Underground Coal Gasification in the energy mix 7th November 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Underground Coal Gasification in the energy mix 7th November 2008

Description:

Title: Underground Coal Gasification in the energy mix 7th November 2008 Author: Shaun Lavis Last modified by: Rabbanat Created Date: 1/5/2009 9:46:47 AM – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:400
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 69
Provided by: Shaun77
Learn more at: http://ceeschina.org
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Underground Coal Gasification in the energy mix 7th November 2008


1
An Introduction to
SC/P/2009_0037_v1
2
Agenda
  • Introduction to Clean Coal Ltd.
  • Overview Who is CCL?
  • CCL Corporate Structure
  • Resources and Experience
  • Current Projects
  • Introduction to Underground Coal Gasification
  • Overview What is UCG?
  • Benefits Why implement UCG?
  • Clean Coals CRIP Technology and Process
  • Overview of CRIP
  • Benefits of CRIP
  • Syngas and Economics
  • Site Selection Criteria
  • Current Project CECIC Partnership
  • Appendices

3
Intro to CCL Overview
  • Who is Clean Coal Limited (CCL)?
  • CCL is the leading developer of Underground Coal
    Gasification (UCG) technology and projects
  • CCL specializes in the evaluation, design,
    implementation, financing and management of
    commercial UCG projects worldwide
  • Headquarters in the UK and USA with commercial
    activity in strategic countries including the UK,
    US, Canada, China, Turkey, Belgium, Poland and
    Romania

Advanced UCG Technology
Project Execution
Core Competencies
Project Finance
4
Intro to CCL Corporate Structure
A family of businesses
5
Intro to CCL Resources and Experience
  • CCLs Resources
  • Experience Our team managed the longest and
    largest UCG trial in Europe. CCL currently has
    the most UCG projects underway worldwide
  • Proprietary methodology CCL has commercialized
    the CRIP methodology, most efficient and
    effective way to exploit deep coal resources
    using UCG
  • Proprietary technology including specialized
    burners, geological modelling techniques/software
    and financial modelling software
  • Capital we invest our own capital, and have
    access to large pools of global investment
    capital
  • Partners World-class partners including the
    Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    (additional technical expertise), Northern China
    Power Engineering Co (engineering design for
    power plants and equipment)

6
Intro to CCL Current Activity
CCLs Worldwide Activity
7
Intro UCG Overview
  • What is Underground Coal Gasification?
  • UCG is the process of gasifying coal in situ to
    produce high-quality syngas
  • Syngas can then be converted into a variety of
    products
  • Methanol for power generation
  • Diesel fuels
  • Jet fuels
  • Hydrogen
  • Urea for fertilizer
  • Although not new, UCG has developed dramatically
    in recent years opportunity now exists for
    progressive companies to participate in a new
    industry environment

8
Intro UCG Benefits
  • Why implement UCG? Many critical benefits
  • Safety no personnel required to work underground
  • Environmental
  • Ash is left underground
  • CO2 can easily be captured and re-stored
  • Much smaller surface footprint (as compared with
    traditional mining)
  • No impact on surface or shallow ground waters
  • Reduced SOx, NOx, methane, and Hg emissions
  • Economic
  • Deep, un-mineable coal can be effectively
    exploited as new source of energy
  • The process may be significantly cheaper than
    that for natural gas
  • UCG process is economically competitive with gas,
    coal and LNG
  • CO2 capture can provide carbon credits
  • Syngas can be converted to many different end
    products

9
CRIP Methodology
  • Controlled Retraction Injection Point (CRIP)
  • Methodology developed by CCLs team
  • Most efficient UCG methodology, especially for
    deep coal
  • Least amount of drilling
  • Two wells drilled into the coal
  • Injection Well to introduce the oxidants (H2O/air
    or H2O/O2)
  • Production Well to bring the product gas to the
    surface.
  • Advanced Directional Drilling to link the two
    wells
  • Air/O2 Injection, depending on financial
    model/syngas use.

10
CRIP Methodology
CRIP module design cross sectional view
11
CRIP Methodology
CRIP module design view from above
12
CRIP Methodology
  • Gasification panel layout and lifecycle
  • Exploration
  • Drilling and well installation
  • Active gasification
  • Venting and cooling
  • Return to ambient conditions.
  • All these phases take place concurrently during
    commercial UCG.

View from above.
13
CRIP Methodology Benefits
  • Benefits of CRIP relative to other UCG
    methodologies
  • Minimum disturbance to surface
  • Minimum amount of drilling
  • Maximum control over gasification process
  • Most efficient UCG methodology, especially for
    deep coal

14
CRIP Methodology Syngas
Composition
Methane 10 20
  • Syngas produced during UCG is primarily composed
    of methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon
    dioxide
  • Unprocessed syngas undergoes treatment to remove
    water, sulphur, carbon dioxide and other waste
    products
  • Treatments are well understood due to
    surface-level coal gasification

Carbon Dioxide 25 40
Hydrogen 10 35
Carbon Monoxide 10 20
End Uses
  • Supply to adjacent power stations is often the
    optimal use
  • Using syngas directly avoids energy loss from
    conversion processes

Electricity Generation
Chemical Manufacturing
  • High hydrogen content means ammonia can be
    created
  • Key input in fertiliser production

UCG Syngas
Iron and Steel Production
  • Syngas can be used as a reduction agent in iron
    and steel production

Gas-to-liquids
  • Production of fuels such as gasoline, diesel and
    methanol

15
CRIP Methodology Economics
  • UCG is highly cost-competitive with other energy
    sources will provide a low cost energy source
    for decades
  • Key issues
  • Reduced capital expense Unlike IGCCs, no need
    to purchase gasifiers or build ash and slag
    management facilities. With syngas stream
    continuity, there is also no need for gasifier
    redundancy.
  • Reduce operating expense Unlike conventional
    plants, there is no need to purchase, transport,
    store, or prepare coal. There is no need to
    re-brick the gasifier linings. Due to syngas
    stream continuity, plans have high capacity
    factors comparable to pulverized coal or natural
    gas plants, reducing down time.
  • Reduced environmental management costs Due to
    underground gasification environment, UCG
    facilities produce no SOX or NOx. Particulate
    streams and mercury biproducts are 50 of surface
    equivalents, and there is no production of ash.
  • Fuel supply certainty Because the supply of
    UCG syngas is local and continuous, operators
    face no risk in fuel availability, supply costs,
    or supply disruption.

16
CRIP Methodology Economics
Ability to commercialise coal resources which are
too deep or unsuitable for conventional mining
  • Virtually no competition for resources lower
    acquisition cost
  • Scalable nature of projects production can be
    varied to meet demand
  • Market constrained, not resource constrained
  • It is envisaged that syngas for electricity
    production will be sold at a 20 discount to the
    natural gas price on a per energy content basis
  • Syngas for other purposes could command a lower
    discount or even a premium
  • Main costs are drilling the production and
    injection wells
  • Key drivers of per-unit costs are
  • Coal seam depth and thickness
  • Scale of the project
  • Coal quality (heat content, moisture)

1 mmBTU 1 mcf of methane 2
mcf of syngas
(1)
A cubic foot of syngas contains half the energy
content of a cubic foot of natural gas
17
CRIP Methodology Selection Criteria
Other values can be used if site conditions are
suitable.
18
Current Project Partnership w/ CECIC
Clean Coal Chinas Primary UCG Pilot
  • 9.0 million to fund pilot phase (burn in Q1
    2011)
  • Exploration - 0.8mm
  • Design, construction drilling - 1.8mm
  • Surface facilities - 2.2mm
  • Operation, staffing and other - 4.2mm

18
19
Current Project Partnership w/ CECIC
Cash flow positive by 2014
Project Overview
Commercial Options
  • Coal resource well understood
  • Total estimated reserves 1.0 billion tons
  • Target seam reserves 653 million tons
  • Avg. seam thickness 7.9m
  • 320599m deep
  • Pre-feasibility study to be undertaken
  • The syngas will be supplied to the power plants
    built by CECEP (formerly CECIC)
  • Commercial development will proceed in three
    stages
  • Stage 1 25 MW Power Plant (Commissioning
    expected by 2013)
  • Stage 2 250 MW Power Plant
  • Stage 3 1,000 MW Power Plant

Financial Projections
Regional Partner
  • Project is a 49/51 joint venture with CECIC, a
    large, central state-owned company
  • The strongest, largest and most competitive
    industry group in the field of energy
    conservation and environmental protection in
    china
  • Clean Coal will fund the pilot phase

19
20
Current Project Partnership w/ CECIC
  • CCL delivers project execution start to finish
  • Project Financing
  • CCL invests in UCG projects and also secures
    capital from other strategic and financial
    investors
  • Project Assessment
  • Assess geological capability of project including
    seismic surveys
  • Assess economics and complete financial modelling
    to ensure its economic viability
  • Technology
  • Provide technical leadership from project
    inception to completion
  • Contribute our proprietary technologies and
    methodologies
  • Cutting edge research and continued technological
    development
  • Project Execution
  • Design process from underground all the way up to
    the power plant door
  • On ground management of all construction,
    engineering and drilling
  • Assuring environmental safety of the project

21
Thank you
Thank You!
www.cleancoalucg.com
22
Appendices
Appendices
23
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
????
24
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
25
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
26
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
27
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
28
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
29
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
30
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
31
Previous Pilot El Tremedal, Spain
32
Intro to UCG Economics
Source BP
33
Intro to UCG Output

Syngas Composition
34
Case Study 1 Reference Data
  • Depth 500 m
  • Thickness 5.5 m
  • In-seam length 500 m
  • Rank Sub-bituminous
  • HHV 20.9 GJ/t
  • Power 40 MW per module
  • Number of modules/panel 15 (run in parallel)
  • Total Power delivered/panel 600 MWthermal

35
Case Study 1
Block Flow Diagram of UCG
36
Case Study 1 Panel Data
  • Inter-module distance 15 m
  • Module life time 150 days
  • Gasification rate - per module 188 t/d -
    total 2820 t/d
  • One-year panel data- tonnage gasified 1 Mt -
    tonnage in place 2 Mt
  • Energy recovery 18.4 GJ/tonne of coal
  • Total energy recovery 18 400 TJ per year

37
Case Study 1 Syngas Data(Raw Syngas at wellhead)
  • Flow- per module 18 000 Nm3/h - total
    270 000 Nm3/h
  • CompositionH2 17.0 CO 10.8 CH4
    9.0 CO2 22.5 H2S 0.6
    H2O 40.0
  • HHV 8 MJ/Nm3
  • Temperature 300 C
  • Pressure 46 bar

38
Case Study 1 Syngas Data(Dry Syngas after water
cooling removal)
  • Flow- per module 11 000 Nm3/h - total
    165 000 Nm3/h
  • CompositionH2 28.4 CO 17.9 CH4
    15.0 CO2 37.7 H2S 1.0
  • HHV 13 MJ/Nm3
  • Temperature ambiant
  • Pressure 45 bar

39
Case Study 1 Syngas Data(Refined Syngas after
acid gas removal)
  • Flow- per module 6 800 Nm3/h - total
    102 000 Nm3/h
  • Composition H2 46.3 CO 29.2 CH4
    24.5
  • HHV 21 MJ/Nm3
  • CO2 production 120t/h
  • H2S production 2.5t/h
  • Temperature ambiant
  • Pressure 43 bar

40
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
  • Background of UCG Trial
  • Developing Technology from U.S and oil gas
  • Industry CRIP, in seam drilling, use of oxygen.
  • Thulin Trial(1979-87) 860m depth, high CV gas.
  • European Working Group Report (1989)
  • Evaluated previous trials
  • Undertook economic evaluation and considered
  • That UCG in thinner and deeper seams feasible
  • Proposed two trials over a 15 year period at
    increasing depth.
  • Technical Objective of the 1st Trial
  • Demonstration of Long In-seam Drilling
  • Construction of a Competent gas Circuit between
    Injection and Production Wells
  • Demonstration of Adequate Coal
  • Conversion

41
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Site Location
42
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
In-Seam Configuration and Project Plan
  • Preparatory Stage
  • Geology and coal evaluation.
  • Drilling, completion of boreholes,
  • Surface equipment.
  • Gasification Activities
  • Drying, pressurisation, ignition of the coal
  • Development of cavity by means of the CRIP
    manoeuvre
  • Post-Burn Activities
  • Determine cavity shape by drilling
  • Validate gasification models used for process
    control
  • Site restoration

43
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Trial at 550m Depth (1992-1999)
  • Two successful ignitions, and seven satisfactory
    manoeuvres of the CRIP moveable injection system.
  • Directional drilling produced satisfactory well
    construction.
  • Gasification at greater depth enhances methane
    formation and cavity growth.
  • The engineering operated satisfactory and the
    process is controllable, stopped and restarted.
  • No evidence of contamination spread beyond the
    cavity or subsidence was observed.

44
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Characteristics Two dipping coal seams 7 to 14
m apart Depth of 500-700 metres Seam
thickness 1,9 to 7,0 metres Thin layer of
clay under both seams - sand layers above the
coal were known but manageable. Tectonic
framework highly favourable to gasification (Isola
tion by faults)
Geological Data from Test Site
45
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Coal Seam and Strata Characteristics
  • Hydrogeology
  • Floor Thick Limestone
  • Roof 15m of Sand
  • Permeability's
  • Coal 1.96mD,
  • Sand Strata17.6mD
  • Limestone very low
  • Drainage upwards and to N. East
  • Aquifer location and protection favoured upper
    seam
  • Coal Analysis
  • Sub-Bituminous C
  • Vitrinite Reflectance 0.36-0.43
  • Proximate Analysis
  • Moisture 45
  • Ash 18
  • Volatile Matter 26.5
  • Total Sulphur 7.3
  • HHV 18095kJ/kg

46
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Three Operational Areas of Test Site
47
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
  • Duration 7years, 1991 to 1998
  • Total Cost 20 Million
  • Underground Gasification Europe, Teruel, Spain
    Wells were completed with casing concentric
    tubing to provide necessary paths for production,
    injection, purge-gas cooling water flows. A
    coiled tube located in the injection well was
    used to execute the controlled retraction
    injection point, CRIP
  • Source Underground Coal Gasification A Joint
    European Field Trial in Spain, Department of
    Trade Industry, UK, December 1999

48
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Gas Characteristics
49
Case Study 2 El Tremedal, Spain
Key Results
  • Coal Affected 290 tons
  • Product Gas 490 tons
  • Peak Power 8MW
  • Gas Composition (dry N2 free)
  • Hydrogen 27
  • Carbon Monoxide 14
  • Methane 14
  • Carbon Dioxide 45
  • Calorific value of product gas (LHV) 10.9MJ/m3

50
Case Study 3 Queensland Australia
UCG Plant in Queensland Australia Total
resource 364 million metric tons Average
depth 250 meters Coal seam over 10m
thick Total energy 7,320 PJ of in-situ energy
(1 petajoule 1015 joules) Recoverable energy 
UCG syngas technology we can recover in excess of
4,245 PJ of energy as syngas
51
Case Study 3 Queensland Australia
  • Stage 1 Preliminary Planning
  • In most projects the levels of existing
    exploration are not sufficient to define a
    geological resource with an acceptable risk
    reduction profile.
  • Necessary to define geological resource to JORC
    standard
  • Therefore, the Queensland project began with
    seismic studies and supplementary drilling
    programmes, to determine the structure of the
    coal field.
  • The total cost for the preliminary planning was
    US 1.4 million and took about 12 months to
    complete.

52
Case Study 3 Queensland Australia
  • Stage 2 Pilot Project
  • Objectives
  • Demonstrate accuracy of our understanding of the
    site
  • Confirm syngas production rates and composition
  • Confirm linkage system
  • Provide data for Commercial stage.
  • Pilot project was developed consisting of a
    single CRIP module (one horizontal borehole and
    one production well) with a small power plant.
  • Different injection mixes and cavity design
    procedures were investigated to ensure the full
    commercial project is designed to optimal levels.
  • Completed January 2009 and successfully
    demonstrated that a large proportion of the
    energy produced (68) is in the form of methane
    and ethane.
  • The Pilot Project cost approximately US15
    million, and took 100 days.

53
Case Study 3 Queensland Australia
  • Stage 3 Commercial Production
  • The Queensland project has entered commercial
    production. It is estimated that 50-60 of the
    resource will be used in the process.
  • Some of the gas (about 30) from the Queensland
    project is expected to power a 400MW power plant
    for approximately 30 years.
  • Key Statistics
  • The average in-situ energy on an air dried
    basis is 20.11 GJ/tonne of coal.
  • The key energy components in the gas are
  • o Methane Ethane (components of natural gas)
    68
  • o Hydrogen Carbon Monoxide 32

54
Case Study 3 Queensland Australia
  • Stage 3 Commercial Production
  • Average Gas Energy Contribution ()
  • --------------------------------------------------
  • Methane 58
  • Ethane 10
  • Carbon Monoxide 6
  • Hydrogen 26
  • One horizontal borehole unit (a CRIP module) of
    one kilometre in 5 metre thick coal seam and a
    heat value of 20 Mj/kg produces 50MW of energy
    and last for about a year.

55
Environmental Factors Risk Assessment
  • Methods terminology may depend on
    country/region
  • Conceptual models
  • SourcePathwayReceptor
  • Pollutant linkage

56
Environmental Factors Site Selection
  • The most effeective way of reducing risk is the
    break the Pollutant Linkage.
  • Remove receptor Select deep coals (gt300m)
  • These may be in regions of poor quality
    groundwater unsuitable for consumption
  • Deep coal seams are more likely to isolate
    contamination from receptors
  • Isolate Source
  • Select regions with minimal faults joints
  • Select sites away from receptors (e.g. aquifers,
    abstraction wells)
  • Select sites with good thick aquitards
    surrounding cavity
  • Consider accessory mineralogical assemblages of
    surrounding strata coal.

57
Environmental Factors Subsidence
  • Has been observed from previous UCG trials.
  • Results from cavity propagation after UCG.
  • Environmental process Issues
  • Surface subsidence
  • Damage to overlying strata- aquifers, coal seams
    etc
  • Preferential pathways
  • Enhanced permeability
  • Can Affect UCG Infrastructure
  • On site plant
  • Roads
  • Other buildings
  • Services

58
Environmental Factors Subsidence
Surface deformation in deep UCG lt shallow UCG-
but wider distribution.
  • Coal and Overburden Characteristics
  • Seam thickness and amount of coal gasified
  • Seam Depth (overburden thickness)
  • Geomechanical properties of the overburden
    (stiffness, yield strength)
  • Fracture density and orientation

59
Environmental Factors CO2 Storage
Source LLNL
60
Economics
Source UCG Partnership
61
Economics
  • Production Costs Estimates from Gas Producers
  • Carbon Energy
  • A 1.25 /GJ for UCG syngas (medium term outlook
    for Australian natural gas A7/GJ
  • Cost of power production A22.50 MWh
  • Linc Energy
  • Cost of syngas US 0.6 0.8 /GJ
  • Cost of synfuel US 25-28/bbl
  • Power generation US13 -US15 per MW

62
Economics
  • Extending Coal Resource Life
  • Proven global coal resources are estimated to be
    over 900 billion tonnes
  • However, calculation is not rigorous
  • Reality US and Russia have resources that will
    last through the 21st century

Source Energy Edge Ltd.
Source Pan Fudan University
63
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
  • Rohan Courtney OBE, Non-Executive Chairman 
  • Rohan Courtney was in banking for 27 years and
    held the position of General Manager for Europe
    of State Bank of New South Wales for eight years
    until 1990. From 1990 to 1992 and at the request
    of the Bank of England, he was Group Chief
    Executive of the merchant bank Robert Fraser. He
    was Executive Chairman of West 175 Media Group
    from 1996 to 2001. He has held a number of
    directorships in a variety of industries. He was
    Non Executive Director (Senior Independent
    Director from 2000) of Tullow Oil plc from 1993
    to 2007 and was Chairman of the Audit Committee.
    In 2005 he formed, together with Dr. Michael
    Green, the UCG Partnership, the professional body
    and centre of excellence for all information on
    underground coal gasification. He has been
    involved in the development of UCG since 2003.
  • Graham Chapman, MBA B.Sc (Hons) FGS, Chief
    Executive Officer 
  • Graham spent 16 years in South Africa with Rand
    Mines and Ingwe Coal Corporation on operating
    mines, as a geologist and later in an executive
    role in Head Office. In 1996 he set up Ingwe's
    (later Billiton) operations in Indonesia. He
    successfully negotiated and managed two major
    joint ventures with Indonesian companies,
    controlling exploration activities and managing
    the Billiton operations throughout the country.
    In 2001 Graham transferred to the Melbourne Head
    Office of the newly created BHP Billiton Ltd as
    Vice President Strategy and was instrumental in
    producing the new companys first public
    strategy. Graham formed Energy Edge Ltd., an
    innovative coal-focused consultancy in 2003, with
    four skilled professionals in the fields of
    energy and strategy development. The company
    established a large blue-chip client base of
    major energy organisations.

