1 s2.0 S2949753123000334 Main

Innovation and Green Development 2 (2023) 100065
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Innovation and Green Development

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/innovation-and-green-development
Full Length Article
Assessment of financial and environmental impacts of pre-mining methane

drainage in Indian scenario: A case study using Jharia coal seams
Mayank Ahuja a, b, Debjeet Mondal a, *, D.P. Mishra b, Sayan Ghosh a, Manoj Kumar a
a
CMPDI (Coal India Limited), India
b
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad, India
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Global coal deposits are often associated with trapped methane, whose nature and composition are similar to that
Fugitive emission of the natural gas. Compared to coal, this trapped methane is a superior as well as cleaner fuel but its fugitive
Methane (CH4) drainage emission from coal mines is also a serious environmental threat. In coal mines, sudden leakage of trapped
GHG Emission
methane leads to air contamination and gas explosion resulting into catastrophic accidents. Also, methane is a
Cost benefits
Jharia coalfield
potential GHG and its fugitive emission has several adverse effects on environment such as global warming,
climate change and so on. Since, GWP of methane is twenty-five times more than carbon dioxide and coal mines
act as a potential source of methane emission, therefore methane handling becomes a primary responsibility for
the coal dependent countries of the world for reducing the atmospheric emissions. The drainage of trapped
methane from the coal seams prior to mining can be a possible solution towards reducing its fugitive emission and
to utilize the same as a promising source of clean unconventional energy. The present paper discusses the
environmental as well as the economic advantage of pre-mining methane drainage using the case study of highly
gassy coal seams of Jharia coalfield.
1. Introduction on the basic several parameters including vitrinite reflectance (Ro%)

(Rice, 1993), hydrocarbon index (C1/C2þC3) (Strapoc et al., 2008), gas
Coal seams are often associated with trapped methane, which is wetness index (α) (Rice, 1993), carbon dioxide (CO2) content (Smith &
considered to be a by-product of coal formed during the coalification Pallasser, 1996) and isotope ratios (δ13C and δ2H) (Schoell, 1980; Whi-
process of vegetative deposits under high temperature and pressure ticar, 1999), which has been summarized in Table 1 (Gao et al., 2014).
(Moore, 2012; Halder, 2018). This trapped methane is known by several The volume of trapped gas in a seam originated during the coalifi-
synonyms, which includes Coalbed Methane (CBM), Coal Seam Gas cation process very much depends on the maturation of coal and, hence it
(CSG), Coal Seam Natural Gas (CSNG), Coal Seam Methane (CSM) and so is proportional to the rank of the reserve. According to Patteisky's
on. The origin of methane in the coal seams can be either biogenic or research, formation of 1 cm3 of coal leads to generation of up to 350 cm3
thermogenic, or sometimes mixed. The biogenic methane in coal is of methane (Ianc et al., 2020). Therefore, the highest gas content by
formed during the disintegration of organic matter under the action of volume is seen in the anthracite coal, which goes up to about 765 m3/t
certain microorganism (such as micrococcus carbo bacteria) at lower (~27000 ft3/t) (Thakur, 2017). During coalification process, a large
temperatures (below 56 C), whereas thermogenic methane is formed at volume of the trapped gases escape in the atmosphere and only a small
very higher temperatures (above 100 C) through chemical disintegra- fraction is left in the coal seams. The quantity of these leftover gases
tion and thermal cracking of organic matter (Gao et al., 2014). Thus, the depends on the several factors related to the chemical (rank) and physical
thermally immature as well as shallow coal seams with lower rank re- (depth and temperature) properties as well as geological condition (roof,
serves contain mostly biogenic methane, whereas highly mature bitu- floor and tectonic activities) of the reserve. The volume of the left over
minous coal seams having vitrinite reflectance in range Ro ¼ 0.6–0.8% gases show a wide variation between 1 and 25 m3/t (35–875 ft3/t) for
contain thermogenic methane (Gao et al., 2014; Bryner, 2003; Scott coal seams occurring up to the depth of 1200m (4000 ft) (Thakur, 2017).
et al., 1994). Researchers in past have categorized the origin of methane The classification of coal is carried out mainly on the basis of its maturity
* Corresponding author. Business Development Division, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, India.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Ahuja), [email protected] (D. Mondal), [email protected] (D.P. Mishra), sayan.ghosh@
coalindia.in (S. Ghosh), [email protected] (M. Kumar).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.igd.2023.100065
Received 11 January 2023; Received in revised form 3 March 2023; Accepted 19 April 2023
Available online 10 May 2023
2949-7531/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Business School, Zhengzhou University. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-
ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Ahuja et al. Innovation and Green Development 2 (2023) 100065
Table 1 emission in atmosphere. Thus, the proper handling of trapped methane in

Origin criteria for thermogenic and biogenic methane (Gao et al., 2014). coal mines prior to coal excavation is very necessary as it enhances safety
CH4 Type Ro% (C1/ α CO2 δ13C δ2H and also the stored methane can be used as an alternate energy source.
C2þC3) The present paper discusses the financial as well as environmental im-
Biogenic 0.6–3% <20 >3% 2-15 >-50‰ 275 pacts along with benefits of pre-mining methane drainage in Indian
vol% to 100‰ scenario using the case study of Jharia coalfield, which contains Degree-
Thermogenic 0.3–0.8% >1000 <3% <5 vol% <-55‰ 400 II gassy coal seams.
to-150‰
2. Coalbed Methane: global and Indian scenario

viz. vitrinite reflectance, which is given as: [a] Anthracite: Ro(%)>1.9,
[b] Bituminous coal: Ro(%)~0.35–1.9 (from sub-bituminous to low The high energy demand followed by crisis of 1970 forced several
volatile reserve) and, [c] Lignite: Ro(%)<0.35, which acted as key factor countries to carry out research on extraction and commercial usage of
for estimation of gas concentration in reserve (Awan et al., 2022). The natural gas, which led to introduction of Coalbed Methane as an alternate
composition of gases trapped in the coal seam mainly consists of methane but promising source of unconventional energy (Flores, 1998; Moore,
(CH4), ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8), and the empirical relation 2012). The primary objective of early CBM investigations included the
between the concentration of the aforesaid constituent gases with coal minimization of coal mine accidents related to gas outbursts and explo-
rank in terms of its vitrinite reflectance (Ro%) was proposed by Berner & sions, but successively the commercial extraction followed by utilization
Faber, 1988. The aforesaid empirical relation between gas concentration of trapped methane started from the non-minable deeper coal seams
and vitrinite reflectance for methane (CH4), ethane (C2H6) and propane (Flores, 1998). The reserve estimation of CBM is calculated in terms of
(C3H8) has been shown in Eq. (1), Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) respectively (Berner Gas-in-Place, which is the total volume of gas present in coal irrespective
& Faber, 1988). Thus, the variation of gas concentration on the basis of of its degree of recovery and constraints. The Gas-in-Place is obtained
Eq. (1), Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) has been graphically represented in Fig. 1a, through coal mass and gas content using Eq. (4), using total gas-in-place
where it can be seen that methane content in trapped gas is highest for (GIP), coal mass (m; refer Eq. (5)), seam thickness (t), coal density (d),
anthracite coal. seam area (a) and gas content (g) (Flores, 2014).
conc:CH4 ¼ 9:1 ln Ro þ 93:1 mse ¼ 1:7 R2 ¼ 0:924 1 GIP ¼ m g 4
conc:C2 H6 ¼ 6:3 ln Ro þ 4:8 mse ¼ 1 R2 ¼ 0:938 2 m¼t a d 5

