Petrographic assessment of coal gas content

Volodymyr Baranovskyi,Liubov Kuznetsova

doi:10.1051/e3sconf/201910900004

Abstract

Traces of the gas generation process on natural coal burstings have been identified and documented using the petrographic method. Their characteristic features were described. The methodology of their quantitative calculation is proposed in order to assess the modern gas content of coals.

Highlights

Throughout the geological history of coal beds the transformation of the initial plant material under the influence of temperature and pressure is accompanied by the emission of gaseous products.According to the opinion of many researchers, the volumes of coal-generated gas are quite significant – they are by stages of coalification (m3/t): Lignite–68, Subbituminous– 150, Bituminous C–230, Bituminous B–270, Antracite–420
A new method of petrographic assessment of coal gas content has been proposed, the essence of which is the use of optical microscopy of coal samples, with the further processing of photographic materials obtained
The data obtained by the new method are well correlated with the known factual gasbearing data obtained by traditional methods

Summary

Introduction

Throughout the geological history of coal beds the transformation of the initial plant material under the influence of temperature and pressure is accompanied by the emission of gaseous products.According to the opinion of many researchers, the volumes of coal-generated gas are quite significant – they are by stages of coalification (m3/t): Lignite–68, Subbituminous– 150, Bituminous C–230, Bituminous B–270, Antracite–420. Migration of gases from the place of generation or accumulation due to elevated pressures is always directed towards unloading along the shortest way – vertically to fracture zones, to the arches of anticlines, to the erosion of coal-bearing layers and, first of all, to the bedding of permeable horizons, upwards through the rise of beds [2]. All these data are based on theoretical concepts and vary among different researchers

Methods

Results

Conclusion