64
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
  • Catherine Bond, LLB non-practising Solicitor,
    Managing Director- Corporate 
  • Catherine qualified as a solicitor in London in
    1993 and worked with Jaques Lewis (turning into
    Eversheds) for a number of years. Catherine
    joined Seymour Pierce, a London based investment
    bank, in 2000 as an equity leisure analyst and
    moved to the corporate finance department in
    2002. She has advised on numerous listings,
    fundraisings and MA transactions. In 2006, she
    became the Managing Director of European American
    Equities heading up the London office.
  • Douglas Harmer, Financial analysis and modelling 
  • Douglas has held senior positions at a number of
    investment banks, most recently as a director of
    mergers acquisitions at Kaupthing Singer
    Friedlander. Douglas trained as a chartered
    accountant with KPMG and holds a first class
    degree in economics and finance from the
    University of Manchester where he was awarded two
    KPMG prizes, one Arthur Andersen prize and also
    graduated top of his year.
  • Marc Mostade, Technical Director 
  • Marc is a chemical engineer with extensive
    experience of chemical modelling and practical
    application of UCG. After work at the University
    of Liege in Chemical Processes and Chemical
    Engineering he was co-ordinator of a research
    project in underground coal gasification in
    Thulin Belgium. He was then appointed Deputy
    Director-Technical of the second underground coal
    gasification pilot in El Tremedal Spain, a
    project joint funded by Belgium, Spain and the
    UK. After consulting work he became Product
    Manager in pumping products and Project and
    Production Manager in the first carbon nanotube
    producer in Europe.

65
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
  • Dr Matthew Turner, B.Sc (Hons) PhD, Senior
    Geologist 
  • Matthew obtained a degree in Geology at Cardiff
    University and a PhD in Earth sciences also at
    Cardiff University. He is a specialist in
    geological modelling using geographical
    information systems (GIS) software. He has worked
    as a Geophysicist and Project Scientist for
    Terradat UK. He was then employed as a Senior
    Research Associate at Cardiff University
    undertaking a feasibility study on underground
    coal gasification in Wales. The study included a
    full geological appraisal using complex 3D
    visualisation techniques and modelling to produce
    the first ever three dimensional model of the
    South Wales Coalfield.
  • Dr Shaun Lavis, B.Sc (Hons) PhD, Senior
    Hydrogeologist 
  • Shaun obtained a BSc in Exploration Geology (21
    Hons) at Cardiff University, MSc n Geochemistry
    from the University of Leeds and a PhD from
    Cardiff University. He was a Freelance
    Geoscientist working for Terradat (UK) Limited
    and then joined WS Atkins as Environmental
    Scientist in 2006. He is a geoenvironmental
    scientist with professional experience
    hydrological risk assessments, geochemistry,
    geophysics and site investigation.
  • Edward Stanley, BEng (Hons), Computational Fluid
    Dynamics AnalystEdward obtained an undergraduate
    degree in Medical Engineering at Cardiff
    University and chose to specialise in
    Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis.
    While undertaking his postgraduate studies at
    Cardiff, he was a teaching assistant, tutoring
    and supporting third year undergraduate students
    in Computational Fluid Dynamics.

66
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
  • Philippe Fievez, UCG Project Manager and
    Engineer 
  • Philippe Fievez is a mining and nuclear civil
    engineer who has a postgraduate degree in
    management and a diploma in environmental
    methods. He was the Site Manager of the first
    underground coal gasification pilot in Europe and
    has held line positions with Schlumberger,
    Halliburton. His career has included positions as
    research development and management, marketing
    and product management and as founder and CEO of
    a diamond tool business.
  •  
  • Henri Henquet, UCG Project Manager and Engineer 
  • Henri Henquet was the Research Engineer involving
    the development and construction of laboratory
    systems for experiment in coal gasification. He
    was Project Engineer for the second underground
    coal gasification pilot in Europe and has worked
    on UCG projects since then. He is a Senior
    Project Engineer and continues to work in UCG.