Most of the coal basins around the world are considered to be the
conc:C3 H8 ¼ 2:9 ln Ro þ 1:9 mse ¼ 0:6 R2 ¼ 0:89 3
potential store house of Coalbed Methane. The volume of global CBM
Since, the extraction of trapped methane from coal seams is very reserve situated in the world's major coal producers (such as USA, India,
difficult through the existing technology, therefore it has been charac- China, Russia, Poland, Germany, France, Canada etc.) has been estimated
terized as an unconventional source of energy (Zou, 2017). These trapped around 113-184 Tm3 (4000-6500Tf3), where only 22–37% (around
gases in coal seam can exist in both adsorbed (on grain surfaces) as well 42 Tm3 i.e. 1500Tft3) is the recoverable reserve (Mastalerz, 2014). Ac-
as free state (in cleats and fractures), where coal acts as both its source as cording to the World Coal Institute, the total CBM reserve worldwide has
well as reservoir rock. Currently, Coalbed Methane (CBM) has become a been estimated around 143 Tm3 and, only 1 Tm3 has been extracted so
popular form of coal based unconventional energy source consisting of far (Boger et al., 2014). In 2016, the U.S EIA (Department of Energy)
around 80–99% of methane (CH4), which is commonly known as marsh provided the country wise distribution of CBM reserves across the world's
gas along with minor shares of heavier members of alkane groups in form leading coal producers (refer Fig. 1b) (EIA, 2016; Mastalerz & Drobniak,
of ethane (C2H6) and propane (C3H8), and inorganic gases such as ni- 2020), which showed that majority of the CBM deposits are situated in
trogen (N2) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Due to the presence of large in- Russia (1730Tft3), China (1307Tft3), Australia (1037Tft3) and Alaska
ternal surfaces (pore spaces), the gas holding capacity of coal is almost six (1037Tft3). The implementation of strict environmental laws has made
to seven times greater than the conventional reservoir rocks, which is the controlled drainage of trapped methane from coal mines an impor-
around 0.0003–18.66 m3/t (0.01–600 ft3/t) for various coal types (Bry- tant industrial activity in several countries and later on it (CBM) has been
ner, 2003; Flores, 1998). Coalbed Methane is considered to a better fuel accepted as an alternate but promising source of energy. Currently, the
as compared to other conventionally available fuel in terms of heat value annual production of CBM worldwide has reached up to 0.003 Tm3,
and carbon emission. The carbon (CO2) emission of CBM is almost 50% which is obtained from more than two hundred active CBM projects
lesser than coal, whereas it has relatively much higher heat value of across fourteen countries (Boger et al., 2014). CBM has been introduced
about 8500–9000kCal/kg (Kumar et al., 2015; Mondal et al., 2021; Ojha very early (since 1990) as a major source of energy in United States and
et al., 2011). Despite of having aforesaid benefits, exploration and thus, over time it has become the highest producer of CBM globally with
commercial utilization of CBM has been lately introduced in India, where a total reported annual production of about 28.9Bm3 (1Tft3) during
its contribution towards domestic usage was less than 1.6% till May 2016 financial year 2016 (EIA, 2016). The coal basins of United States con-
(Vedanti et al., 2020). The prime reasons behind the slower development sisted of vast CBM reserves, where total recoverable reserve was esti-
of CBM technology in India was explained by Central Mine Planning and mated around 4.47 Tm3 (157.9Tft3) including a total proved reserve of
Design Institute (India), which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited and around 0.3 Tm3 (10.6Tft3). The coal basins of United States, which are
nodal agency for monitoring the CBM exploration and extraction in India. rich in CBM deposits are mostly spread across Alaska, Powder River
In addition to adverse roof strata conditions, gassiness in coal seams is Basin, North Appalachian and San Juan basins (Mastalerz & Drobniak,
another severe problem faced in majority of the Indian underground 2020). Adjacent to the United States, the Canada coalfields also has large
projects. The sudden leakage of trapped methane in the underground CBM deposits, which was estimated to be around 2.8–15.6 Tm3
working area induces air contamination. Also, its affinity towards com- (100-550Tft3). Around 90% (i.e. 14Tm3/500Tft3) of the total Canadian
bustion at very lower concentration enhances the chance of gas explo- CBM reserves are situated in Alberta, mostly along the Horseshoe
sion, which is serious threat in the underground mines. The global Canyon, Pembina, Manville and Alberta foothills (Gentzis et al., 2008).
warming potential (GWP) of methane is very high and hence, its direct Australia is another major coal producing country and its coal deposits
release through fugitive emission from the coal mines during excavation are also associated with major CBM deposits, which was estimated
makes them (coal mines) a potential source of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) around 6.4–14.2 Tm3 (153-500Tft3) having 15–20% as total recoverable
2
Fig. 1. (a) Variation of concentration of methane, ethane and propane with respect to vitrinite reflectance (Berner & Faber, 1988); (b) Country wise distribution of
CBM reserve for some of the world's major coal producers (EIA, 2016; Mastalerz & Drobniak, 2020).
reserve (i.e. 2.84Tm3/100Tft3) (Godec et al., 2014). Though, the indus- Infact, the Kuzbass basin (Russia) contains the world's largest CBM de-
trial production of methane from coal mines started late in Australia posit, whose reserve has been estimated about 13.1 Tm3 (462Tft3). China
around 1996 (Moore et al., 2012), but its rapid commercialization has has vast coal deposits and also considered as one of the world's leading
resulted in massive escalation in the annual production making Australia coal producer and provides a major contribution towards Chinese
a major CBM producer after the United States. The total production of economy (Lee, Lou, and Wang 2023a; 2023b). The Chinese coal basins
CBM from the Australia coal mines in financial year 2010 was around also contains vast CBM deposits with highest recoverable reserve, which
0.176Tft3 (Moore et al., 2012). The major Australian CBM basins are are mostly situated across Ordos and Qinshui basin. The deposits are
situated across Bowen, Surat, Gunnedah, Gloucester and Clarence Mor- mostly in the shallower coal seams and around 36.8 Tm3 reserve is sit-
eton Basin. The Russian coal basins contains vast deposits of CBM, where uated within the depth of 2000m, where 68% reserve can be recovered
the total proved reserve has been estimated around 37.4 Tm3 (1320Tft3). for commercial usage (Mastalerz & Drobniak, 2020). The production of
3
Coalbed Methane in China on commercial scale started in 2004, which Raniganj and Sohagpur coalfield is estimated around 2MMSCMD
reached up to 0.5 Tm3 in next four financial years i.e. 2008. Apart from (Million Standard m3/day) (Singh & Hajra, 2018). The state wise dis-
the aforesaid major CBM producers, several other countries have rela- tribution of estimated as well as established CBM reserves has been
tively lower deposits of CBM associated with their coal basins. The total shown in Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b respectively (Vedanti et al., 2020). Thus,
reserve of CBM associated with German coal seams was estimated around from figures Fig. 2a and b it can be seen that Jharkhand has the highest
3 Tm3, where 90% of the total reserve i.e. around 2 Tm3 is situated in the estimated reserve of about 25.5Tft3, whereas due to detailed exploration
Ruhr basin (M€ osle et al., 2009). The CBM rich coal basins of Indonesia are Assam has the highest established CBM of about 9.9Tft3. At present,
mostly situated in the North Tarakan, Kutei, Central Sumatra, South nearly nine commercial CBM projects are operational in India, which
Sumatra, Barito and Berau basin, and the total reserve as per the report of belongs to Reliance India Limited (RIL), Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Directorate General of Oil and Gas was estimated around 12.8 Tm3 (WK (ONGC) and Essar Oil Limited (EOL) and these projects are situated in the
CBM, 2009). The sedimentary basins of Kazakhstan are also considered states of Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and West Bengal (refer Fig. 3a)
to have lower but significant amount of trapped gas inside their coal covering an area of 2575 km2 having Gas-In-Place of 9.9Tft3 with
seams, which was estimated to be around 1.2–1.7 Tm3. The CBM deposits recoverable reserve of about 3.978Tft3 (SCPNG, 2016).
of Kazakhstan are mostly situated across Karaganda, Ekibastuz, Zavialov
and Samarskiy basin. 3. Need for proper handling of methane emission in coal mines
India is considered among the leading coal driven country globally
and its mining is considered among the country's prime industrial ac- 3.1. CBM/CMM as a major greenhouse gas (GHG) in atmosphere
tivities. Coal alone in various forms serves 64% of the India's total pri-
mary energy needs (Mondal et al., 2017). India contains world's fourth The sources of methane emission in atmosphere can have both
largest proven reserve of coal, which has been estimated around biogenic as well as non-biogenic origin or both (Cheng et al., 2011). The
56500 Mt with 92% hard coal as reported by U.S. Energy Information biogenic origin refers to the natural sources, which includes emission
Administration. The coal bearing sedimentary basins in India are spread from march lands, landfills, livestock, forest, agriculture, oceans and
across fourteen states, where majority of the reserves are situated in microbial actions, whereas emission corresponding non-biogenic origin
Jharkhand, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Aru- refers artificial sources which mainly includes human activities such as
nachal Pradesh, Odisha and Maharashtra (EIA, 2009). The reserves of waste water, industrial emission, coal mining, geological sources,
Indian coalfields also consists of significant amount of trapped methane burning of fossil fuel and biomass. Among the anthropogenic sources,
in the seams. The presence of thermogenic methane in the high rank extraction of coal contributes to highest share of non-biogenic methane
Gondwana seams was first studied by Geological Survey of India (GSI), emission in atmosphere (Kholod et al., 2020). The worldwide fugitive
which also started preparing a baseline data for CBM reserves in Rani- emission of methane in 2010 was estimated around 584MMTCO2E and it
ganj, East Bokaro and Sohagpur coalfield in association with Oil and increased to 800MMTCO2E (almost 36% rise) in 2020, which contributed
Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) and Central Institute of Mine and Fuel to 8–9% of the worldwide methane emission (EPA, 2021a; GMI, 2011).
Research (CMPDI) (Vedanti et al., 2020). The CMPDI also quoted that The quantity of coal production acts as a deciding factor towards amount
inadequate presence of latest exploratory methods and lack of expertise of methane released in atmosphere through fugitive emission, where
as well as experience together formed the prime cause due to which many both parameters are seen to follow a linear relation. Fig. 3b shows the
CBM rich coal blocks in various Indian coalfields remained unexplored curve between average growth (%) in coal production and rise fugitive
and also very less attention was given towards methane drainage. Thus, methane emission (%) from coal mines of world's leading coal producers
the aforesaid constraints further resulted in late initiation of CBM during two decades (1990–2010), and it was seen that the aforesaid
exploration in Indian coal basins and was later properly channelized only parameters followed a linear relation with higher degree of fitness
after the introduction of CBM policy in 1997. The India coalfields are (R2→0.88; RMSE→6.7) irrespective of their different geological condi-
spread over a vast area of about 52246 km2, where only 36% i.e. about tions and mining methods (Boger et al., 2014; BP Statistical Review of
19262 km2 could be identified as potential CBM zone as per the regional World Energy, 2002, 2020). The temporal variation of total methane
survey of Geological Survey of India (Vedanti et al., 2020). Thus, a total emission during period 1990–2010 (at five years interval) from
of thirty-three coal blocks covering an area of about 16613 km2 have twenty-two countries, which are considered to be the world's leading coal
been identified and allocated to various organizations for initializing the producers has been shown in Fig. 4a (GMI, 2011). The rise in methane
commercial production of Coalbed Methane. Recently, Ministry of Pe- emission has been shown through various colour legends given as [a]
troleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG, Govt. of India), Ministry of Coal (MoC, Red: continuous positive growth (rise), [b] Green: continuous negative
Govt. of India) and Central Mine Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI, growth (decline) and [c] Blue: nearly constant value (stagnant). Though
Coal India Limited) have jointly identified an area of about 26000 km2 most of the countries have implemented preventive measures for emis-
for detailed exploration of Coalbed Methane, whose net reserve has been sion control, which can be inferred from the declining trend or constant
predicted to be around 2.6 Tm3 (91.8Tft3). As per the report of Direc- emission value during 1990–2010. However, rapid increase in the
torate General of Hydrocarbon, the total explored CBM reserve in India methane emission during the aforesaid period can be seen in some
till date is estimated around 62.4Tft3, where around 9.9Tft3 (~15.9%) countries, which includes China, India, Australia, Bulgaria, Colombia,
has been established as Gas-In-Place (DGH, 2021). After the imple- Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Turkey and Vietnam (Wen et al., 2022).
mentation of CBM policy in 1997, a pilot project was started in the gassy The average rise/decline in emission levels corresponding to the time
mines of Moonidih and Sudamdih colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Limited period 1990–2010 has been calculated for the aforesaid countries (refer
(BCCL, Coal India Limited) under the joint collaboration of the United Fig. 4a) and has been graphically shown in Fig. 4b. Thus, most of the
Nation Development Project, Global Environmental Facility and Gov- countries have shown an overall negative growth rate of methane
ernment of India, where three wells were drilled up to the depth of emission during 1990–2010 except China, Turkey, India, Indonesia,
1059m (Vedanti et al., 2020). Later on, CBM production started in Jharia Australia, Colombia, Mexico, Vietnam and South Africa, where India has
coalfield in 2007 by Great Eastern Energy Corporation Limited. With got the third highest positive growth rate of about 18% (GMI, 2011). The
time several other organizations such as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) carried out
(ONGC), Essar Oil Limited and Reliance Indian Limited (RIL) have setup detailed study for understanding the sources of fugitive emission of
extraction plants in the states of Jharkhand (Jharia coalfield), West methane from coal mines, which mainly included mine degasification,
Bengal (Raniganj coalfield) and Chhattisgarh (Sohagpur coalfield) for ventilation air methane (VAM), emission from abandoned mines (AMM),
commercial production of CBM in India. The current rate of CBM pro- opencast mine emission and postmining fugitive emission from coal stock
duction from five coal blocks of aforesaid sedimentary basins i.e. Jharia, and emission during transportation (EPA, 2021b). As majority (almost
4
Fig. 2. State wise distribution of (a) Estimated and (b) Established CBM reserve (Vedanti et al., 2020).
60%) of the global coal production is obtained through various under- methane (VAM) contributes to maximum share in fugitive emission from
ground mining methods, thus making degasification and ventilation two underground coal mines (GMI, 2011).
prime contributors of methane emission from coal mines (Flores, 2014, Though, methane (CH4) has relatively a shorter life span of about
pp. 41–96). Though, drainage of methane from underground mines twelve years, but its heat holding capacity i.e. the global warming po-
through ventilation has several benefits related to safety as it lowers the tential (GWP) is twenty-five times higher than carbon dioxide (CO2) as
risks of air contamination as well as gas explosion/outburst but on the per AR4 of IPCC. Therefore, the threat related to global warming due to
other hand it severly enhances the hazard level related to GHG (methane) methane is considered to be the highest among all the GHGs and strategic
emission in outer atmosphere (Boger et al., 2014). Thus, ventilation air handling is very necessary for controlling the levels of anthropogenic
5
Fig. 3. (a) State wise distribution of operational CBM projects in India (SCPNG, 2016). (b) Plot of average coal production versus emission of coal mine methane
(Boger et al., 2014; BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2002, 2020).
methane in atmosphere. Several countries have gradually shifted towards very crucial role in generation of electricity. According to International
nuclear as well as renewable energy sources, which has reduced their Energy Agency (IEA), the output from coal driven thermal power plants
dependence on coal for primary energy further leading to decrease in in 2019–2020 was around 10160TWh, which shared around 42% of the
coal demand and production. Hence, the reduced coal production has world's total electricity (IEA, 2020). The high energy demand followed
resulted in lowering of fugitive methane emission from coal mines in by abundant availability of coal and its lower cost collectively resulted in
atmosphere as seen for several countries including Russia, United pushing the mining industries towards its massive extraction for
Kingdom, Germany, Ukraine, France, Romania, Poland, Brazil and so on matching up with the fuel demand, which parallelly increase the
(refer Fig. 4a and b). Globally, coal as a primary energy source plays a methane emission from coal mines. Global coal mining is considered to
6
Fig. 4. (a) Country wise variation of total methane emission during 1990–2010 (GMI, 2011). (b) Country wise average rise/decline in methane emission levels during
1990–2010 (GMI, 2011).
be responsible for 8% of the global methane emission in atmosphere and gases induce radiative forcing as they trap a portion of solar radiation
as it (methane) is a strong greenhouse gas, therefore its fugitive emission (especially short waves), which are radiated back from the earth's sur-
from coal mines is a serious threat and requires higher attention (EDF, face. The combined radiative forcing of the three major greenhouse gases
2021; Singh & Mallick, 2015). i.e. carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxide is about nineteen times
The greenhouse effect has been present in the earth's atmosphere (equal to þ2.3Wm-2) higher than solar irradiance. The greenhouse effect
since early geological times due to the presence of certain gases maintains the earth's average temperature, which is necessary for exis-
(collectively known as GHGs) consisting of methane (CH4), carbon di- tence of life on this planet. With no greenhouse effect the average tem-
oxide (CO2), nitrogen oxide (NO2), ozone (O3) and water vapour, which perature of earth would have been 33 C colder, which would have
are responsible for regulating the earth's temperature. These greenhouse resulted in complete shutting down all necessary biological reactions
7
(Ianc et al., 2020). Though the industrial revolution has been very much calculated flammability range (R) of methane in mine air was around
responsible for gradual increase in earth's average temperature but a 5–15%, where only 12% oxygen was required for combustion. Thus,
steep elevation of about 0.18 C/decade was seen during past three de- leakage of even lower concentration of trapped methane can induce a
cades especially since 1976. As per Mohajan (2012), the total rise in serious of serious fatal accidents in underground mines. The problem of gas
earth's temperature in past four decades was about 3 C, which is taken as outburst/explosion in coal mines is faced by most of the leading coal pro-
a very serious threat towards global climate change (Mohajan, 2012). ducers globally such as USA, China, India etc. A total of 8000 fatalities have
This rapid temperature increase has resulted in melting down of earth's been reported till date due to gas explosion in various coal mines of United
natural ice reserves in the permafrost regions (polar icecaps and glaciers), States (Thakur, 2019a). In Chinese coal mines, total 510 accidents of gas
further leading to rise in the global sea level (Lee et al., 2022). According explosion were reported during 2001–2017, which resulted in around 3576
to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the emission of fatalities (Wang et al., 2019). The presence of trapped methane in coal
greenhouse gases at present rates will further lead to a significant rise in seams and its chances of contamination and outbursts inside the under-
the average sea level of about 21 cm by 2050 (Giannakopoulos et al., ground coal mines depends on several factors related to geological,
2005). Mohajan (2012) discussed that the global warming potential geochemical and geomechanical properties of reserve (Lama & Bodziony,
(GWP) of methane over next 150 years (as calculated by IPCC) will sig- 1998), and the critical limits of aforesaid parameters have been summarized
nificant rise (Mohajan, 2012). Analysis of National Oceanic and Atmo- in Table 2. The country wise distribution of major accidents related to gas
spheric Administration (NOAA) showed that the average radiative outburst in coal mines have been summarized by Lama and Bodziony
forcing of atmospheric methane in past four decades (1979–2019) was (1998), which showed that among all the mine gases methane leak in
highest (about 0.471Wm-2) after carbon dioxide (NOAA, 2020). Thus, working area of the underground mines was responsible for almost all of the
emission of methane is a serious threat to atmosphere. accidents (Lama & Bodziony, 1998). The country wise details of some of the
Though, greenhouse effect is considered to be the most serious threat major accidents related to gas explosion/outburst in coal mines and their
from methane, but it has several other adverse effects on environment. reported fatalities have been summarized in Table 3 (Thakur, 2019a). Apart
The presence of methane in underground aquifers can contaminate the from the risk of gas explosion in underground mines, elevated levels of
water table. The detection of leakage of methane gas becomes very methane has direct as well as indirect effects on the health of mine workers.
difficult due to its tasteless and odourless. The drinking water with very Higher concentration of methane in closed working areas of mines tends to
lower methane concentration usually has no health hazards, but its reduce the oxygen content leading to breathing problems, lung related
prolonged intake may result in multiple organ failure (such as kidney, illness, nausea and vomiting. Hence, periodic degasification through
heart and liver) and damage to central nervous system. Apart from ventilation is a very important activity in underground mines. On the basis
contamination of drinking water, the prolonged release of methane of gas content (GC), the degree of gassiness in coal seams has been broadly
sometimes also leads to the formation of more hazardous fluids such as classified into three major categories: [a] Mildly Gassy: gas content below
benzene (C6H6) and xylene (CH3)2C2H4. (Rice et al., 2017). Based on the 100ft3/t, [b] Moderately Gassy: gas content between 100 and 300ft3/t, and
concentration of dissolved methane, the U.S. Department of the Interior [c] Highly Gassy: gas content between 300 and 700ft3/t (Thakur, 2019a).
(Office of Surface Mining) has categorized the underground water into Methane emission from coal mines occurs from both ongoing as well as
three major hazard types: [a] Safe for use: conc.(CH4) less than 10mg/l, abandoned projects and it is calculated through three basic methods/tiers
[b] Moderately unsafe and regular monitoring is required: conc.(CH4) depending on the selection of emission factors (EC), [a] Tier-1 EC: Global
between 10 and 28mg/l, and [c] Highly unsafe and immediate action is average range, [b] Tier-2 EC: Country/basin specific and [c] Tier-3 EC:
required for lowering the methane concentration: conc.(CH4) greater Direct mine measurement data (Garg & Pulles, 2006). The estimation of
than 28mg/l (PennState Extension, 2013). methane emission depends on the type of mining operations used for coal
excavation, which can be calculated through Eq. (8) (for underground
3.2. Enhancement in mine safety

Table 2
The critical limits of the geomechanical, geochemical and geological parameters
The underground mines are often associated with risks related to
for methane contamination and outbursts (Lama & Bodziony, 1998).
roof/side fall, inundation, gas/dust explosion, HEMM accident etc.,
hence making it the most dangerous working area (Khanzode et al., 2011; Property Type Property Name Higher risk of outburst
Kholod et al., 2020). The trapped methane in the coal seams often gets Geochemical Gas Content (DAF) Greater than 8m3/t
released during mining, which leads to gas contamination of breathing Gas Pressure (Soft coal) Greater than 3 MPa
air and also forms combustible mixtures. The Coward's Diagram was Gas Pressure (Hard coal) Greater than 1 MPa
Vitrinite Reflectance Greater than 1.2%
proposed by Coward and Zones in 1952, which shows that increase in Geomechanical Stress (Shear/normal) Greater than 1.5
methane concentration more than 5% in mine atmosphere leads to for- Permeability Less than 0.001mD
mation of flammable mixture, whereas further increase beyond 14% Pore size diameter Less than 75 mm
makes the mixture explosive (Cowards & Jones, 1952; Thakur, 2019a). Diffusivity Coefficient Range: 107-108cm2/s
Geological Crack density Greater than 7mm/mm2
The combustible gases in underground mines mainly includes methane
Fault throw Greater than 0.1m
(CH4), hydrogen (H2) and carbon monoxide (CO), whereas nitrogen (N2)
and carbon dioxide (CO2) are considered to be inert gases. Thakur (2019)
proposed factors ‘R’ and ‘O’ (refer Eq. (6) and Eq. (7)) for calculating Table 3
flammability and maximum oxygen concentration, which is required for Country wise details of some major gas explosion/outburst accidents reported in
making a gas mixture explosive in the underground coal mines (Thakur, coal mines (Thakur, 2019a).
2019a). Country Name of the mine Year Fatalities reported
India Polidih 1936 209

CH4 ð%Þ
R¼ 6 Chinakuri 1 and 2 1958 176
CH4 ð%Þ þ H2 ð%Þ þ COð%Þ Dhori 1965 375
China Laonadong 1960 680
O ¼ 5 þ 7R 7 Japan Mikawa 1963 457
Yamona 1965 431
The aforesaid factors (‘R’ and ‘O’) can be obtained through Eq. (6) and USA No. 9 1968 78
Eq. (7) respectively, after calculating the concentration of the combustible Germany Luisenthal 1962 299
Yugoslavia Orasi 1965 144
gases mainly methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Thus, the
8
mines) and Eq. (9) (for opencast/surface mines) respectively using Tier 1 methane leads to relatively lesser emission of air pollutants, [b] The
and Tier 2 approaches, where ‘e’ is total CH4 emission, ‘P’ is coal produc- combustion of methane helps to convert it into relatively less harmful
tion, ‘E’ is the emission factor, ‘C’ is unit's conversion factor, ‘S’ is surface greenhouse gas i.e. carbon dioxide, and [c] Almost 90% of the energy
emission and ‘PM’ is post mining emission. obtained from combustion of methane can be converted into electricity
and heat. The benefits of power generation through natural gas over coal
e¼P E C 8 has been studied and summarized by Zhang et al. (2014) (Zhang et al.,
2014). Analysis from an operational solo 1 GW (One Giga Watt) power
e ¼ S þ PM 9 plant showed that the total radiative forcing of the emitted GHGs from a
Both, ventilation and degasification results in fugitive emission of coal driven power plant was very high, whereas it was much lower than
methane from underground mines. The quantity of methane emitted 0.3 103W/m2/GW for gas powered plants. Coal consists of a significant
along the working area of underground mines during its entire life time amount of sulphur (S) and during the combustion of coal, it is released in
can be calculated through Eq. (10), where ‘vg’ is the gas emitted into the the atmosphere in form of sulphur dioxide (SO2). Therefore, suitable in-
goaf from an (undermined/overmined) coal seam during fifteen years of struments are installed in the power plants for capturing 98% of the total
time period followed by termination of mining operations, ‘va’ is the emitted sulphur dioxide (Zhang et al., 2014). Apart from carbon dioxide,
average absolute methane emission and ‘y’ is the time passed since the additional GHGs in form of black carbon and sulphur dioxide is emitted
mining operations (Krause & Pokryszka, 2013; Duda & Valverde, 2020). during coal combustion from powered plants, which is responsible for
The unmined reserve remaining in the abandoned coal mines also act as 4.4% of total radiative forcing. In addition to the aforesaid benefits,
potential source of trapped methane, which continues to release in outer methane has better thermal efficiency (h) with lower leakage rates (r) than
atmosphere even after the closure of coal mine. The emission of methane coal (for methane, h: 25–60%, r: 0–9%; for coal, h: 23–51%, r: 4.18%),
from abandoned projects is calculated mainly via Tier 1 approach using hence making it a much superior fuel compared to coal. As per BP Statis-
Eq. (11), where ‘n’ is the number of unflooded abandoned mines and ‘f’ is tical Review of World Energy (2021), natural gas driven power plants
the fraction of gassy mines (Garg & Pulles, 2006) contributed to 23% of the global power supply in 2020–2021 by gener-
ating around 6268TerraWatt-hr of electricity (BP Statistical Review of

World Energy, 2021). Thus, methane extracted from coal seams has high
vg ¼ 0:2 va 1 y 15
=
10
environmental as well as financial benefits.
e¼n f E C 11 4. Fugitive methane emission from India coal mines

