Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = coalmine methane (CH4)

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
60 pages, 42740 KB  
Review
Coalbed Biogenic Methane: Insights on the “Blind Spots” in Mitigation of Emissions
by Romeo M. Flores
Methane 2026, 5(3), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/methane5030020 - 2 Jul 2026
Viewed by 699
Abstract
Biogenic or microbial methane (CH4) emissions, believed to be the main driver of the recent surge in global atmospheric CH4 emissions, have altered monitoring, measurement, and mitigation of fossil-fuel emissions. As of 1981, over 20% of the world’s natural gas [...] Read more.
Biogenic or microbial methane (CH4) emissions, believed to be the main driver of the recent surge in global atmospheric CH4 emissions, have altered monitoring, measurement, and mitigation of fossil-fuel emissions. As of 1981, over 20% of the world’s natural gas reserves were biogenic in origin. Additional biogenic CH4 reserves from coal have been discovered since 1981 mixed (40–80%) with thermogenic CH4. Biogenic CH4 accumulates up to 100% in coal reservoirs in the Powder River Basin (PRB), USA. Biogenic CH4 is generated by microbial breakdown of fossil organic matter as an early-stage (primary) type during burial over geologic time and is rarely preserved. Also, biogenic CH4 is generated as a late-stage (secondary) type from recent geologic to present times and is commonly preserved. Late-stage biogenic CH4 is sustained by nutrients and microbes in meteoric/surface waters discharged into coal aquifers. Groundwater is pumped from wells in coal aquifers to desorb and produce CH4 and dewater coal mines. The co-produced water with dissolved CH4 is discharged into diverse surface aquatic systems. The emission factors (EFs) of co-produced water are 2.0522 × 10−9 Gg CH4/gal of water in the PRB and 2.0694 × 10−3 Gg CH4/well in the Black Warrior Basin, U.S. Accurate data on biogenic CH4 emissions from coal sources is a major gap in the accounting of current global groundwater-driven CH4 whose average flux is estimated to be 3.9 ± 6.2 mmol/m2/day or accounting for up to 70% of CH4 emissions from surface aquatic systems. Biogenic CH4 emissions from coal mining and coalbed gas extractions and related infrastructures are overlooked because the focus has been on coalmine methane (CMM) emissions. CMM data from ground-based measurements is highly variable and used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change three-tier system to estimate EFs for national inventories. However, 90% of CMM emissions are attributable to a small group of the most coal-consuming-and-producing countries but fails to capture other coal sources worldwide. This created gaps and “blind spots” in “unstructured” low-concentration, diffused biogenic CH4 emission data. These key “blind spots” include sources from flooded, abandoned coal mines; coalbed methane (CBM) co-produced water with dissolved CH4 and infrastructures/facilities; and groundwater drawdown from water withdrawals during coal mining and CBM extraction. Also, a critical “blind spot” is the mixing of biogenic CH4 emissions from subsurface coals with biogenic CH4 generated at the surface from wetlands, agriculture, and landfills/wastes, which grew 85% from 2008 to 2020. Limited understanding of the mixing of biogenic CH4 from diverse sources and their contributions to global methane requires accurate attribution of overlapping isotopic signatures (δ13CCH4 and δD). This paper addresses knowledge gaps in coalbed biogenic CH4 emissions by a systematic review of the literature and specific study cases, which provided insights on key “blind spots” in their mitigation. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

20 pages, 7615 KB  
Article
Huge CH4, NO2 and CO Emissions from Coal Mines in the Kuznetsk Basin (Russia) Detected by Sentinel-5P
by Plamen Trenchev, Maria Dimitrova and Daniela Avetisyan
Remote Sens. 2023, 15(6), 1590; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15061590 - 15 Mar 2023
Cited by 21 | Viewed by 5921
Abstract
The coal industry is the largest global emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). However, recent data suggests that coal mine methane (CH4) emissions worldwide are higher than those of the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, the coal industry is less [...] Read more.
The coal industry is the largest global emitter of carbon dioxide (CO2). However, recent data suggests that coal mine methane (CH4) emissions worldwide are higher than those of the oil and gas industry. Furthermore, the coal industry is less active in reducing methane emissions than the oil and gas sectors due to lower profitability. Although uncertainties remain in quantifying methane emissions from mines, the use of satellite observations is revolutionizing the process of monitoring and improving the accuracy of emission accounting. The methodology presented here allows us to determine background CH4 concentrations and improve our ability to detect emission events using Sentinel-5P data. Knowing the background concentrations for the area of interest provides us the opportunity to track seasonal and annual variations and trends, as well as quickly detect periodic or accidental emissions from unregulated sources, etc. The methodology and systematic research applied in this paper for the period of May 2018 to the end of 2022 enables us to detect hundreds of large-scale emissions of CH4, NO2, and CO from the coal mines in the Kuznetsk Basin (the Kemerovo region), the largest coal mining area in Russia. We estimated that the amount of these emissions is significantly higher than the emissions reported by various authors for other coal mining regions such as Poland and Australia. We found that in cases of high methane quantity there is a positive correlation between NO2 and CO emissions in time and location. The source of emissions in the study area is homogeneous, which allows it to be used as a benchmark for building models to estimate and track emissions in heterogeneous areas. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 4954 KB  
Article
Coupled Effects of Stress, Moisture Content and Gas Pressure on the Permeability Evolution of Coal Samples: A Case Study of the Coking Coal Resourced from Tunlan Coalmine
by Guofu Li, Yi Wang, Junhui Wang, Hongwei Zhang, Wenbin Shen and Han Jiang
Water 2021, 13(12), 1653; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13121653 - 13 Jun 2021
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 3410
Abstract
Deep coalbed methane (CBM) is widely distributed in China and is mainly commercially exploited in the Qinshui basin. The in situ stress and moisture content are key factors affecting the permeability of CH4-containing coal samples. Therefore, considering the coupled effects of [...] Read more.
Deep coalbed methane (CBM) is widely distributed in China and is mainly commercially exploited in the Qinshui basin. The in situ stress and moisture content are key factors affecting the permeability of CH4-containing coal samples. Therefore, considering the coupled effects of compressing and infiltrating on the gas permeability of coal could be more accurate to reveal the CH4 gas seepage characteristics in CBM reservoirs. In this study, coal samples sourced from Tunlan coalmine were employed to conduct the triaxial loading and gas seepage tests. Several findings were concluded: (1) In this triaxial test, the effect of confining stress on the permeability of gas-containing coal samples is greater than that of axial stress. (2) The permeability versus gas pressure curve of coal presents a ‘V’ shape evolution trend, in which the minimum gas permeability was obtained at a gas pressure of 1.1MPa. (3) The gas permeability of coal samples decreased exponentially with increasing moisture content. Specifically, as the moisture content increasing from 0.18% to 3.15%, the gas permeability decreased by about 70%. These results are expected to provide a foundation for the efficient exploitation of CBM in Qinshui basin. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop