pressure), unknown to the regulator. This thrown against a backdrop of poor site selection resulted in the issues in QLD - not the technology itself, and it has no merit for the LCK site.
I'd go a step further and suggest you should be careful about defamatory comments on here too.
Relevance of Linc Energy Chinchilla UCG Comparisons
The author has direct experience with the Linc Energy UCG operations and is able to provide commentary on the relevance of the Chinchilla legacy issues to the LCKE demonstration project. The issues at the Chinchilla site were a result of unrealistic expectations of the UCG process, driving operational practices that exceeded the natural geological containment of the site. Those practices, related to matters currently before the courts, were argued to be part of the research and development process and were not disclosed to regulators due to the site’s reporting requirements being limited to four water bores on the boundary. UCG operations at Chinchilla were therefore largely unregulated.
In one aspect, the original Linc Energy trial (Gasifier 1) demonstrated that a UCG pilot could be operated with minimal environmental risk. The process was operated below the hydrostatic pressure of the surrounding strata, ensuring that inward flow of water was sustained, and flow of COPC away from the gasifier was minimised. Substantiating data was published, and at the time, the project was reported as a successful example of UCG.
However the target coal seam, a permeable local aquifer with secondary fracture permeability (from hydraulic fracturing), meant that water influx to the process was high. This had three implications:
1. The high production of water from the process created drawdown of the aquifer water levels, progressively reducing the confining pressures in the aquifer;
2. The drawdown of coal seam aquifer pressure caused the desorption of natural coal seam gas (CSG), which resulted in a mixture of free gas and water that compromised the surrounding water seal, and
3. The syngas quality had excess hydrogen (from H2O), which pushed it out of spec for the desired end use (gas-to-liquids).
Point three above became a problem for Linc due to the considerable investment in the gas-to-liquids plant. In order to inhibit water influx, gasifiers were operated over the hydrostatic pressure, which resulted in the loss of syngas and COPC to the environment. A cycle was perpetuated where displacement of groundwater by gas accelerated the desorption of CSG, which continued to erode containment of the system and increase gas loss to the environment.
One feature that exacerbated the impacts of gas loss was the presence of multiple sub-vertical pathways, including natural fractures, induced fractures, leaking wells and historic unsealed boreholes. Syngas that was driven out laterally within the coal seam under pressure exploited these pathways to ascend to the near surface where they impacted soils over a large area which included farmland. It was only during the latter stages of operations at the site that the regulator became aware of potential issues, and investigations commenced.
It is unreasonable to use the Linc Energy example as a criticism of all UCG projects, and every new project should be considered on its merit in the context of current best practices. In the Linc case, it is noted that the basic features of the site were suited to the first trial. It was the only when the commercial requirements exceeded the natural capacity of the site that problems developed.
The approach by LCKE is wholly different from Linc. What is proposed in the current approvals process for LCKE is a short test where the primary driver is to demonstrate environmental performance. The author endorses that approach from a commercialisation perspective, as the barriers to commercialisation of UCG are not technical, rather developing an informed regulatory framework for commercialisation based on sound science. Some of the important differences between the Linc Energy case and the LCKE demonstration plant are provided in the table below.
Apologies - my browser wont allow me to past a table in here - you will have to read it for yourself.
Expand
(20min delay)