The pre-mining drainage of methane is a promising solution towards
enhancing mine safety as it reduces the chances of outbursts and health In terms of energy, the Indian economy is mostly driven by coal and it
related hazards, and it must be carried out in the working coal seams with forms the backbone of primary energy supply. In 2020, coal driven power
gas content (GC) greater than 100ft3/t (Thakur, 2019a). plants in India produced 70% of the total energy by generating a total of
1125.2TerraWatt-hr of electricity (BP Statistical Review of World Energy,
2021). In 2015, India became the second largest consumer of coal
3.3. Impact on mine economics globally after China, which increased country's demand leading to its
massive excavation. In past two decades (1998–2017), the annual pro-
Methane drainage plays an important role in driving the economics of a duction of coal in India has increased at an average rate (CAGR) of 4%.
coal mine. The pre-mining degasification indirectly increases the mine With such growth rate, the annual coal production of India is expected to
revenue by enhancing safety and productivity and the extracted methane reach up to 846 MT by 2025 and further to 951 MT by 2030 (Coal
from coal seams itself provides a standalone business in the field of un- Directory of India, 2011). As mining of coal catalyses methane emission,
conventional energy. The economic importance of methane handling in therefore its massive extraction has enhanced the fugitive emission from
coal mines can be understood from the fact that gas explosion in two coal coal mines in India. In past two decades (1991–2012), the total methane
mines, namely Sago Mine (year: 2006, fatalities: 13) and Upper Big Branch emission from Indian coal mines has increased by 0.21 Tg from 0.555 Tg
Mine (year: 2012, fatalities: 29) of West Virginia (USA) led to bankruptcy (1991) to 0.765 Tg (2012) (Singh & Kumar, 2016).
of its parent organization (Thakur, 2019b). Also, massive extraction of The Indian coal seams consists of significant amount of trapped
trapped methane from coal seams and goaf area of underground coal mines methane, and hence Directorate General of Mine Safety (DGMS) has
of Virginia (USA) increased the productivity to 40t/man-hour and paral- categorized its coal reserve into three major categories on the basis of
lelly reduced the mining cost by 25%. Thakur (2019b) summarized the percentage of methane present in air and its emission rate: [a] Degree I (air
degasification cost of coal seams with various degrees of gassiness, which methane less than 0.1%; emission rate less than 1cm3/t), [b] Degree II (air
are given as (in US Dollars): [a] Mild gassy seams (gas content less methane greater than 0.1%; emission rate between range 1–10cm3/t) and
than100ft3/t): $0.03/t, [b] Moderately gassy seams (gas content between [c] Degree III (emission rate greater than 10cm3/t) (DGMS, 2015; Singh &
100 and 300ft3/t): $0.5/t, [c] Highly gassy seams (gas content greater than Kumar, 2016), which further helped in calculation of emission factor
300ft3/t): $3.52/t. Even with an average low cost of $3/Tf3 (US Dollar), during mining and post-mining period. Till date DGMS has categorized
the standalone business from methane as an unconventional energy source 23% (78 mines) of the Indian underground projects as Degree II and De-
can add a huge revenue to the mines (Thakur, 2019b). Methane is gree III mines, which contribute to about 15% (10 Mt) of the annual coal
considered to be a superior fuel compared to coal due to its high heat value production and parallelly provide employment for 20% (32400 em-
and relatively lower carbon emission. The high demand of electricity and ployees) of the total mine workers (DGMS, 2015). These gassy mines are
strict environmental policies, together have pushed the industries to mostly situated in the states of Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal and
switch their preferences from coal to unconventional energy sources Madhya Pradesh (Singh & Kumar, 2016), and their state wise distribution
including the methane extracted from coal mines. The global business from as per DGMS has been shown in Fig. 5a (DGMS, 2015). In addition to
Coalbed Methane in 2019 was estimated around $16B (USD sixteen greenhouse emission, the gassiness in the coal seams has also been
billion), which is continuously growing and expected to reach around responsible for several fatal accidents in Indian coal mines, where some of
$25B (USD twenty-five billion) by 2027 at a CAGR of 5.9% (GVR, 2020). the major accidents related to gas outbursts/explosion occurred in Poidih
Thus, CBM can add a direct business in parallel with coal for the mining mine (year: 1936, fatalities: 209), Chinakuri mine (year: 1958, fatalities:
industries, which can help in generating huge revenue. The commercial 176), Jitpur mine (year: 1973, fatalities: 48), Sudamdih mine (year: 1976,
utilization of CBM (except the Ventilation Air Methane) for power gener- fatalities: 43) and Baragolai mine (year: 1979, fatalities: 16). (ENVIS,
ation has three major benefits over coal, which includes: [a] Combustion of 2014; Thakur, 2019a).
9
Fig. 5. (a) State wise distribution of Degree I and II mines as per Directorate General of Mine Safety (DGMS, 2015). (b) Variation of total generated electricity in Indian
from coal as well as renewable sources (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019).
5. Environmental and financial impacts of methane emission in which is expected to increase by 1% during 2021–31 and 0.5% by
India 2031–41 respectively (MoEFCC, 2015; MoF, 2019). The total areal
spread of India in about 3287263 km2 (CIA, 2020) and its population
5.1. Environmental impacts density is about 464.1person/km2, which is almost three times higher
than that of China (population density: 153person/km2) (United Nation,
Developing countries get more affected from climate change as 2019). High population and its dependence on agriculture has made
agriculture forms the livelihood for majority of the population. India India susceptible towards climate change (Yahya & Lee, 2023), which
holds about 17.6% (nearly 1.3 billion) of the world's total population, can be realised from the fact that during past two decades (1998–2017)
10
the loss due to natural disasters was estimated around $79.5 billion (US equal to 1.4% of India's GDP, which was estimated around ₹260000
Dollar) (CRED, 2018). Compared to the population density, India has crores (i.e. $36.8 billion USD) (India State-Level Disease Burden Initia-
relatively very limited reserves of natural resources (fresh water: 4%, tive Air Pollution Collaborators, 2021).
crude oil: 0.3%; coal reserve: 9.6%) to meet the demands of such a huge Climate plays a very significant role in determining the vegetation and
population. Thus, for achieving sustainable growth, it very necessary for biodiversity of an area. Climate change acts as a deciding factor towards
India to access and realize the effect of climate change and its impact on adaptability of species as they usually thrive in favourable conditions of
population (Williams et al., 2023). reproduction and growth. The rapid climate change will have damage the
The rise in global temperature also adversely effects the nature's ecosystem on macro scale and the loss will be irreparable. Forests are very
evaporation-precipitation cycle, which induces imbalance in rainfall much sensitive towards climate change, especially the atmospheric car-
distribution. The early melting of glacier ice/snow in the permafrost bon dioxide levels. The GHG imbalance has led to reduction in the global
regions due to increasing temperature often leads to scarcity of water forest cover, which has currently got confined to only 30% of world's total
during summer. Currently, the per capita water availability in India is land area. The dry left out soil in absence of trees will result in frequent
around 1545 m3, which fall under water stressed condition as per Fal- forest fires and parallelly will reduce the resistance of forests towards
kenmark Water Stress Indicator (CWC, 2013; Falkenmark, 1989). Both pests and pathogens. The aquatic plants and animals living in smaller
intra as well as inter-country conflicts for water supply are very likely as water bodies may not survive if temperature exceeds their tolerance limit.
India is already having limited fresh water resources and has to undergo Globally, India is the fourth largest exporter of marine products (Bala-
constant negotiations with its upstream neighbours (like China and subramaniam et al., 2017) and according to Marine Products Export
Nepal) regarding water supply. The elevation in evaporation rate due to Development Authority, India exported 1289651 Mt of seafood worth
increasing temperature tends to escalate the precipitation rate but the $6.68 billion dollars (USD) during 2019–20. Uncertainty highly looms
distribution of rainfall becomes uncertain. This has resulted in lowering over this sector too as marine biodiversity will be severely affected due to
the frequency of very-light and light-moderate rain fall, whereas reverse increase in the ocean temperature.
scenario has been seen for very-heavy and extremely-heavy rainfall
further leading to frequent floods followed by fatalities, infrastructural 5.2. Financial impacts
loss and damage to livelihood (Joshi & Rajeevan, 2006; Pai et al., 2015).
The studies carried out by Joshi and Rajeevan (2006) and Pai et al. The global warming will result in increasing the energy demand,
(2015) showed a significant rise in R-7.5 cm (number of days with which will further lead to escalation in the fuel cost. Around 18% of the
rainfall greater than 7.5 cm), R-12.5 cm (number of days with rainfall world's total population resides in India and it is also considered among
greater than 12.5 cm), RX-1day (highest recorded rainfall in 1day) and the fastest growing economies globally leading to continuous increase in
RX-5day (highest recorded rainfall in 5days) (Joshi & Rajeevan, 2006; the energy demand. Currently, India is using 6% of the world's primary
Pai et al., 2015). energy and its per capita electricity consumption in 2018–19 was around
The global warming is also responsible for the sea level rise, which is 1181KWh/year, which was almost one third of the world average. The
currently increasing at an alarming rate. As per IPCC Assessment Report- average GDP of India during 1998–2018 was around 6.71% and its pri-
5, the global mean sea level rise estimated during 1901–2010 was around mary energy consumption increased at CAGR of 5%, which was doubled
1.7mm/year, where highest rate of elevation was around 3.2mm/year in 2000 (IEA, 2015).
during 1993–2010 (IPCC, 2013; Swapna et al., 2017). Alakkat and Climate change has enhanced the global economic inequality, which
Shankar (2007) found that the average sea level rise for Indian ocean swelled the gap between the economic output of world's richest and
during 1878–2004 was estimated around 1.06–1.75mm/year and high- poorest countries by 25%. Climate change has reduced the size of India's
est rise of about 3.2mm/year was recorded in north Indian ocean during economy by 31% than it would have been otherwise (Diffenbaugh &
1993–2012 (Unnikrishnan et al., 2015; Unnikrishnan & Shankar, 2007). Bruke, 2019), which will be alone responsible for cutting the India's GDP
The sea level rise has a great impact in India since it consisted of densely by nearly 3% and will also decrease the living standards of country's half
populated low-lying coastal areas. India's total coastline length is esti- population by 2050 (Mani et al., 2018). According to the International
mated around 7500 km and it also consists of 1238 (large as well as Labour Organization, global warming will have adverse impact on nearly
small) islands, which are highly vulnerable towards the climate change 34 million full-time jobs in India by 2030, especially in the agriculture and
and sea level rise (MoEFCC, 2018). Dwivedi and Sharma (2005) showed construction sectors (ILO, 2019). Therefore, it is need of the hour to control
that with the current rising rate of sea level around 11368 km2 of coastal the greenhouse emissions and restrict it under the prescribed carbon
wetlands will be lost in next hundred years (Dwivedi & Sharma, 2005). budget (25–30 GtCO2e/year). World's several scientific communities are
The sinking of coastlines are often followed by severe economic losses. As encouraging the global carbon tax estimated on the basis of abatement
per the global estimation provided by U.S. EPA, the total economic loss cost, which countries will have to bear if the global emissions are not
due to sinking of Indian coast land by inundation and erosion from 1m controlled. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recommended the
rise in sea level by year 2100 is expected to reach up to $27–42 billion implementation of carbon tax at USD $20–75/tCO2 for restricting the
(USD) (US EPA, 1989). global warming rate below 2 C (IMF, 2019). The IPCC Special Report
The industrial revolution (since 1970) has resulted in massive (2018) has estimated the price range of carbon tax payable till 2100, which
elevation of GHGs concentration in atmosphere from 280 ppm to is given as USD $135–6050/tCO2e (by 2030), USD $245–14300/tCO2e (by
430 ppm (CO2e), which has induced the radiative imbalance (Stern, 2050), USD $420–19300/tCO2e (in 2070) and USD $690–30100/tCO2e
2007; IPCC, 2013; Wen et al., 2023; Lee & Wang, 2022). Previous GHG (by 2100) (prices provided as per undiscounted values in 2010 US dollars)
concentrations have already resulted in temperature rise at a severe rate under a scenario with peak temperatures rise below 1.5 C in 21st century
of 0.2 C/decade, which has increased by 1 C after 2017 due to high with 50–66% probability (Rogelj et al., 2018). During past three centuries,
release of anthropogenic greenhouse gases from industrial activities. The India had a very little contribution towards GHGs emissions and currently
climate change due to global temperature rise has resulted in increasing it has taken a responsible step towards minimizing emission along with
the pollution levels in air, which is responsible for causing several health maintaining a sustainable lifestyle in international community under
issues related to lung, heart, stroke, diabetes and neonatal deaths. In UNFCCC and Paris Climate Change Agreement.
2019, around 1.7 million fatalities (18% of total fatality) in India were
reported due to various causes, which were directly as well as indirectly 5.3. Financial benefits of Coalbed Methane drainage in Indian scenario
related to air pollution (India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Air
Pollution Collaborators, 2021). Also, the total estimated economic loss The financial benefits of pre-mining methane drainage in Indian
due to air pollution related premature deaths and morbidity was nearly scenario has been discussed using the data available for the time period
11
of 1998–2017 and, the same has been used for future estimation of [b] Assessment of abatement cost (as per IMF): Due to maximum
financial benefits for period 2018–2030. Some of the long terms benefits share towards India's total energy, fossil fuels (especially coal) will
are discussed below. continue to remain as backbone for meeting country's energy
needs. Thus, India will have to push itself and align its policies
[a] Coal as a promising source of electricity: The rapidly rising towards encouraging its investment in pre-mining methane
economy and infrastructure has increased the electricity demand extraction for reducing GHGs emissions and parallely reducing its
in India, further leading to high power generation. During abatement cost. The total fugitive emission of methane (in Gg and
1998–2017, the generation of electricity in India has increased at MtCO2e) from Indian coal mines and country's annual coal pro-
CAGR 6% (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019, 2020, duction during 1998–2018 has been shown in Fig. 6a and Fig. 7a
2021). The total annual electricity generated during period respectively. The high energy demand has resulted in massive coal
1998–2017 along with the predicted values for period 2018–2030 production leading to rapid increase in opencast production,
has been shown in Fig. 5b. With an urge towards lowering the whereas coal production from underground mines have declined
GHGs emission, India is highly focusing on efficient use of con- with time. Thus, it can be clearly seen from the figure that the
ventional energy and also parallelly moving towards alternate initiation of mega opencast projects and higher coal production
(especially renewable) energy sources. Though, generation of (refer Fig. 7a) has enhanced the fugitive methane emission, which
electricity from renewable sources in India has been growing at has increased at CAGR of 2% during 1998–2017 and is expected to
CAGR of 21% during 1998–2017, but the average production maintain the same rising rate till 2030 (refer Figs. 6a and 7a).
contributed to only 2.8% of the total generated electricity. The
source wise distribution of annual electricity generated during The total abatement cost against the aforesaid methane emission from
1998–2017 (refer Fig. 5b) showed that the share of electricity Indian coal mines as per International Monetary Fund since 2015 (USD
generated through all the renewable sources had a very minimal $20/tCO2) has been calculated and shown in Fig. 6b and as abatement
share of about 0.5–6.5% towards country's total electricity gen- cost is proportional to methane emission, therefore it has also increased
eration (refer Table 4). In 2018, the total energy produced through at CAGR of 2%. The total rise in the abatement cost was estimated around
renewable energy sources was around 97MWh, which contributed $11.46 million USD (from $322.67 million to $334.13 million) during
to only 6.7% of the total primary energy i.e. 1457.3MWh (BP 2015–2017 (refer Fig. 6b and Table 6), which had a huge financial
Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019). Similar trend was also impact on the coal and power industries. Recently, the International
seen during the assessment of energy contribution in future from Monetary Fund has suggested the carbon tax between $25/tCO2 to $75/
renewable energy sources, where at present rate the energy share tCO2 for maintaining the global warming below 2 C as per Paris
from renewable sources will be around 9.3% by 2025 and 10.6% Agreement (2015), which will further escalate total abatement cost by
by 2030. Therefore, they cannot be considered as a very promising nearly three times.
energy source.
[c] Assessment of clean energy cess: Indian government has imple-
mented clean energy cess, which is to be paid by industries at the
Table 4 rate of ₹400/t for coal production. Thus, the clean energy cess per
Source wise variation of total electricity generated from coal as well as renewable cubic meter emission of methane from opencast as well as un-
sources (BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019).
derground projects was obtained by using emission factors of
Year Electricity Generated (MWh) Percentage Contribution respective coal mines, which has already been calculated by
Total Renewable Sources Coal Renewable Source Coal Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (India) through field
observations (refer Table 5). The estimated clean energy cess (in
1998 505.08 2.38 336.48 0.47 66.62
1999 547.36 3.14 365.44 0.57 66.76 ₹/m3CH4) for opencast as well as underground mines (having
2000 571.39 3.28 390.23 0.57 68.29 Degree I, II and III gassiness) has been summarized in Table 5. Due
2001 586.09 4.17 408.29 0.71 69.66 to the high energy demand, the Indian coal production has
2002 609.65 4.24 426.70 0.70 69.99
increased at CAGR of 4% during 1998–2017, which is expected to
2003 638.13 5.33 441.47 0.84 69.18
2004 698.30 8.56 463.01 1.23 66.30
continue in future. The year wise reported annual coal production
2005 704.51 10.04 478.49 1.43 67.92 from Indian (opencast as well as underground) coal mines during
2006 744.43 14.93 505.46 2.01 67.90 1998–2018 along with projected production for 2019–2030 has
2007 796.27 19.14 533.27 2.40 66.97 been shown in Fig. 7a (refer Table 7). The rate of clean energy cess
2008 828.41 23.74 573.12 2.87 69.18
assigned by Govt. of India was around: [a] ₹50/t (of coal) during
2009 879.71 27.99 611.11 3.18 69.47
2010 937.47 33.86 642.97 3.61 68.59 2010–2015, [b] ₹200/t (of coal) in 2016, and [c] ₹400/t (of coal)
2011 1034.01 41.92 701.25 4.05 67.82 in 2017 (Garg et al., 2017). Thus, the total clean energy cess paid
2012 1091.84 49.47 787.13 4.53 72.09 by industries as per the aforesaid rates was calculated and shown
2013 1146.14 55.92 847.97 4.88 73.98 in Fig. 7b. Since 2017, the clean energy cess was abolished and
2014 1262.22 63.04 949.93 4.99 75.26
2015 1317.30 65.13 1006.55 4.94 76.41
converted into a new cess under the Goods and Service Tax, which
2016 1401.74 79.83 1073.60 5.69 76.59 was paid by industries as per assigned rates and has been
2017 1471.34 95.77 1115.24 6.51 75.80 increasing continuously since 2017 (refer Fig. 8a). Thus, the sole
2018 1457.31 97.02 1100.52 6.66 75.52 dependence of coal for electricity generation has resulted in a
2019 1507.35 107.06 1140.76 7.10 75.68
huge financial impact on industries in form of clean energy
2020 1557.39 117.10 1180.99 7.52 75.83
2021 1607.44 127.13 1221.23 7.91 75.97 cess/GST, which resulted due to massive coal production.
2022 1657.48 137.17 1261.47 8.28 76.11 [d] Coalbed methane as a standalone business: Due to high heat value
2023 1707.52 147.21 1301.70 8.62 76.23 and low GHGs emission, methane is a superior fuel compared to
2024 1757.57 157.24 1341.94 8.95 76.35 coal. Therefore, it can be utilized as a standalone business towards
2025 1807.61 167.28 1382.18 9.25 76.46
2026 1857.65 177.32 1422.41 9.55 76.57
potential source of an unconventional energy. The commercial
2027 1907.69 187.35 1462.65 9.82 76.67 utilization of CBM will have economic as well as safety benefits
2028 1957.74 197.39 1502.89 10.08 76.77 including: [i] Reduction in risk of mine accident related gas ex-
2029 2007.78 207.43 1543.12 10.33 76.86 plosion and air contamination; [ii] As water pumping precedes gas
2030 2057.82 217.46 1583.36 10.57 76.94
extraction, therefore pre-mining methane drainage will reduce the
12
Fig. 6. (a) Total fugitive emission from Indian coal mines (b) Total estimated abatement cost as per International Monetary Fund.
risk of water inundation and gas accumulation in underground industries; and lastly [f] Selling of extracted methane will itself
mines; [iii] Methane is superior fuel over coal with higher heat provide a standalone business by providing additional revenue for
value and less emission. Thus, electricity generated through CBM the mining industries.
can contribute a significant share towards country's high energy
demand; [iv] Methane is a strong GHG (high GWP) and its com- The feasibility of CBM project depends on several factors including
bustion leads to generation of less harmful carbon dioxide and its the input cost (drilling and maintenance of production well), cess factor
quantity emitted is nearly half of coal, which will significantly (for per cubic meter CH4 emission) and recovery factor (which is esti-
reduce the GHGs emission in atmosphere; [v] The extraction and mated in terms of minimum total Gas-in-Place per well i.e. TGIPmin). The
utilization of CBM will minimize its fugitive emission further TGIPmin is obtained through Eq. (12) using capital expenditure (CE), total
leading to reduction in the its abatement cost paid by the operational expenditure projected over production life of well (OE),
13
Fig. 7. (a) Total coal production from Indian (both opencast as well as underground) coal mines (b) Total estimated clean energy cess/GST paid by Indian coal
industries against fugitive emission.
recovery factor (R), selling price (S) and clean energy cess (C) for per well (TGIPmin/well) for opencast as well as underground mines obtained
cubic meter of methane emission. through Eq. (12) has been summarized in Table 8 and at selling of
₹10.5/m3, the revenue from the standalone business associated with
CE þ OE Coalbed Methane is expected to reach up to ₹180.81 million (Indian
TGIPmin ¼ 12
RðS þ CÞ rupees) and mine wise estimated revenue has been summarized in
The inputs parameters for Eq. (12) has been obtained from the reports Table 9.
published by Central Mine Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI), which
are given as: CE: ₹0.15billion/well, OE: ₹0.3billion/well, S: ₹10.5/m3 and [e] Power generation from CBM: The emission factor obtained from
R: 0.38 (CMPDI, 2015; Dhir et al., 1991). Thus, the total Gas-In-Place per CMPDI's report (refer Table 5) has been used for calculating the
14
Fig. 8. Predicted values of clean energy cess/GST that will paid in future by Indian coal industries if present scenario continues.
Table 5 [f] Lowering the safety related costs: The drainage of methane prior
Emission factor and clean energy cess per cubic meter emission of methane for to excavation from coal mines will also reduce the safety related
different mining operations. costs related to pump installation and its operation, which is
Sl. No. Type of Mining Mining Status Emission Clean energy used for protection against gas and water inundation. It (CH4
Factor (m3/t) cess (₹/m3CH4) drainage) also helps in minimizing the equipment idle time
1 Opencast Project Active 1.18 339 along with enhancing the manpower utilization. In addition to
Post Mining 0.15 fatalities, the mine accidents also lead to indirect economic
2 Underground Active 2.91 138 challenges as company has to bear a huge compensation cost.
Project (Degree I) Post Mining 0.98
Huang et al. (2009) introduced an indirect cost multiplier of 2.12
3 Underground Active 13.08 31
Project (Degree II) Post Mining 2.15 for determining the amount paid at injury during an accident
4 Underground Active 23.68 17 with respect to the direct cost (Huang et al., 2009). Thus, the
Project (Degree III) Post Mining 3.12 indirect cost of associated with an accident (I) can be calculated
total fugitive emission from the Indian coal mines. Since, methane
Table 6
is a better fuel compared to coal, therefore it can provide an
The estimated abatement due to fugitive methane emission from Indian coal
alternate source of unconventional energy towards India's high
mines.
energy demand. The application of drained methane over coal in
power plants will enhance the efficiency of electricity generation Year Fugitive Emission of Methane Abatement Cost
(IMF)
(Coal: 34%; CH4: 60%) and parallelly will reduce the GHGs
emission (even considering 9% methane leakage) over 100 years OC Projects UG Projects Total Total million USD ($)
(Gg) (Gg) (Gg) (MtCO2e)
operation time (Zhang et al., 2014). The amount of coal (heat
value: 22050BTU/kg) required to generate 1kWh electricity with 2017 508.38 150.99 659.37 16.48 334.13
2018 525.89 149.29 675.17 16.88 342.14
30% efficiency is around 0.5 kg, which emits around 0.34 kg of
2019 543.82 142.66 686.48 17.16 347.87
CO2 in atmosphere. Whereas, same amount of electricity (1kWh) 2020 561.75 136.04 697.79 17.44 353.60
can be produced through 0.16 m3 of Coalbed Methane (heat value: 2021 579.68 129.42 709.10 17.73 359.33
35830BTU/m3) with 60% efficiency and the CO2 released in at- 2022 597.61 122.79 720.40 18.01 365.06
mosphere will be around 0.2 kg. A summarized detail of elec- 2023 615.54 116.17 731.71 18.29 370.79
2024 633.47 109.54 743.02 18.58 376.52
tricity, which can be generated from the TGIPmin for different
2025 651.40 102.92 754.32 18.86 382.25
types of coal mining operations and comparative study with 2026 669.34 96.29 765.63 19.14 387.98
respect to equivalent coal consumption has been provided in 2027 687.27 89.67 776.94 19.42 393.71
Table 10. Thus, extracted methane from coal mines will provide a 2028 705.20 83.05 788.24 19.71 399.44
promising source of clean fuel (less CO2 emission) and parallelly 2029 723.13 76.42 799.55 19.99 405.17
2030 741.06 69.80 810.86 20.27 410.90
will reduce the country's load over coal.
15
Table 7 Table 9
Mine wise variation of total coal production from Indian coal mines. Total revenue that can be generated from TGIPmin for various mining operations.
Year Coal Production (Mt) Type of mine Degree of TGIPmin/well Total revenue per well
Gassiness (million m3) (₹ million INR)
OC Production UG Production Total UG (Degree II and III)
Production Opencast Project 1.36 14.28
Underground Project Degree I 3.2 33.6
1998 228.75 67.76 296.51 20.57 Degree II 11.7 122.85
1999 237.28 66.83 304.10 20.88 Degree III 17.22 180.81
2000 247.63 66.07 313.70 20.05
2001 262.97 64.82 327.79 18.16
2002 278.11 63.16 341.27 18.67 well as fuel importance (Ghose & Majee, 2000). The strike of the
2003 298.49 62.75 361.25 18.00
2004 320.27 62.35 382.62 17.46
geological formations are mostly towards E-W and NW-SE direction, and
2005 346.07 60.97 407.04 20.06 the beds are dipping towards south at a gentle angle of 10 (Paul &
2006 373.13 57.70 430.83 17.65 Chatterjee, 2011a). The sedimentary formation (from bottom to top)
2007 398.18 58.90 457.08 14.79 consists of Talchir, Barakar, Barren Measures and Raniganj Formation,
2008 433.79 58.97 492.76 16.51
which unconformably rests over basement rock consisting of Archean
2009 473.52 58.52 532.04 13.07
2010 477.84 54.86 532.69 14.68 gneiss (Paul & Chatterjee, 2011b). The coal reserves mostly belonged to
2011 487.99 51.96 539.95 13.62 the Barakar formation of Gondwana Supergroup and the seams are
2012 504.20 52.21 556.40 13.00 devoid of any major tectonic disturbances (Ghosh & Mukhopadhyay,
2013 516.12 49.65 565.77 12.60 1985). The detailed exploration of available reserve showed the presence
2014 560.67 48.51 609.18 11.66
of eighteen major coal seams, which are shallow (~300m) as well as deep
2015 592.82 46.41 639.23 10.01
2016 613.52 44.35 657.87 10.45 seated (~1200m) and are disturbed by normal faults (throw~10–100m)
2017 633.57 41.83 675.40 9.86 (Ghosh et al., 2014). The Jharia coalfield consisted of high quality
2018 655.39 43.03 698.42 9.28 bituminous coal having coking property with reserve's properties ranging
2019 677.74 41.74 719.48 8.69
from (geophysical) density: 1.32–1.85g/cm3, natural radioactivity:
2020 700.09 40.45 740.54 8.10
2021 722.43 39.16 761.59 7.51
20–70cps, normalized SPR: 1.4–4.33Ω, (geochemical) ash: 18.5–29.5%,
2022 744.78 37.87 782.65 6.92 moisture: 0.6–1.2%, fixed carbon: 49.5–59.5%, (petrographic) vitrinite:
2023 767.13 36.58 803.71 6.33 16.1–65.5%, semi-vitrinite: 1.1–6.4%, inertinite: 24.4–69.7%, mineral
2024 789.47 35.29 824.77 5.74 matter: 2.3–13.1% and vitrinite reflectance: 1.21–1.75% (Chatterjee &
2025 811.82 34.00 845.82 5.15
Paul, 2013; Ghosh et al., 2014). The stratigraphic sequence of Jharia
2026 834.17 32.71 866.88 4.56
2027 856.51 31.42 887.94 3.97 coalfield has been shown in Table 11 (Pal et al., 2015). The top layer
2028 878.86 30.14 909.00 3.39 consisted of sandy soil, alluvium and gravel and has an average thickness
2029 901.21 28.85 930.05 2.80 of 30m. The next formation is the Jurassic age Deccan trap, which mainly
2030 923.55 27.56 951.11 2.21
consisted of dykes and sills of dolerite and mica lamprophyre. The
Raniganj formation of Upper Permian age consisted of minor coal seams,
which are sandwiched between fine-grained feldspathic sandstone and
through Eq. (13), where ‘C’ is the cost multiplier and ‘D’ is the shale and it average thickness is around 800m. The Barren Measure of
direct cost. Middle Permian age is a non-depositional layer having average thickness
of about 730m, which is devoid of any coal seams and consisted of
I ¼C D 13
buff-colored sandstone, shale and carbonaceous shale. The Barakar for-
Since, the pre-mining methane drainage will reduce the chances of mation of the Lower Permian age is the thickest layer having average
mine accidents related to gas explosion, air contamination and water thickness of about 1250m and consisted of major minable coal seams
inundation, which will further result in lowering its indirect cost. with dirt bands consisting of buff-colored coarse to medium grained
feldspathic sandstone, shale, grit and carbonaceous shale. The bottom
6. Financial and environmental benefits of pre-mining methane most layer in the sedimentary sequence is the Talchir formation of Upper
drainage in coal bearing areas of Jharia coalfield Carboniferous age having average thickness of about 245m and con-
sisting of greenish shale and fine grained sandstone. The sediments of the
6.1. Geology of Jharia coalfield aforesaid formation rests over Archean basement rock consisting of
gneiss. Saikai and Sarkar (2013) have summarized the total estimated
Jharia coalfield is situated along the eastern part of India and reserve for the major minable seams of Jharia coalfield from the core data
considered to be a major sedimentary basin with an aerial spread of of boreholes drilled by various exploratory organizations of India namely
450 km2 (Roy et al., 2015). It lies along the eastern part of Damodar Central Mine Planning and Design Institute (CMPDI), Mineral Explora-
valley basin within coordinates 23 380 N-23 520 N (LAT) and tion Corporation Limited (MECL) and National Coal Development Cor-
86 080 E86 300 E (LONG) (Verma et al., 1979). Among all the major coal poration (NCDC) and mining of reserve in mainly carried out by Bharat
bearing coal bearing areas of India, Jharia coalfield is the only store Coking Coal Limited (BCCL) (Saikai & Sarkar, 2013). Some of the coal
house of high value coking coal reserve, which enhances its financial as seams with higher quantity of reserve are Seam I (106.32 Mt), Seam III
Table 8
The estimated values of TGIPmin per well for opencast and underground mines.
Type of mine Recovery (%) Degree of Gassiness Emission Contribution towards Clean Energy TGIPmin/well
Factor (m3/t) total coal production (%) Cess (₹/m3CH4) (million m3)
Opencast Project greater than 85 1.18 93.8 339 1.36

Underground Project 40–70 Degree I 2.91 6.2 138 3.2
Degree II 13.08 31 11.7
Degree III 23.64 17 17.22
16
Table 10
Analysis of electricity generation and emission of CO2 of methane versus coal.
Type of mining Gassiness TGIPmin/well (Mm3) Electricity generated (GWh) CO2 emission (Gg) Coal required to produce CO2 emission (Gg)
same amount of electricity (Mt)
@0.16m3/KWh @0.2kg/KWh @0.5kg/KWh @0.34kg/KWh
Opencast 1.36 8.5 1.7 0.004 2.89

Underground Degree I 3.2 20 4 0.01 6.8
Degree II 11.7 73.125 14.625 0.036 24.86
Degree III 17.22 107.625 21.525 0.053 36.59
Total 33.48 209.25 41.85 0.104 71.145
(395.81 Mt), Seam IVB (148.2 Mt), Seam V þ VIC (458.5 Mt), Seam VIIIA seams i.e. Seam I, Seam III, Seam IVB, Seam V þ VIC, Seam VIIIA, Seam
(325.17 Mt), Seam VIII (114.23) and Seam XI (102.62 Mt), whereas VIII and Seam XI as obtained from the regional exploration carried out by
seams with lower reserve are Seam IB (18.27 Mt), Seam XII (79.4 Mt) and various agencies has been summarized in Table 12. The Damodar basin is
Seam XIII (21.05 Mt) (Saikai & Sarkar, 2013). Thus, the total estimated considered to be the store house of around 26% of the country's total
reserve till date from all the major, minor and local coal seams is around eCBM reserve and the total prognostic reserve is estimated to be 700Bm3
19430.06 Mt, which includes both proved (15077.57 Mt) as well as (Sinha & Gupta, 2021). As per the annual report (2021–22) published by
indicated reserve (4352.49 Mt) (Indian Minerals Yearbook, 2011). Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, the total initial Gas-in-Place
(GIIP) of Jharia coalfield has been estimated around 16.7Bm3 consist-
6.2. Gassiness in Jharia coal seams ing of recoverable reserve of around 2.73Bm3 (MoPNG, 2022).
Based on the gassiness in the coal seams, the Directorate General of 6.3. Generalized information related to coal and CBM resource in study
Mine Safety (DGMS, India) has classified the Indian coal mines into De- area
gree I, II and III, where Degree III containing the highest gas emission per
tonne production of coal (Singh & Mallick, 2015). As per the annual The coal block taken up for assessment of financial and environ-
report of DGMS, total 342 mines are supposed to contain gassy coal mental impact of pre-mining methane drainage belongs to Jharia coal-
seams and hence, has been classified under Degree I (247 mines), II (80 field, which is situate between the coordinates 23 430 12``N-23 450 58``N
mines), III (12 mines), I þ II (2 mines) and II þ III (1 mine) respectively (LAT) and 86 190 23`È86 220 04`È (LONG). The areal extent of the
(DGMS, 2014). Most of the Degree II, III and II þ III coal mines are sit- coal block is around 20.36 km2, which is shown in the Survey of India
uated in Jharia and Raniganj coalfield of Damodar basin (DGMS, 2015). Toposheet 73 I/5-I/6 (RF 1:50000) (BCCL, 2015) and it has a positive
Singh and Mallick (2015) have summarized the some of the major Degree geothermal gradient of about 2–3 C/100m increase in depth. Thirteen
III coal mines of Jharia coalfield with their respective available methane coal seams i.e. from Seam II (oldest) to Seam XVII (youngest) have
resource, which are Murulidih colliery (4.98Bm3), Amlabad Colliery identified to contain minable reserve in the area, which are situated at
(0.76Bm3), Central Parbatpur Colliery (5.31Bm3) and Sudamdih Colliery depth range of 600–750m and have average thickness between 2.5 and
(0.86Bm3) (Singh & Mallick, 2015). Both, Raniganj and Jharia coalfield 40m (Kumar et al., 2015). The geochemical (proximate and ultimate) as
together contribute to more than 70% share towards fugitive methane well as petrographic analysis of coal core samples showed the presence of
release from mines in overall GHGs emission (Singh et al., 2022). The high quality reserve with ranges of chemical parameters given as ash:
fugitive emission of methane from coal mines of Amlabad Colliery 11.8–20.8%, volatile matter: 19.6–22.1%, gross calorific value (GCV):
(Jharia coalfield) has reached up to 25m3/t, which has made the mine 5906-6351kCal/kg, grade: G1-G2, carbon: 88.5–91%, hydrogen:
operations very difficult and raise concerns related to environmental 4.9–5.2%, vitrinite reflectance: 1.1–1.4% (BCCL, 2015; Dasgupta, 2017).
safety issues (Singh & Kumar, 2016). The gas content of the major coal The chemical properties (carbon content and volatile matter) of the coal
seams had a linear relation with its petrographic properties (vitrinite
reflectance) with high degree of confidence (Dasgupta, 2017). The re-
Table 11 lations are shown by Eq. (14) and Eq. (15) respectively, where Cf is the
Stratigraphic sequence of Jharia coalfield (Pal et al., 2015). carbon content, VM is volatile matter and Ro is vitrinite reflectance of the
Formation Age Thickness Basic lithology reserve.
Weathered layer Recent to 30m Alluvium, sandy soil, clay and Cf ¼ 24:33 Ro þ 42:12 R2 ¼ 0:99 14
sub recent gravel
—Unconformity—
Deccan trap and Jurassic Dolerite dykes, mica Ro ¼ 24:33 VM þ 42:12 R2 ¼ 0:99 15
igneous lamprophyre dykes and sills
intrusions
—Unconformity—
Table 12
Raniganj Upper Permian 800m Fine grained feldspathic
Gas content in the major coal seams of Jharia coalfield.
sandstone, shale with minor
coal seams Seam Name Maximum storage Average gas content Considered gas
Barren Measure Middle Permian 730m Buff colored sandstone, shale capacity at DAF (GC) at 60–70% content (m3/t)
and carbonaceous shale basis (cm3/g) undersaturation (m3/t)
Barakar Lower Permian 1250m Buff colored coarse to
XIII 24.82 7.28 JHAMA
medium grained feldspathic
XII 48.40 11 11
sandstone, grit, shale,
IX 18.46 8.01 12.7
carbonaceous shale and major
VIIIA 24.42 8.33 7.54
coal seams
VIII 11.28 6.84 8.14
Talchir Upper 245m Greenish shale and fine
V þ VIC 38.28 5.32 14,40
Carboniferous grained sandstone
IVB 23.78 7.5 11.8
—Unconformity—
II 17.75 8.97 11.8
Archean Basement rock containing
I 17.87 Not Available 13.34
gneiss
17
Table 13
Seam wise distribution of coal reserve (Mt), gas content (m3/t) and prognosticated CBM resource (Mm3) of area under investigation.
Coal seam Coal Reserve (Mt) Average Insitu gas Prognosticated Coal seam Coal Average Insitu gas Prognosticated
content (m3/t of coal) CBM resource (Mm3) Reserve (Mt) content (m3/t of coal) CBM resource (Mm3)
XV Top 44.39 6 266 IX 58.94 5.6 330

