Transcript Underground Coal Gasification in the energy mix 7th

An
Introduction
to
SC/P/2009_0037_v1
Agenda
• Introduction to Clean Coal Ltd.
–
–
–
–
Overview: Who is CCL?
CCL Corporate Structure
Resources and Experience
Current Projects
• Introduction to Underground Coal Gasification
– Overview: What is UCG?
– Benefits: Why implement UCG?
• Clean Coal’s CRIP Technology and Process
–
–
–
–
Overview of CRIP
Benefits of CRIP
Syngas and Economics
Site Selection Criteria
• Current Project: CECIC Partnership
• Appendices
Intro to CCL: Overview
Who is Clean Coal Limited (CCL)?
•
CCL is the leading developer of Underground Coal Gasification (UCG)
technology and projects
•
CCL specializes in the evaluation, design, implementation, financing and
management of commercial UCG projects worldwide
•
Headquarters in the UK and USA with commercial activity in strategic
countries including the UK, US, Canada, China, Turkey, Belgium, Poland and
Romania
Core
Competencies
Advanced
UCG
Technology
Project
Execution
Project
Finance
Intro to CCL: Corporate Structure
A family of businesses…
Intro to CCL: Resources and Experience
CCL’s Resources
•
Experience: Our team managed the longest and largest UCG trial in Europe.
CCL currently has the most UCG projects underway worldwide
•
Proprietary methodology: CCL has commercialized the CRIP methodology,
most efficient and effective way to exploit deep coal resources using UCG
•
Proprietary technology: including specialized burners, geological modelling
techniques/software and financial modelling software
•
Capital: we invest our own capital, and have access to large pools of global
investment capital
•
Partners: World-class partners including the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (additional technical expertise), Northern China Power
Engineering Co (engineering design for power plants and equipment)
Intro to CCL: Current Activity
CCL’s Worldwide Activity
Intro UCG: Overview
What is Underground Coal Gasification?
•
UCG is the process of gasifying coal in situ to produce high-quality syngas
•
Syngas can then be converted into a variety of products:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Methanol for power generation;
Diesel fuels
Jet fuels
Hydrogen
Urea for fertilizer
Although not new, UCG has developed dramatically in recent years:
opportunity now exists for progressive companies to participate in a new
industry environment
Intro UCG: Benefits
Why implement UCG? Many critical benefits…
•
Safety: no personnel required to work underground
•
Environmental:
• Ash is left underground
• CO2 can easily be captured and re-stored
• Much smaller surface footprint (as compared with traditional mining)
• No impact on surface or shallow ground waters
• Reduced SOx, NOx, methane, and Hg emissions
•
Economic:
• Deep, un-mineable coal can be effectively exploited as new source of
energy
• The process may be significantly cheaper than that for natural gas
• UCG process is economically competitive with gas, coal and LNG
• CO2 capture can provide carbon credits
• Syngas can be converted to many different end products
CRIP Methodology
Controlled Retraction Injection Point (CRIP)
•
•
•
Methodology developed by CCL’s team
Most efficient UCG methodology, especially for deep coal
Least amount of drilling
Two wells drilled into
the coal
1. Injection Well to introduce
the oxidants (H2O/air or
H2O/O2);
2. Production Well to bring the
product gas to the surface.
3. Advanced Directional Drilling
to link the two wells
4. Air/O2 Injection, depending
on financial model/syngas
use.
CRIP Methodology
CRIP module design: cross sectional view
CRIP Methodology
CRIP module design: view from above
Row of Injection
Wellheads
Row of Cavity
N
Row of Cavity
1
CRIP Cavity
N-N
Module
N
Inter-module
Distance
Row of Production
Wellheads
CRIP Cavity
N-1
Pillar Area
Cavity
Width
Pillar Area
Module
1
CRIP Cavity
1-N
CRIP Cavity
1-1
CRIP Methodology
Injection
Wellhead Row
Gasification panel layout and
lifecycle:
1. Exploration
2. Drilling and well installation
3. Active gasification
4. Venting and cooling
5. Return to ambient conditions.
Production
Wellhead Row
Future Expansion Panel
Drilling Panel
Gasification Panel
Venting and Cooling Panel
All these phases take place
concurrently during commercial
UCG.