67
Clean Coal Limited (US) Staff
  • Theodore Swindells, Chairman
  • Theodore H. Swindells has over 25 years
    experience in investment banking, venture
    capital, and corporate finance. Over the past
    five years, Mr.Swindells has focused on natural
    resource and clean energy investments including
    coal mining, precious metals extraction and
    processing, environmental remediation, fuel
    cells, and oil and gas equipment services. Mr.
    Swindells was a founding partner of Maroon Bells
    Capital Partners for ten years, managing numerous
    private equity investments in the global
    telecommunications industry. Mr. Swindells
    previous experience includes corporate finance
    and venture capital positions with Drexel Burnham
    Lambert, RubiconVentures, Hambrecht Quist,
    Woodman Kirkpatrick Gilbreath and Bank of
    America. Mr. Swindells holds a BA in economics
    from Claremont Men's College and an MBA in
    Finance from Northwestern University's Kellogg
    School of Business.
  • Edward Mooney, President
  • Mr. Mooney has over twenty years experience in
    all aspects of corporate development for
    publicly-held and privately-held enterprises,
    including mergers and acquisitions, corporate
    finance, strategic planning, business
    development, investor relations, corporate
    communications and corporate governance. Over the
    past ten years he has been an officer, director
    or advisor on five reverse-mergers from start-up
    through initial acquisitions and recruitment of
    professional industry management teams. He is
    also co-founder and chairman of the Global
    University for Lifelong Learning, a California
    not-for-profit organization focused on
    educational initiatives for developing nations.
    Mr. Mooney holds a Masters Degree in Education
    and a Bachelors Degree in Geography from the
    California State University System.

68
Clean Coal Limited (US) Staff
  • Business Development Advisory Team
  • Jody J. Sitkoski
  • Mr. Sitkoski brings 30 years of hands on business
    experience in mining mineral exploration, due
    diligence, mine facility construction, power
    plant construction maintenance and pipeline
    construction. With companies such as Bechtel, GE
    Power Systems, Flour Daniels, Cleveland Cliffs
    and Wisconsin Gas Electric and the DOE. Mr.
    Sitkoski has experience with environmental
    technology processes
  • Daniel Carlson
  • Mr. Carlson is a Series 7 licensed broker and
    Investment Banker. Recently, Dan was working with
    Primary Capital where he was responsible for
    evaluating, marketing and working with Chinese
    companies seeking public listings in the US and
    financings through PIPE transactions. Mr. Carlson
    started his career on the Pacific Coast Stock
    Exchange where he worked for over 5 years,
    achieving the level of Specialist on the trading
    floor. Mr. Carlson graduated in 1989 from Tufts
    University with a degree in Economics.

69
Clean Coal Limited (China) Staff
  • Rob Abbanat, Managing Director, Clean Coal China
  • Mr. Abbanat has 13 years of experience in
    finance, business development, and operations of
    high-growth companies. He has spent the last
    three years living in China, where he has served
    as Managing Director of M1 Capital Groups China
    organization. He has played a key role in
    structuring deals and securing financing
    internationally for multiple companies at various
    stages of development, He has earned numerous
    awards including SBAs Young Entrepreneur of the
    Year and was inducted into Georgia Techs
    Council of Outstanding Young Engineering Alumni.
    Mr. Abbanat holds a Bachelors degree in physics
    from Boston College, a Masters in aerospace
    engineering from Georgia Tech, and an MBA from
    MIT. Rob is also the author of LETTER FROM
    SHANGHAI, a monthly column published in Private
    Equity International's PEI Asia magazine
    (www.letterfromshanghai.com). Rob's LETTERs offer
    an inside look at private equity, investment
    banking and the ever-changing economic and
    political landscapes within China.
  • Alex Pang, Business Development Manager, Clean
    Coal ChinaMr. Pang brings to Clean Coal Ltd.
    extensive experience in corporate finance,
    project financing, direct investments, and
    portfolio investments. Mr. Pang has worked for
    some of the world's largest financial
    institutions, including HSBC Bank (China) and
    Citibank (China), as a financial manager
    providing investment advice, financial planning,
    financing, and other services for a wide range of
    customers. He is familiar with both the domestic
    and international capital markets, and has a
    successful track record of investments in Chinas
    A-share markets as well as long-term management
    of QDII investments in Hong Kong, the United
    States, and Europe. Mr. Pang is well versed with
    the nuances of Chinas capital markets, and
    possesses a deep understanding of China's fiscal,
    monetary, and industrial policies.
About PowerShow.com