XV Bottom 57.03 2.5 143 VIII 82.3 5.6 461
XV Combined 19.96 6 120 V þ VI þ VII 402.41 8.9 3581
Combined
XIII 25.07 5.6 140 IV 134.14 8 1073
XII 36.48 5.6 204 III 67.07 8 537
XI 40.18 5.6 225 II 50.3 8 402
X 58.82 5.5 324
The total estimated reserve of major coal seams (Seam II to XV) in the [a] Reduction in fugitive methane emission: The seam wise available
area under investigation is around 1077.09 Mt, which is considered to be reserve and their corresponding GIP has been obtained from
the store house of about 7970.47Bm3 of prognosticated CBM resource Table 13, which has been reported by BCCL. The seam wise as well
with gas content ranging between 2.5 and 8.9m3/t. The seam wise dis- as total expected recoverable reserve through board and pillar
tribution of coal reserve along with its average insitu gas content (GC) mining operations (considering recovery to be 25%) has been
and prognosticated CBM resource has been summarized in Table 13 calculated and mentioned in Table 14. In absence of suitable
(BCCL, 2015). methane handling prior to mining, the trapped gas in coal seam
will escape in the outer atmosphere and hence will act as a po-
6.4. Assessment of financial and environmental benefits of methane tential source of fugitive methane emission from mines. Thus, the
drainage in coal bearing areas of Jharia coalfield seam wise quantity of methane, which is expected to escape has
been calculated and summarized in Table 14. Thus, the total
The aforesaid major coal seams i.e. Seam II to Seam XV has been used fugitive emission even at low recovery of about 265.25 Mt of coal
in the present study for assessment of financial and environmental im- is expected to reach up to 1.33 Mt(CH4), which is a serious threat
pacts/benefits of pre-mining methane drainage. The assessment has been towards GHGs emission and global warming. However, once the
carried out for four extraction percentages i.e. 0% (no extraction), 25%, coal seam is excavated the pore spaces holding the trapped
50% and 75% recovery and the remaining gas will be considered as left methane in coal seam gets punctured and the gas escapes out from
out gas, which might lead to catastrophic accidents during coal extrac- the reservoir, hence the total fugitive in long term will reach up to
tion and also in parallel will act as a potential source of fugitive emission 7806.3Mm3. The pre-mining methane drainage will help in
from coal mines. The estimated reserve and gas content for the major coal lowering the fugitive emission of methane from coal mines.
seams from Table 13 has been used to provide the seam wise distribution [b] Abatement cost due to fugitive emission: The major coals in the
of Gas-in-Place, recovered gas at different recovery percentages along area under investigation mostly consisted of Degree III gassy coal
with their respective remaining gas in coal seam, which is summarized in seams, and coal excavation will result in quick release of 25% i.e.
Table 14. The unit conversion for calculating the equivalent Mt(CH4) and 1.33 Mt(CH4) of trapped methane in atmosphere. As per AR4 of
Mt(CO2)e has been carried out through standardized CBM unit converter IPCC, the global warming potential (GWP) of methane is around
provided by United States Environmental Protection Agency. The coal twenty-five times greater that carbon dioxide i.e. 1 Mt(CH4)
excavation in the area are mostly carried out through board and pillar ~25 Mt(CO2)e. The abatement cost estimated by the International
method, whose recovery rate is in the range of 20–30% (Kumar et al., Monetary Fund (IMF) for keeping the global warming below 2 C
2021). In the present case study the recovery from coal mines has been is $25/t(CO2). Thus, the seams fugitive methane emission in terms
set to 25%, which has been further used to calculate the recoverable coal of its carbon dioxide equivalent along with the calculated abate-
from the area. ment cost has been given in Table 15. Thus, it can be seen that for
Thus, the major financial as well as environmental benefits through emission of 1.33 Mt(CH4) i.e. 33.25 Mt(CO2)e the abatement cost
pre-mining methane drainage from the major coal seams of the area has can reach up to $831.25 million USD. Moreover, the abatement
been estimated and summarized as follows. cost is expected to reach up to $75/t(CO2), which will increase the
total abatement cost on project by three times.
Table 14
Seam wise distribution of immediate fugitive emission due to coal excavation
using board and pillar mining operations. Table 15
Seam Available Recoverable GIP GIP Mt Fugitive Seam wise estimation of abatement cost.
Coal (Mt) Coal (Mt) (Mm3) (CH4) Emission
Seam Fugitive Fugitive Abatement Cost
Mt (CH4)
emission Mt(CH4) emission Mt(CO2)e (million USD)
XV-T 44.39 11.09 266.34 0.18 0.05
XV-T 0.05 1.25 31.25
XV-B 57.03 14.25 142.57 0.1 0.03
XV-B 0.03 0.75 18.75
XV-C 19.96 4.99 119.76 0.08 0.02
XV-C 0.02 0.5 12.5
XIII 25.07 6.26 140.39 0.1 0.03
XIII 0.03 0.75 18.75
XII 36.48 9.12 204.28 0.14 0.04
XII 0.04 1 25
XI 40.18 10.04 225 0.15 0.04
XI 0.04 1 25
X 58.82 14.7 323.51 0.22 0.06
X 0.06 1.5 37.5
IX 58.94 14.73 330.06 0.22 0.06
IX 0.06 1.5 37.5
VIII 82.3 20.57 460.88 0.31 0.08
VIII 0.08 2 50
V þ VI þ VII 402.41 100.60 3581.44 2.44 0.61
V þ VI þ VII 0.61 15.25 381.25
IV 134.14 33.53 1073.12 0.73 0.18
IV 0.18 4.5 112.5
III 67.07 16.76 536.56 0.36 0.09
III 0.09 2.25 56.25
II 50.3 12.57 402.4 0.27 0.07
II 0.07 1.75 43.75
Total 1077 269.25 7806.3 5.31 1.33
Total 1.33 33.25 831.25
18
[c] Clean energy cess on coal production: The clean energy cess [d] CBM as standalone business: The methane extracted from the coal
imposed by government towards methane emission was ₹50/t (of mines can itself form an unconventional clean source of energy,
coal) during 2010–2015, which has increased to ₹400/t (of coal) which will be much superior to coal. The selling price of CBM in
in 2017 and the current rate has been used in present study for India starts at $5.77/MMBtu and for the present study the selling
calculation of total clean energy cess to be paid by the coal in- price has been set to $5/MMBtu. The seam wise revenue gener-
dustries. Thus, the seam wise details of clean energy cess, which ated from selling of extracted CBM at different recovery percent-
will be imposed on the mining industry has been mentioned in ages (25%, 50% and 75%) has been calculated and given in
Table 16. Thus, it can be seen that a total cess of ₹107.7B (in In- Table 17. The total revenue generated from selling of 1951.5Mm3,
dian rupees) will be charged for extraction of 269.27 Mt of coal. 3903.1Mm3 and 5854.7Mm3 will be around $403.45M,
$806.91M and $1210.38M (in USD) respectively. Thus, it can be
seen that a huge revenue can be generated by selling the extracted
CBM even at one-fourth recovery (25%) of total GIP.
Table 16 [e] CBM for electricity generation: Since CBM is a better fuel in terms
Seam wise estimation of Clean Energy Cess. of heat value and emits less CO2 compared to coal, there it can
Seam Coal (Mt) Coal to be extracted Clean Energy Cess at treated as a new unconventional source of energy for commercial
from mines with ₹400/t of coal generation of electricity. Three recovery percentages (25%, 50%
25% recovery (Mt) production (Rs. billion)
and 75%) of CBM extraction has been considered for discussing
XV-T 44.39 11.09 4.43 the benefits of commercial utilization of methane towards power
XV-B 57.03 14.25 5.7 generation. A seam wise comparative study of electricity produced
XV-C 19.96 4.99 1.99
XIII 25.07 6.26 2.5
from the extracted CBM (under 25%, 50% and 75% recovery) and
XII 36.48 9.12 3.64 CO2 emission with that of coal has been shown in Table 18 (CBM
XI 40.18 10.04 4.01 recovery: 25%), Table 19 (CBM recovery: 50%) and Table 20
X 58.82 14.7 5.88 (CBM recovery: 75%) respectively. Thus, the total electricity
IX 58.94 14.73 5.89
generated from 1951.5 Mm3 (recovery: 25%), 3903.1 Mm3 (re-
VIII 82.3 20.57 8.23
V þ VI þ VII 402.41 100.6 40.24 covery: 50%) and 5854.7 Mm3 (recovery: 75%) will be around
IV 134.14 33.53 13.41 6.10TWh, 12.2TWh and 18.3TWh respectively. Moreover, the
III 67.07 16.76 6.7 carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere during aforesaid pro-
II 50.3 12.57 5.03 cess will be in the range of 4.15–12.44 Mt(CO2), which will be
Total 1077.0 269.27 107.7
around 17% less that the emission occurred through combustion
of coal.
Table 17
Estimation of revenue to obtained through selling of CBM.
Seam Coal (Mt) GC (m3/t) GIP (Mm3) Recovered Gas Revenue (million USD)
3 3 3
25% (Mm ) 50% (Mm ) 75% (Mm ) @25% recovery @50% recovery @75% recovery
XV-T 44.39 6 266.34 66.58 133.17 199.75 13.76 27.53 41.30

XV-B 57.03 2.5 142.57 35.64 71.28 106.93 7.37 14.74 22.11
XV-C 19.96 6 119.76 29.94 59.88 89.82 6.19 12.38 18.57
XIII 25.07 5.6 140.39 35.09 70.19 105.29 7.25 14.51 21.77
XII 36.48 5.6 204.28 51.07 102.14 153.21 10.56 21.12 31.67
XI 40.18 5.6 225 56.25 112.5 168.75 11.63 23.26 34.89
X 58.82 5.5 323.51 80.87 161.75 242.63 16.72 33.44 50.16
IX 58.94 5.6 330.06 82.51 165.03 247.54 17.06 34.12 51.18
VIII 82.3 5.6 460.88 115.22 230.44 345.66 23.82 47.64 71.46
V þ VI þ VII 402.41 8.9 3581.44 895.36 1790.72 2686.08 185.10 370.21 555.31
IV 134.14 8 1073.12 268.28 536.56 804.84 55.46 110.93 166.39
III 67.07 8 536.56 134.14 268.28 402.42 27.73 55.46 83.19
II 50.3 8 402.4 100.6 201.2 301.8 20.80 41.60 62.39
Total 1077.0 7806.3 1951.5 3903.1 5854.7 403.45 806.91 1210.38
Table 18
Comparative study of electricity generation and emission of CO2 between CBM and coal (CBM recovery: 25%).
Seam Extracted CBM Electricity Carbon dioxide emission Equivalent coal mass Carbon dioxide emission
@25% recovery (Mm3) generated (TWh) Mt(CO2) required for power generation (Mt) Mt(CO2)
XV-T 66.58 0.42 0.12 0.21 0.14

XV-B 35.64 0.22 0.06 0.11 0.08
XV-C 29.94 0.19 0.05 0.09 0.06
XIII 35.09 0.22 0.06 0.11 0.07
XII 51.07 0.32 0.09 0.16 0.11
XI 56.25 0.35 0.10 0.18 0.12
X 80.87 0.51 0.14 0.25 0.17
IX 82.51 0.52 0.14 0.26 0.18
VIII 115.22 0.72 0.20 0.36 0.24
V þ VI þ VII 895.36 5.60 1.57 2.80 1.90
IV 268.28 1.68 0.47 0.84 0.57
III 134.14 0.84 0.23 0.42 0.29
II 100.6 0.63 0.18 0.31 0.21
Total 1951.5 12.20 3.42 6.10 4.15
19
Table 19
XV-T 133.17 0.83 0.23 0.42 0.28

XV-B 71.28 0.45 0.12 0.22 0.15
XV-C 59.88 0.37 0.10 0.19 0.13
XIII 70.19 0.44 0.12 0.22 0.15
XII 102.14 0.64 0.18 0.32 0.22
XI 112.5 0.70 0.20 0.35 0.24
X 161.75 1.01 0.28 0.51 0.34
IX 165.03 1.03 0.29 0.52 0.35
VIII 230.44 1.44 0.40 0.72 0.49
V þ VI þ VII 1790.72 11.19 3.13 5.60 3.81
IV 536.56 3.35 0.94 1.68 1.14
III 268.28 1.68 0.47 0.84 0.57
II 201.2 1.26 0.35 0.63 0.43
Total 3903.1 24.39 6.83 12.20 8.29
Table 20
XV-T 199.75 1.25 0.35 0.62 0.42