Depleted Panel
O2
Compressor
View from above.
Power
Generation
Air
Separation
Surface Facilities
CRIP Methodology: Benefits
Benefits of CRIP relative to other UCG methodologies
•
Minimum disturbance to surface
•
Minimum amount of drilling
•
Maximum control over gasification process
•
Most efficient UCG methodology, especially for deep coal
CRIP Methodology: Syngas
Composition
Methane
10 – 20%
• Syngas produced during UCG is primarily composed of
methane, hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide
• Unprocessed syngas undergoes treatment to remove
water, sulphur, carbon dioxide and other waste products
–
Carbon Dioxide
25 – 40%
Hydrogen
10 – 35%
Treatments are well understood due to surface-level
coal gasification
Carbon Monoxide
10 – 20%
End Uses
Electricity Generation
Chemical Manufacturing
•
•
Supply to adjacent power stations is often the optimal use
Using syngas directly avoids energy loss from conversion
processes
•
High hydrogen content means ammonia can be created
–
Key input in fertiliser production
•
Syngas can be used as a reduction agent in iron and steel
production
•
Production of fuels such as gasoline, diesel and methanol
UCG Syngas
Iron and Steel Production
Gas-to-liquids
CRIP Methodology: Economics
UCG is highly cost-competitive with other energy sources: will
provide a low cost energy source for decades
Key issues:
• Reduced capital expense: Unlike IGCC’s, no need to purchase gasifiers or build ash and slag
management facilities. With syngas stream continuity, there is also no need for gasifier redundancy.
• Reduce operating expense: Unlike conventional plants, there is no need to purchase, transport,
store, or prepare coal. There is no need to re-brick the gasifier linings. Due to syngas stream
continuity, plans have high capacity factors comparable to pulverized coal or natural gas plants,
reducing down time.
• Reduced environmental management costs: Due to underground gasification environment,
UCG facilities produce no SOX or NOx. Particulate streams and mercury biproducts are 50% of
surface equivalents, and there is no production of ash.
• Fuel supply certainty: Because the supply of UCG syngas is local and continuous, operators face
no risk in fuel availability, supply costs, or supply disruption.
CRIP Methodology: Economics
Ability to commercialise coal resources which are too deep or unsuitable for conventional mining
1 mmBTU = 1 mcf of methane
≈ 2 mcf of syngas
• Virtually no competition for resources – lower
acquisition cost
• Scalable nature of projects – production can
be varied to meet demand
6
• Market constrained, not resource constrained
–
Syngas for other purposes could
command a lower discount or even a
premium
5
US$ / mmBTU (1)
• It is envisaged that syngas for electricity
production will be sold at a 20% discount to
the natural gas price on a $ per energy
content basis
4
3
• Main costs are drilling the production and
injection wells
2
• Key drivers of per-unit costs are:
1
–
Coal seam depth and thickness
–
Scale of the project
–
Coal quality (heat content, moisture)
Indicative Syngas
Sale Price Range
1.1
0.2
0.7
2.2
Depreciation
Total Costs
0.2
0
Drilling &
Piping costs
Other opex
Royalties
A cubic foot of syngas contains half the energy content of a cubic foot of natural gas
CRIP Methodology: Selection Criteria
Other values can be used if site conditions are suitable.
Current Project: Partnership w/ CECIC
Clean Coal China’s Primary UCG Pilot
•
18
$9.0 million to fund pilot phase (burn in Q1 2011)
– Exploration - $0.8mm
– Design, construction & drilling - $1.8mm
– Surface facilities - $2.2mm
– Operation, staffing and other - $4.2mm
Current Project: Partnership w/ CECIC
Cash flow positive by 2014
Project Overview
• Coal resource well understood
• Total estimated reserves: 1.0 billion tons
• Target seam reserves: 653 million tons
– Avg. seam thickness: 7.9m
– 320~599m deep
• Pre-feasibility study to be undertaken
Commercial Options
• The syngas will be supplied to the power plants
built by CECEP (formerly CECIC)
• Commercial development will proceed in three
stages:
– Stage 1: 25 MW Power Plant (Commissioning
expected by 2013)
– Stage 2: 250 MW Power Plant
– Stage 3: 1,000 MW Power Plant
Financial Projections
Regional Partner
–
The strongest, largest and most competitive
industry group in the field of energy
conservation and environmental protection in
china
Clean Coal will fund the pilot phase
Free Cash Flow (US$mm)
–
75
Free Cash Flow
50
20,000
25
10,000
0
0
(25)
(50)
(75)
2010
19
30,000
Syngas Production
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Production (mmBTU/d) .
• Project is a 49/51 joint venture with CECIC, a
large, central state-owned company
Current Project: Partnership w/ CECIC
CCL delivers project execution start to finish
•
Project Financing:
– CCL invests in UCG projects and also secures capital from other strategic and
financial investors
•
Project Assessment:
– Assess geological capability of project including seismic surveys
– Assess economics and complete financial modelling to ensure its economic viability
•
Technology:
– Provide technical leadership from project inception to completion
– Contribute our proprietary technologies and methodologies
– Cutting edge research and continued technological development
•
Project Execution:
– Design process from underground all the way up to the power plant door
– On ground management of all construction, engineering and drilling
– Assuring environmental safety of the project
Thank You!
Thank you
www.cleancoalucg.com
Appendices
Appendices
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
项目地址
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Previous Pilot: El Tremedal, Spain
Intro to UCG: Economics
Source: BP
Intro to UCG: Output
Syngas Composition
Case Study 1: Reference Data
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Depth:
Thickness:
In-seam length:
Rank:
HHV:
Power:
Number of modules/panel:
Total Power delivered/panel:
500 m
5.5 m
500 m
Sub-bituminous
20.9 GJ/t
40 MW per module
15 (run in parallel)
600 MWthermal
Case Study 1:
Water
Supply
Feeds
Oxygen
ASU
Water
Compression
Pipeline
CO2
Pumping
Nitrogen
Block Flow Diagram
of UCG
In-situ
sequestration
Compression
Gasifying Agents
UCG
Losses
Coal
Water
Recycling
Char
Water influx
Ash
Sparging
Pumping
Raw Syngas
Gas Refining
Steam
Cooling and
Water/tar
Removal
Water & tar
Water
Treatment
Raw Syngas (dry)
Waste
Compression
CO2
H2S & CO2
Removal
H2 S
Sulphur
Recovery
Refined Syngas
CC
Power
End-Products
SNG
GTL
Chemicals
Sulphur
Case Study 1: Panel Data
• Inter-module distance:
• Module life time:
• Gasification rate
- per module:
- total:
• One-year panel data
- tonnage gasified:
- tonnage in place:
• Energy recovery:
• Total energy recovery:
15 m
~150 days
188 t/d
2820 t/d
~1 Mt
~2 Mt
18.4 GJ/tonne of coal
~18 400 TJ per year
Case Study 1: Syngas Data
(Raw Syngas at wellhead)
• Flow
- per module:
- total:
• Composition
H2:
CO:
CH4:
CO2:
H2S:
H2O:
• HHV:
• Temperature:
• Pressure:
~18 000 Nm3/h
~270 000 Nm3/h
17.0 %
10.8 %
9.0 %
22.5 %
0.6 %
40.0 %
~8 MJ/Nm3
~300 °C
~46 bar
Case Study 1: Syngas Data
(Dry Syngas after water cooling & removal)
• Flow
- per module:
- total:
• Composition
H2:
CO:
CH4:
CO2:
H2S:
• HHV:
• Temperature:
• Pressure:
~11 000 Nm3/h
~165 000 Nm3/h
28.4 %
17.9 %
15.0 %
37.7 %
1.0 %
~13 MJ/Nm3
ambiant
~45 bar
Case Study 1: Syngas Data
(Refined Syngas after acid gas removal)
• Flow
- per module:
- total:
• Composition
H2:
CO:
CH4:
~6 800 Nm3/h
~102 000 Nm3/h
46.3 %
29.2 %
24.5 %
• HHV:
~21 MJ/Nm3
• CO2 production:
~120t/h
• H2S production:
~2.5t/h
• Temperature:
• Pressure:
ambiant
~43 bar
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Background of UCG Trial
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developing Technology from U.S and oil & gas
Industry –CRIP, in seam drilling, use of oxygen.
Thulin Trial(1979-87) – 860m depth, high CV gas.
European Working Group Report (1989)
Evaluated previous trials
Undertook economic evaluation and considered
That UCG in thinner and deeper seams feasible
Proposed two trials over a 15 year period at increasing depth.
Technical Objective of the 1st Trial
• Demonstration of Long In-seam Drilling
• Construction of a Competent gas Circuit between Injection and
Production Wells
• Demonstration of Adequate Coal
• Conversion
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Site Location
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
In-Seam Configuration and Project Plan
Preparatory Stage
• Geology and coal evaluation.
• Drilling, completion of boreholes,
• Surface equipment.
Gasification Activities
• Drying, pressurisation, ignition of
the coal
• Development of cavity by means
of the CRIP manoeuvre
Post-Burn Activities
• Determine cavity shape by drilling
• Validate gasification models used
for process control
• Site restoration
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Trial at 550m Depth (1992-1999)
•
Two successful ignitions, and seven
satisfactory manoeuvres of the CRIP
moveable injection system.
•
Directional drilling produced satisfactory
well construction.
•
Gasification at greater depth enhances
methane formation and cavity growth.
•
•
•
The engineering operated satisfactory
and the process is controllable, stopped
and restarted.
No evidence of contamination spread
beyond the cavity or subsidence was
observed.
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Geological Data from Test Site
Characteristics
• Two dipping coal
seams 7 to 14 m
apart
• Depth of 500-700
metres
• Seam thickness 1,9
to 7,0 metres
• Thin layer of clay
under both seams sand layers above
the coal were
known but
manageable.
• Tectonic framework
highly favourable to
gasification
(Isolation by faults)
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Coal Seam and Strata Characteristics
Hydrogeology
• Floor Thick Limestone
• Roof 15m of Sand
• Permeability's
• Coal: 1.96mD,
• Sand Strata:17.6mD
• Limestone: very low
• Drainage upwards and to N.
East
• Aquifer location and protection
favoured upper seam
Coal Analysis
• Sub-Bituminous C
• Vitrinite Reflectance 0.36%-0.43%
• Proximate Analysis
• Moisture 45%
• Ash 18%
• Volatile Matter 26.5%
• Total Sulphur 7.3%
• HHV 18095kJ/kg
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Three Operational Areas of Test Site
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
• Duration: 7years, 1991 to 1998
• Total Cost: $20 Million
Underground Gasification Europe, Teruel,
Spain Wells were completed with casing &
concentric tubing to provide necessary
paths for production, injection, purge-gas
& cooling water flows. A coiled tube
located in the injection well was used to
execute the controlled retraction injection
point, CRIP
Source: “Underground Coal Gasification –A Joint
European Field Trial in Spain”, Department of Trade
& Industry, UK, December 1999
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Gas Characteristics
Case Study 2: El Tremedal, Spain
Key Results
•
•
•
•
Coal Affected 290 tons
Product Gas 490 tons
Peak Power 8MW
Gas Composition (dry N2 free)
• Hydrogen 27%
• Carbon Monoxide 14%
• Methane 14%
• Carbon Dioxide 45%
• Calorific value of product gas (LHV) 10.9MJ/m3
Case Study 3: Queensland Australia
UCG Plant in Queensland Australia
Total resource: 364 million metric tons;
Average depth: 250 meters;
Coal seam over 10m thick
Total energy : 7,320 PJ of in-situ energy
(1 petajoule = 1015 joules)
Recoverable energy : UCG syngas
technology we can recover in excess of
4,245 PJ of energy as syngas
Case Study 3: Queensland Australia
Stage 1: Preliminary Planning
In most projects the levels of existing exploration are not
sufficient to define a geological resource with an acceptable
risk reduction profile.
Necessary to define geological resource to JORC standard
Therefore, the Queensland project began with seismic studies
and supplementary drilling programmes, to determine the
structure of the coal field.
The total cost for the preliminary planning was US $1.4 million
and took about 12 months to complete.
Case Study 3: Queensland Australia
Stage 2: Pilot Project:
Objectives:
• Demonstrate accuracy of our understanding of the site;
• Confirm syngas production rates and composition;
• Confirm linkage system;
• Provide data for Commercial stage.
Pilot project was developed consisting of a single CRIP module (one
horizontal borehole and one production well) with a small power plant.
Different injection mixes and cavity design procedures were investigated
to ensure the full commercial project is designed to optimal levels.
Completed January 2009 and successfully demonstrated that a large
proportion of the energy produced (68%) is in the form of methane and
ethane.
The Pilot Project cost approximately US$15 million, and took 100 days.
Case Study 3: Queensland Australia
Stage 3: Commercial Production:
The Queensland project has entered commercial production. It is
estimated that 50-60% of the resource will be used in the
process.
Some of the gas (about 30%) from the Queensland project is expected
to power a 400MW power plant for approximately 30 years.
Key Statistics
• The average in-situ energy on an air dried basis is 20.11 GJ/tonne of coal.
• The key energy components in the gas are:
o Methane & Ethane (components of natural gas): 68%
o Hydrogen & Carbon Monoxide: 32%
Case Study 3: Queensland Australia
Stage 3: Commercial Production:
Average Gas Energy Contribution (%)
-------------------------------------------------Methane
58%
Ethane
10%
Carbon Monoxide
6%
Hydrogen
26%
• One horizontal borehole unit (a CRIP module) of one kilometre in 5
metre thick coal seam and a heat value of 20 Mj/kg produces 50MW of
energy and last for about a year.
Environmental Factors: Risk Assessment
•
•
•
•
Methods & terminology may depend on country/region
Conceptual models
“Source–Pathway–Receptor”
“Pollutant linkage”
Environmental Factors: Site Selection
The most effeective way of reducing risk is
the break the Pollutant Linkage.
•Remove receptor: Select deep coals (>300m)
‐ These may be in regions of poor quality
groundwater unsuitable for consumption
‐ Deep coal seams are more likely to isolate
contamination from receptors
•Isolate Source:
‐ Select regions with minimal faults & joints
‐ Select sites away from receptors (e.g.
aquifers, abstraction wells)
‐ Select sites with good thick aquitards
surrounding cavity
‐ Consider accessory mineralogical
assemblages of surrounding strata & coal.
Environmental Factors: Subsidence
• Has been observed from previous UCG trials.
• Results from cavity propagation after UCG.
Environmental & process Issues:
• Surface subsidence
• Damage to overlying strataaquifers, coal seams etc
• Preferential pathways
• Enhanced permeability
Can Affect UCG Infrastructure
• On site plant
• Roads
• Other buildings
• Services
Environmental Factors: Subsidence
Coal and Overburden Characteristics
• Seam thickness and amount of coal
gasified
• Seam Depth (overburden thickness)
• Geomechanical properties of the
overburden (stiffness, yield strength)
• Fracture density and orientation
Surface deformation in deep UCG < shallow
UCG- but wider distribution.
Environmental Factors: CO2 Storage
Source: LLNL
Economics
Source: UCG Partnership
Economics
Production Costs Estimates from Gas Producers:
•Carbon Energy
•A$ 1.25 /GJ for UCG syngas (medium term outlook for Australian natural
gas = A$7/GJ
•Cost of power production = A$22.50 MWh
•Linc Energy
•Cost of syngas = US$ 0.6 – 0.8 /GJ
•Cost of synfuel = US$ 25-28/bbl
•Power generation =US$13 -US$15 per MW
Economics
Extending Coal Resource Life
• Proven global coal resources are estimated
to be over 900 billion tonnes
• However, calculation is not rigorous
Lignite
• Reality: US and Russia have resources that
will last through the 21st century
Coal
0
100
200
R/P Ratio - Years
Source: Energy Edge Ltd.
Source: Pan Fudan University
300
400
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
Rohan Courtney OBE, Non-Executive Chairman
Rohan Courtney was in banking for 27 years and held the position of General Manager for Europe of State Bank of New
South Wales for eight years until 1990. From 1990 to 1992 and at the request of the Bank of England, he was
Group Chief Executive of the merchant bank Robert Fraser. He was Executive Chairman of West 175 Media
Group from 1996 to 2001. He has held a number of directorships in a variety of industries. He was Non Executive
Director (Senior Independent Director from 2000) of Tullow Oil plc from 1993 to 2007 and was Chairman of the
Audit Committee. In 2005 he formed, together with Dr. Michael Green, the UCG Partnership, the professional body
and centre of excellence for all information on underground coal gasification. He has been involved in the
development of UCG since 2003.
Graham Chapman, MBA B.Sc (Hons) FGS, Chief Executive Officer
Graham spent 16 years in South Africa with Rand Mines and Ingwe Coal Corporation on operating mines, as a
geologist and later in an executive role in Head Office. In 1996 he set up Ingwe's (later Billiton) operations in
Indonesia. He successfully negotiated and managed two major joint ventures with Indonesian companies,
controlling exploration activities and managing the Billiton operations throughout the country. In 2001 Graham
transferred to the Melbourne Head Office of the newly created BHP Billiton Ltd as Vice President Strategy and was
instrumental in producing the new company’s first public strategy. Graham formed Energy Edge Ltd., an innovative
coal-focused consultancy in 2003, with four skilled professionals in the fields of energy and strategy development.
The company established a large blue-chip client base of major energy organisations.
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
Catherine Bond, LLB non-practising Solicitor, Managing Director- Corporate
Catherine qualified as a solicitor in London in 1993 and worked with Jaques & Lewis (turning into Eversheds) for a number
of years. Catherine joined Seymour Pierce, a London based investment bank, in 2000 as an equity leisure analyst
and moved to the corporate finance department in 2002. She has advised on numerous listings, fundraisings and
M&A transactions. In 2006, she became the Managing Director of European American Equities heading up the
London office.
Douglas Harmer, Financial analysis and modelling
Douglas has held senior positions at a number of investment banks, most recently as a director of mergers & acquisitions
at Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander. Douglas trained as a chartered accountant with KPMG and holds a first class
degree in economics and finance from the University of Manchester where he was awarded two KPMG prizes, one
Arthur Andersen prize and also graduated top of his year.
Marc Mostade, Technical Director
Marc is a chemical engineer with extensive experience of chemical modelling and practical application of UCG. After work
at the University of Liege in Chemical Processes and Chemical Engineering he was co-ordinator of a research
project in underground coal gasification in Thulin Belgium. He was then appointed Deputy Director-Technical of the
second underground coal gasification pilot in El Tremedal Spain, a project joint funded by Belgium, Spain and the
UK. After consulting work he became Product Manager in pumping products and Project and Production Manager in
the first carbon nanotube producer in Europe.