XV-B 106.93 0.67 0.19 0.33 0.23
XV-C 89.82 0.56 0.16 0.28 0.19
XIII 105.29 0.66 0.18 0.33 0.22
XII 153.21 0.96 0.27 0.48 0.33
XI 168.75 1.05 0.30 0.53 0.36
X 242.63 1.52 0.42 0.76 0.52
IX 247.54 1.55 0.43 0.77 0.53
VIII 345.66 2.16 0.60 1.08 0.73
V þ VI þ VII 2686.08 16.79 4.70 8.39 5.71
IV 804.84 5.03 1.41 2.52 1.71
III 402.42 2.52 0.70 1.26 0.86
II 301.8 1.89 0.53 0.94 0.64
Total 5854.7 36.59 10.25 18.30 12.44
[f] Enhancement of mine safety: As discussed earlier that increase in [e] Pre-mining methane drainage will help in lowering its (methane)
methane concentration over 5% makes the air mixture explosive in concentration in underground mine air along its galleries, which
underground mines. Thus, extraction of methane prior to coal exca- will reduce the chances of air contamination and gas explosion.
vation will reduce the concentration of methane in air along the Thus, safety in the working areas of underground mines will be
underground mine galleries, which will further minimize the chances enhanced.
of air contamination and gas explosion. Thus, pre-mining methane [e] The water pumping followed by methane extraction will be
drainage will help in enhancing the safety in underground mines. helpful in minimizing the accidents in coal mines, which are
related to gas explosion, air contamination and water inundation.
7. Discussion and conclusion Thus, the safety will be enhanced in the working areas of coal
mines.
The benefits of the pre-mining methane drainage in Indian coal mines [h] The pre-mining methane extraction will reduce the miscellaneous
has been summarized as follows. cost in underground mines especially related to pump installation
and its operation, which is used for protection against gas and
[a] The utilization of CBM will reduce the greenhouse emission in water inundation. Thus, it will help in lowering the indirect cost of
atmosphere, which will help minimizing the aftereffects of GHGs pump operation and idle time of mining equipment and parallelly
emission such as global warming, climate change, sea level rise will enhance the manpower utilization.
etc. It will also help in maintaining the global warming below
2 C, which has to be followed strictly as per the guidelines of Author CRediT Statement
Paris Agreement (2015).
[b] The commercial utilization of Coalbed Methane will itself provide Mayank Ahuja: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology,
a standalone business by generating huge revenue in profit for the Writing – original draft, Data curation. Dr. Debjeet Mondal: Software,
mining industries. Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis, Visualization. Dr. D.P.
[c] Methane is a superior fuel compared to coal as it leads to higher Mishra: Investigation, Supervision, Project administration. Dr. Sayan
power generation with less GHG emission. Thus, it can act as an Ghosh: Formal analysis. Manoj Kumar: Formal analysis, Supervision.
promising source of unconventional energy and will also reduce
the country's load over coal for generation of primary energy. Declaration of competing interest
[d] The drainage of methane will minimize its fugitive emission in
atmosphere, which will lower the abatement cost as well as clean The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
energy cess/GST paid against per cubic meter emission of interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
methane by the coal industries. the work reported in this paper.
20
Acknowledgment DGMS. (2015). Statistics of mines in India (volume I: Coal). Directorate General of Mines
Safety (Govt. of India). https://dgms.gov.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Coal
_2015.pdf.
The authors would like to acknowledge the Central Mine Planning Dhir, R., Dern, R. R., & Mavor, M. J. (1991). Economic and reserve evaluation of Coalbed
and Design Institute (Coal India Limited) for generating such valuable Methane reservoirs, 10.2118/22024-PA Journal of Petroleum Technology, 43,
data related to the coal exploration study. The authors would like to 1424–1518.
Diffenbaugh, N. S., & Bruke, M. (2019). Global warming has increased global economic
extend their sincere gratitude to Mr. R. N. Jha (Director T/RD&T, inequality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
CMPDI), Mr. Ajay Kumar (Director T/P&D, CMPDI), Mr. S. K. Gomasta America, 116, 9808–9813. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1816020116
(Director T/CRD, CMPDI), Mr. Shakar Nagachari (Director T/ES, Duda, A., & Valverde, G. F. (2020). Environment and safety risks related to methane
emissions in underground coal mine closure process. Energies, 13(6312). https://
CMPDI), Mr. Rajesh Kumar Amar (General Manager BDD, CMPDI), Dr. D. doi.org/10.3390/en13236312
Mohanty (CSIR CIMFR, Dhanbad) and other executives of CMPDI for Dwivedi, D. N., & Sharma, V. K. (2005). Analysis of sea level rise and its impact on coastal
their constant support, motivation, and encouragement for completion of wetlands of India. In: Proceedings of the 14th biennial coastal zone conference (New
Orleans). https://research.fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climat
the work. e-adaptation-library/asia-amp-indian-ocean/india-amp-sri-lanka/Dwivedi-and-Shar
ma.-2005.-SLR–Coastal-Wetlands-of-India.pdf.
EDF. (2021). Environmental defence Fund, methane: A crucial opportunity in the climate
References fight. https://edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight.
EIA. (2009). International energy statistics. U.S. Energy Information Administration. htt
Awan, F. U. R., Arif, M., Iglauer, S., & Keshavarz, A. (2022). Coal fines migration: A ps://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm.
holistic review of influencing factors. Adv. Colloid and Interface Science, 301, 102595. EIA. (2016). U.S. Energy information administration (department of energy). Annual
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2021.102595 Energy Outlook. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2016).pdf.
Balasubramaniam, S., Tarpara, V. D., & Dhandhalya, M. G. (2017). Export performance of ENVIS. (2014). Major accidents in the Indian coal mines. ENVIS Centre on Environmental
marine products from India, Munich GRIN Verlag. https://www.grin.com/docume Problems of Mining (last updated: 16/07/2014) https://www.ismenvis.nic.in/
nt/424798. Database/accidents_1249.aspx. (Accessed 18 August 2021).
BCCL. (2015). Feasibility report on Moonidih coal bed methane project (part of cluster EPA. (2021a). United States environmental protection agency (updated: 28/02/2021 http
XI). Bharat coking coal limited. https://environmentclearance.nic.in/DownloadPfd s://www.epa.gov/cmop/frequent-questions. (Accessed 12 July 2021).
File.aspx. EPA. (2021b). United States environmental protection agency. Coalbed methane outreach
Berner, U., & Faber, E. (1988). Maturity related mixing model for methane, ethane and program (CMOP). updated: 22/07/2021 https://www.epa.gov/cmop. (Accessed 26
propane, based on carbon isotopes. Org. Geochem. Pet. Explor, 67–72. https://doi.org/ July 2021).
10.1016/B978-0-08-037236-5.50012-9 Extension, PennState (2013). Methane Gas and its removal from water wells. (by
Boger, C., Marshall, J. S., & Pilcher, C. (2014). Chapter 18- worldwide coal mine methane PennState Extension. updated: 23/09/2013 https://extension.psu.edu/methane-gasa
and coalbed activities. In P. Thakur, S. Schatzel, & K. Aminian (Eds.), Coal bed nd-its-removal-from-water-wells. (Accessed 9 August 2021).
methane (pp. 351–407). Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- Falkenmark, M. (1989). The massive water scarcity now threatening Africa- Why isn't it
12-800880-5.00018-8. being addressed? AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 18, 112–118. https://
BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2002). (Statistical review by British Petroleum). www.jstor.org/stable/4313541.
https://www.griequity.com/resources/industryandissues/Energy/bp2002statisticalr Flores, R. M. (1998). Coalbed Methane: From hazard to resource. International Journal of
eview.pdf. (Accessed 3 August 2021). Coal Geology, 35, 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-5162(97)00043-8
BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2019). (Statistical review by British Petroleum). Flores, R. M. (2014). Chapter 2- Coal as multiple sources of energy. In: Flores, R.M. In (Eds)
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/e (Ed.) Netherlands: Coal and Coalbed Methane. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/
nergy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf. (Accessed 3 B978-0-12-396972-9.00002-1.
August 2021). Gao, L., Mastalerz, M., & Schimmelmann, A. (2014). Chapter 2- the origin of coalbed
BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2020). (Statistical review by British Petroleum). methane. In P. Thakur, S. Schatzel, & K. Aminian (Eds.), Coal bed methane (pp. 7–29).
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/e Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800880-5.00002-4.
nergy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2020-full-report.pdf. (Accessed 3 Garg, V., Gerasimchuk, I., & Beaton, C. (2017). India's Energy Transition: Mapping
August 2021). subsidies to fossil fuels and clean energy in India. Global Subsidies Initiative Report.
BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (2021). (Statistical review by British Petroleum). https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/india-energytransition.pdf.
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/e Garg, A., & Pulles, T. (2006). Chapter 4- fugitive emission IPCC guidelines for national
nergy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2021-full-report.pdf. (Accessed 3 greenhouse gas inventoriesA. Garg, & T. Pulles (Eds.). Energy by Intergovernmental
August 2021). Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2, 4.1–4.78. https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/publi
Bryner, G. C. (2003). Coalbed methane development: The costs and benefits of an c/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_4_Ch4_Fugitive_Emissions.pdf.
emerging energy resource. Nat. Resources J, 43, 519–560. https://ssrn.com/abstra Gentzis, T., Goodarzi, F., Cheung, F. K., & Defarge, F. L. (2008). Coalbed methane
ct¼601746. producibility from the mannville coals in Alberta, Canada: A comparison of two
Chatterjee, R., & Paul, S. (2013). Classification of coal seams for coal bed methane areas. International Journal of Coal Geology, 74, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/
exploitation in central part of Jharia coalfield, India- A statistical approach. Fuel, 111, j.coal.2008.01.004
20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.04.007 Ghose, M. K., & Majee, S. R. (2000). Sources of air pollution due to coal mining and their
Cheng, Y. P., Wang, L., & Zhang, X. L. (2011). Environmental impact of coal mine impacts in Jharia coalfield. Environment International, 26, 81–85. https://doi.org/
methane emissions and responding strategies in China. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Con.5, 10.1016/S0160-4120(00)00085-4
157–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.07.007 Ghosh, S., Chatterjee, R., Paul, S., & Shanker, P. (2014). Designing of plug-in for
CIA. (2020). World factbook-India. Central intelligence agency. https://www.cia.gov/th estimation of coal proximate parameters using statistical analysis and coal seam
e-world-factbook/static/265961bcafce29e6b74fd3ffd37b56a0/IN-summary.pdf. correlation. Fuel, 134, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.05.02
(Accessed 18 August 2020). Ghosh, S. K., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (1985). Tectonic history of the Jharia basin- an intra
CMPDI. (2015). Feasibility report of Moonidih coalbed methane project, Dhanbad. Central cratonic Gondwana basin of eastern India. Quarterly Journal of the Geological, Mining
Mine Planning and Design Institute. https://www.environmentclearance.nic.in. and Metallurgical Society of India, 57, 33–58.
(Accessed 20 September 2021). Giannakopoulos, C., Bindi, M., Moriondo, M., & Tin, T. (2005). Climate change impacts in
Coal Directory of India. (2011). Part-I coal statistics. Ministry of coal (Govt. Of India). http the Mediterranean resulting from a 2 C global temperature rise. World Wildlife Fund
s://www.coalcontroller.gov.in/writereaddata/files/download/coaldirectory/Coal% Report. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270816746.
20Directory%20of%20India%202010-11.pdf. GMI. (2011). Global methane initiative. Coal mine methane: Reducing emissions,
Cowards, H. F., & Jones, G. W. (1952). Limits of flammability of gases and vapours. U.S. advancing recovery and use opportunities. https://www.globalmethane.org/docume
Department of interior. Bureau of mines, Juneau (Alaska). https://shepherd.caltech. nts/coal_fs_eng.pdf.
edu/EDL/PublicResources/flammability/USBM-503.pdf. Godec, M., Koperna, G., & Gale, J. (2014). CO2-ECBM: A review of its status and global
CRED. (2018). Economic losses, poverty and disaster 1998-2017. United Nations Office for potential. Energy Procedia, 63, 5858–5869. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Disaster Risk Reduction. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35610.08643 j.egypro.2014.11.619
CWC. (2013). Water and related statistics. Water resources information system GVR. (2020). Coal bed methane market size, share & trends analysis report by application
directorate (information system organization). https://nwm.gov.in/sites/default/fi (industrial, residential, commercial, power generation, transportation), by region and
les/waterwiki/6.pdf. segment forecasts, 2020-2027. Grand View Research (Market Analysis Report). https://
Dasgupta, T., & Jamal, A. (2017). Investigation for the degree of gassiness of underground coal www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/coal-bed-methane-industry.
mines with particular reference to methane utilisation. PhD Thesis submitted to Department (Accessed 14 August 2021).
of Mining engineering, Indian Institute of Technology. (Banaras Hindu University) Halder, S. K. (2018). Chapter 12- elements of mining. In S. K. Halder (Ed.), Mineral
Varanasi. https://dpi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12348.13446. exploration (second edition) principles and applications (pp. 229–258). Netherlands:
DGH. (2021). Directorate general of hydrocarbon: Coal bed methane (CBM). https://dgh Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814022-2.00012-5.
india.gov.in/index.php/page?pageId¼38. (Accessed 11 July 2021). Huang, Y. H., Leamon, T. B., Courtney, T. K., DeArmond, S., Chen, P. Y., & Blair, M. F.
DGMS. (2014). Annual report 2014. Directorate General of Mine Safety (Govt. of India). http (2009). Financial decision maker's views on safety. J. American Soc. Safety Engineers,
s://www.dgms.gov.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/DGMS_Annual_Report_2014_Eng 54, 36–42. https://aeasseincludes.assp.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/054/04/F2
-14.pdf. _Huangetal_0409.pdf.
21
Ianc, N., Boanta, C., Gherghe, I., & Tomescu, C. (2020). Environmental impact of methane of the organic deposits (Coal and CBM) of eastern Sohagpur coalfield, India.
released from coal mines. MATEC Web of Conferences, 305(30), 1–7. https://doi.org/ Gondwana Research, 96, 122–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2021.03.016
10.1051/matecconf/202030500030 Mondal, D., Roy, P. N. S., & Behera, P. K. (2017). Use of correlation fractal dimension
IEA. (2015). India energy outlook (world energy outlook special report). International signatures for understanding the overlying strata dynamics in longwall coal mines.
energy agency. http://www.iberglobal.com/files/2015/IndiaEnergyOutlook.pdf. Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Science, 91, 219–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/
IEA. (2020). International energy agency- key world energy statistics. https://www.iea.or j.ijrmms.2016.11.019
g/reports/key-world-energy-statistice-2020. (Accessed 12 July 2021). Moore, T. A. (2012). Coalbed methane: A review, 10.1016j.coal.2012.05.011 Int. J. Coal
ILO. (2019) (Updated: 02/07/2019) https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/indi geol, 101, 36–81.
a-could-lose-the-equivalent-of-34-million-jobs-in-2030-due-to-global-warming-says-il MoPNG. (2022). Annual report 2021-22. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
o/article28259436.ece. (Accessed 1 September 2021). (Government of India). https://mopng.gov.in/files/TableManagements/annualmerge
IMF. (2019). The economics of climate (finance and development). International Monetary d_compressed.pdf.
Fund. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/pdf/fd1219.pdf. M€osle, B., Kukla, P., Stollhofen, H., & Preuße, A. (2009). Coal bed methane production in
(Accessed 8 September 2021). the Munsterland basin, Germany- past and future. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 11,
IMY. (2011). Indian minerals Yearbook 2011 (coal and lignite). Indian Bureau of Mines. 2009–4267. https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2009/EGU2009-4267.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130811050549/http://ibm.nic.in/IMYB%202011 pdf.
_Coal%20%26%20Lignite.pdf. (Accessed 16 February 2023). NOAA. (2020). The NOAA annual greenhouse gas index. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
India State-Level Disease Burden Initiative Air Pollution Collaborators. (2021). Health Administration. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi.
and economic impact of air pollution in the states of India: The global burden of Ojha, K., Karmakar, B., Mandal, A., & Pathak, A. K. (2011). Coal bed methane in India:
Disease study 2019. The Lancet Planetary Health, 5, e25–e38. https://doi.org/ Difficulties and prospects. Int. J. Chem. Eng. Appl., 2, 256–260. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30298-9 10.7763/IJCEA.2011 V2.113.
IPCC. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Pai, D. S., Sridhar, L., Badwaik, M. R., & Rajeevan, M. (2015). Analysis of the daily rainfall
Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324. . (Accessed 25 events over India using a new long period (1901-2010) High Resolution
August 2021) (0.25 0.25 ) Gridded Rainfall Dataset. Climate Dynamics, 45, 755–776. https://
Joshi, U. R., & Rajeevan, M. (2006). Trends in precipitation extremes over India. NCC doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2307-1
research report-3. National Climate Centre, Indian Meteorological Department. https Pal, P. K., Paul, S., & Chatterjee, R. (2015). Estimation of in-situ stress and coal bed
://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi¼10.1.1.511.3982&rep¼rep1&type methane potential of coal seams from analysis of well logs, ground mapping and
¼pdf. laboratory data in central part of Jharia coalfield- an overviewS. Mukherjee (Ed.).
Khanzode, V. V., Maiti, J., & Ray, P. K. (2011). A methodology for evaluation and Petroleum Geoscience: Indian Contexts. Springer Geology, 143–173. https://doi.org/
monitoring of recurring hazards in underground coal mining. Safety Science, 49, 10.1007/978-3-319-03119-4_6
1172–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.03.009 Paul, S., & Chatterjee, R. (2011a). Mapping of cleats and fractures as an indicator of in-
Kholod, N., Evans, M., Pilcher, R. C., Roshchanka, V., Ruiz, F., Cote, M., & Collings, R. situ stress orientation, Jharia coalfield, India. Int. J. Coal Geology, 88, 113–122.
(2020). Global methane emissions from coal mining to continue growing even with https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2011.09.006
declining coal production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120489. https:// Paul, S., & Chatterjee, R. (2011b). Determination of in-situ stress direction from cleat
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120489 orientation mapping for coal bed methane exploration in south-eastern part of Jharia
Krause, E., & Pokryszka, Z. (2013). Investigations on methane emission from flooded coalfield, India. Int. J. Coal Geol, 87, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/
workings of coal mines. J. Sustain. Min, 12, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.7424/ j.coal.2011.05.003
jsm130206 Rice, D. D. (1993). Composition and origins of coalbed gas. In B. E. Law, & D. D. Rice
Kumar, A., Kumar, D., Singh, A. K., Ram, S., Kumar, R., Raja, M., & Singh, A. K. (2021). (Eds.), Hydrocarbons from coal, AAPG studies in geology, 38 (pp. 159–185).
Developments made for mechanised extraction of locked-up coal pillars in Indian https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/rice.
geomining conditions. Mining techniques- past, present and future. Intech open, Rice, A. K., Lackey, G., Proctor, J., & Singha, K. (2017). Groundwater-quality hazards of
London (United Kingdom). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93636. methane leakage from hydrocarbon wells: A review of observational and numerical
Kumar, H., Mishra, S., Mishra, M. K., & Parida, A. (2015). Petrographical characteristics studies and four testable hypotheses. WIREs water. , Article e1283. https://doi.org/
of bituminous coal from Jharia coalfield India: It's implication on Coal Bed Methane 10.1002/wat2.1283
potentiality. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci.11, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., & Jiang, K. (2018). Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 C in
j.proeps.2015.06.006 the context of sustainable development. (In: Global Warming of 1.5 C, IPCC Special
Lama, R. D., & Bodziony, J. (1998). Management of outburst in underground coal mines. Report). https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapt
International Journal of Coal Geology, 35, 83–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166- er2_Low_Res.pdf.
5162(97)00037-2 Roy, P., Guha, A., & Kumar, K. V. (2015). Structural control on occurrence and dynamics
Lee, C. C., Lou, R., & Wang, F. (2023). Digital financial inclusion and poverty alleviation: of coalmine fires in Jharia coalfield: A remote sensing based analysis. J. Indian Soc.
Evidence from the sustainable development of China. Economic Analysis and Policy, Remote Sens, 43, 779–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12524-015-0451-7
77, 418–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.12.004 Saikai, K., & Sarkar, B. C. (2013). Coal exploration modelling using geostatistics in Jharia
Lee, C. C., & Wang, F. (2022). How does digital inclusive finance affect carbon intensity? coalfield, India. Int. J. Coal Geol, 112, 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Economic Analysis and Policy, 75, 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.coal.2012.11.012
j.eap.2022.05.010 Schoell, M. (1980). The hydrogen and carbon isotopic composition of methane from
Lee, C. C., Wang, F., Lou, R., & Wang, K. (2023b). How does green finance drive the natural gases of various origins. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 44, 649–661. https://
decarbonisation of the economy? Empirical evidence from China. Renew. Atomnaya doi.org/10.1016/0016-7037(80)90155-6
Energiya, 204, 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.01.058 Scott, A. R., Kaiser, W. R., & Ayers, W. B., Jr. (1994). Thermogenic and secondary
Lee, C. C., Wang, F., & Runchi, L. (2022). Digital financial inclusion and carbon neutrality: biogenic gases, SanJuan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico- Implications for coalbed
Evidence from non-linear analysis. Research Policy, 79, 102974. https://doi.org/ gas producibility. AAPG Bulletin, 78, 1186–1209. https://doi.org/10.1306/
10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102974 A25FEAA9-171B-11D7-8645000102C1865D
Mani, M., Bandhyopadhyay, S., Chonabayashi, S., Markandya, A., & Mosier, T. (2018). SCPNG. (2016). Standing committee on Petroleum and natural gas 2015-2016 (Ministry
South Asia's Hotspots: The impact of temperature and precipitation changes on living of Petroleum and natural gas). Production of Coalbed Methane (Fourteenth Report). http
standards. South Asia Development Matters. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648- s://164.100.47.193/lsscommittee/Petroleum%20&%20Natural%20Gas/16_Petrol
1155-5 eum_And_Natural_Gas_14.pdf.
Mastalerz, M. (2014). Chapter 7- coal bed methane: Reserves, production and future Singh, A. K., & Hajra, P. N. (2018). Coalbed Methane in India: Its relevance and current
outlook. In T. M. Letcher (Ed.), Future energy (2nd ed., pp. 145–158). Netherlands: status. In A. K. Singh, & P. N. Hajra (Eds.), Coalbed methane in India (pp. 1–19).
Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-099424-6.00007-7. Springer Briefs in Energy. Springer (Cham). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
Mastalerz, M., & Drobniak, A. (2020). Chapter 5- coalbed methane: Reserve, production 66465-1_1.
and future outlook. In T. M. Letcher (Ed.), Future energy (3rd ed., pp. 97–109). Singh, A. K., & Kumar, J. (2016). Fugitive methane emissions from Indian coal mining
Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102886-5.00005-0. and handling activities: Estimates, mitigation and opportunities for its utilization to
MoEFCC. (2015). India's intended nationally determined contribution: Working towards generate clean energy. Energy Procedia, 90, 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/
climate justice. Ministry of Forest Environment and Climate Change (Govt. of India). htt j.egypro.2016.11.201
ps://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/India%20First/INDIA Singh, H., & Mallick, J. (2015). Utilization of ventilation air methane in Indian coal
%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf. (Accessed 18 August 2021). mines: Prospects and challenges. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci., 11, 56–62. https://
MoEFCC. (2018). Second biennial update report to the united nations framework doi.org/10.1016/j.proeps.2015.06.008
convention on climate change. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Singh, A. K., Singh, U., Panigrahi, D. C., & Singh, J. (2022). Updated greenhouse
(Govt. of India. https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/India-Secon gas inventory estimates for Indian underground coal mining based on the 2019
d-Biennial-Update-Report-to-the-United-Nations-Framework-Convention-on-Climate IPCC refinements. iScience, 25, 104946. https://doi.org/10.1016/
-Change.pdf. j.isci.2022.104946
MoF. (2019). India's Demography at 2040: Planning public good provision for the 21st century. Sinha, S. K., & Gupta, S. D. (2021). A geological model for enhanced coal bed methane
Ministry of Finance (Govt. of India)- Press Information Bureau (Updated: 04/07/2019) https (eCBM) recovery process: A case study from the Jharia coalfield region, India. Journal
://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid¼191197. (Accessed 18 August 2021). of Petroleum Science & Engineering, 201, 108498. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Mohajan, H. K. (2012). Dangerous effects of methane gas in atmosphere. Int. J. Econ. j.petrol.2021.108498
Politcal Integr, 2, 3–10. https://mpra.ub..uni.-muenchen.de/id/eprint/50844. Smith, J. W., & Pallasser, R. (1996). Microbial origin of Australian coalbed methane.
Mondal, D., Ghosh, S., Naveen, P., Kumar, M., Majumder, A., & Panda, A. K. (2021). An AAPG Bulletin, 80, 891–897. https://doi.org/10.1306/64ED88FE-1724-11D7-
integrated study on the geochemical, geophysical and geomechanical characteristics 8645000102C1865D
22
Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge University Vedanti, N., Vadapalli, U., & Sain, K. (2020). A brief overview of CBM development in
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511817434 India. Proc. Indian Natn. Sci. Acad., 86, 623–629. https://doi.org/10.16943/ptinsa/
Strapoc, D., Mastalerz, M., Schimmelmann, A., Drobniak, A., & Hedges, S. (2008). 2020/49799
Variability of geochemical properties in a microbially dominated coalbed gas system Verma, R. K., Bhuin, N. C., & Mukhopadhyay, M. (1979). Geology, structure and tectonics
from the eastern margin of the Illinois Basin, USA. Int. J. Coal Geol., 76, 98–110. of the Jharia coalfield, India- A three dimensional model. Geoexploration, 17,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2008.02.002 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7142(79)90025-5
Swapna, P., Jyoti, J., Krishnan, R., Sandeep, N., & Griffies, S. M. (2017). Multidecadal Wang, A., Song, D., He, X., Dou, L., Li, Z., Zu, Z., Lou, Q., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Investigation
weakening of Indian summer monsoon circulation induces an increasing northern of coal and gas outburst risk by microseismic monitoring. PloS ONE, 14, Article
Indian Ocean sea level. Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 560–572. https://doi.org/ e0216464. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216464
10.1002/2007GL074706 Wen, H., Liang, W., & Lee, C. C. (2023). China's progress toward sustainable development
Thakur, P. (2017). Chapter 1- global reserve of coal bed methane and prominent coal in pursuit of carbon neutrality: Regional differences and dynamic evolution.
basins. In P. Thakur (Ed.), Advanced reservoir and production engineering for coal bed Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 98, 106959. https://doi.org/10.1016/
methane (pp. 1–15). Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12- j.eiar.2022.106959
803095-0.00001-6. Wen, H., Wen, C., & Lee, C. C. (2022). Impact of digitalization and environmental
Thakur, P. (2019a). 23- gas and dust explosions. In P. Thakur (Ed.), Advanced mine regulation on total factor productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 61, 101007.
ventilation (pp. 377–398). Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2022.101007
0-08-100457-9.00023-7. Whiticar, M. J. (1999). Carbon and hydrogen isotope systematic of bacterial formation
Thakur, P. (2019b). Chapter 20- economics of coal mine degasification. In P. Thakur and oxidation of methane. Chemical Geology, 161, 291–314. https://doi.org/
(Ed.), Advanced mine ventilation (pp. 325–341). Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https:// 10.1016/S0009-2541(99)-00092-3
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100457-9.00020-1. Williams, G. O., Lee, C. C., & Folorunsho, A. (2023). What does export diversification do
United Nation. (2019). World population prospects 2019. Department of economic and social for energy demand? Evidence from the global north. Environmental Science & Pollution
affairs- population dynamics, revision-1 (online edition). United Nations. https://populat Research, 30, 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22202-w
ion.un.org/wpp/default.aspx?aspxerrorpath¼/wpp/DataQuery/.%20%20USEPA% Yahya, F., & Lee, C. C. (2023). The asymmetric effect of agriculturalization toward
20(1989)%20The%20Potential%20Effects%20Of%20Global%20Climate%20Change climate neutrality targets. Journal of Environmental Management, 328, 116995.
%20On%20The%20United%20States. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116995
Unnikrishnan, A. S., Nidheesh, A. G., & Lengaigne, M. (2015). Sea-level-rise trends off Zhang, X., Myhrvold, N. P., & Caldeira, K. (2014). Key factors for assessing climate
theIndian coasts during the last two decades. Current Science, 108, 966–971. https benefits of natural gas versus coal electricity generation. Environmental Research
://drs.nio.org/drs/handle/2264/4747. Letters, 9, 114022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/11/114022
Unnikrishnan, A. S., & Shankar, D. (2007). Are sea-level-rise trends along the coasts of Zou, C. (2017). Chapter 2- meaning of unconventional Petroleum geology. In C. Zou,
north Indian Ocean consistent with global estimates? Global and Planetary Change, 57, R. Zhu, S. Tao, L. Hou, X. Yuan, G. Zhang, Y. Song, J. Niu, D. Dong, X. Wu, S. Liu,
301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.11.029 L. Jiang, S. Wang, Q. Guo, Z. Yang, Y. Zhang, C. Zhou, & B. Bai (Eds.), Unconventional
USEPA. (1989). Potential effects of global climate change on the United States. National Petroleum geology (2nd ed., pp. 49–95). Netherlands: Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/
Service Center for Environmental Publications, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http 10.1016/B978-0-12-812234-1.00002-9.
s://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/50000WXR.PDF?Dockey¼50000WXR.PDF.
23

1 s2.0 S2949753123000334 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2949753123000334 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2949753123000334 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovation and Green Development 2 (2023) 100065

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Innovation and Green Development

Full Length Article

Assessment of ﬁnancial and environmental impacts of pre-mining methane

1. Introduction on the basic several parameters including vitrinite reﬂectance (Ro%)

Table 1 emission in atmosphere. Thus, the proper handling of trapped methane in

2. Coalbed Methane: global and Indian scenario

conc:CH4 ¼ 9:1 ln Ro þ 93:1 mse ¼ 1:7 R2 ¼ 0:924 1 GIP ¼ m g 4

conc:C2 H6 ¼ 6:3 ln Ro þ 4:8 mse ¼ 1 R2 ¼ 0:938 2 m¼t a d 5

3.2. Enhancement in mine safety

India Polidih 1936 209

e¼n f E C 11 4. Fugitive methane emission from India coal mines

Opencast Project greater than 85 1.18 93.8 339 1.36

@0.16m3/KWh @0.2kg/KWh @0.5kg/KWh @0.34kg/KWh

Opencast 1.36 8.5 1.7 0.004 2.89

XV Top 44.39 6 266 IX 58.94 5.6 330

XV-T 44.39 6 266.34 66.58 133.17 199.75 13.76 27.53 41.30

XV-T 66.58 0.42 0.12 0.21 0.14

XV-T 133.17 0.83 0.23 0.42 0.28

XV-T 199.75 1.25 0.35 0.62 0.42

You might also like

conc:C2 H6 ¼ 6:3 ln Ro þ 4:8 mse ¼ 1 R2 ¼ 0:938 2 m¼t a d 5