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
Dr Matthew Turner, B.Sc (Hons) PhD, Senior Geologist
Matthew obtained a degree in Geology at Cardiff University and a PhD in Earth sciences also at Cardiff University. He is a
specialist in geological modelling using geographical information systems (GIS) software. He has worked as a
Geophysicist and Project Scientist for Terradat UK. He was then employed as a Senior Research Associate at Cardiff
University undertaking a feasibility study on underground coal gasification in Wales. The study included a full
geological appraisal using complex 3D visualisation techniques and modelling to produce the first ever three
dimensional model of the South Wales Coalfield.
Dr Shaun Lavis, B.Sc (Hons) PhD, Senior Hydrogeologist
Shaun obtained a BSc in Exploration Geology (2:1 Hons) at Cardiff University, MSc n Geochemistry from the University of
Leeds and a PhD from Cardiff University. He was a Freelance Geoscientist working for Terradat (UK) Limited and then
joined WS Atkins as Environmental Scientist in 2006. He is a geoenvironmental scientist with professional experience
hydrological risk assessments, geochemistry, geophysics and site investigation.
Edward Stanley, BEng (Hons), Computational Fluid Dynamics Analyst
Edward obtained an undergraduate degree in Medical Engineering at Cardiff University and chose to specialise in
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis. While undertaking his postgraduate studies at Cardiff, he was a
teaching assistant, tutoring and supporting third year undergraduate students in Computational Fluid Dynamics.
Clean Coal Limited (UK) Staff
Philippe Fievez, UCG Project Manager and Engineer
Philippe Fievez is a mining and nuclear civil engineer who has a postgraduate degree in management and a diploma in
environmental methods. He was the Site Manager of the first underground coal gasification pilot in Europe and has held
line positions with Schlumberger, Halliburton. His career has included positions as research & development and
management, marketing and product management and as founder and CEO of a diamond tool business.
Henri Henquet, UCG Project Manager and Engineer
Henri Henquet was the Research Engineer involving the development and construction of laboratory systems for experiment
in coal gasification. He was Project Engineer for the second underground coal gasification pilot in Europe and has
worked on UCG projects since then. He is a Senior Project Engineer and continues to work in UCG.
Clean Coal Limited (US) Staff
Theodore Swindells, Chairman
Theodore H. Swindells has over 25 years experience in investment banking, venture capital, and corporate finance. Over the
past five years, Mr.Swindells has focused on natural resource and clean energy investments including coal mining,
precious metals extraction and processing, environmental remediation, fuel cells, and oil and gas equipment services.
Mr. Swindells was a founding partner of Maroon Bells Capital Partners for ten years, managing numerous private equity
investments in the global telecommunications industry. Mr. Swindells’ previous experience includes corporate finance
and venture capital positions with Drexel Burnham Lambert, RubiconVentures, Hambrecht & Quist, Woodman Kirkpatrick
& Gilbreath and Bank of America. Mr. Swindells holds a BA in economics from Claremont Men's College and an MBA in
Finance from Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Business.
Edward Mooney, President
Mr. Mooney has over twenty years experience in all aspects of corporate development for publicly-held and privately-held
enterprises, including mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, strategic planning, business development, investor
relations, corporate communications and corporate governance. Over the past ten years he has been an officer, director
or advisor on five reverse-mergers from start-up through initial acquisitions and recruitment of professional industry
management teams. He is also co-founder and chairman of the Global University for Lifelong Learning, a California notfor-profit organization focused on educational initiatives for developing nations. Mr. Mooney holds a Masters Degree in
Education and a Bachelors Degree in Geography from the California State University System.
Clean Coal Limited (US) Staff
Business Development Advisory Team
Jody J. Sitkoski
Mr. Sitkoski brings 30 years of hands on business experience in mining & mineral exploration, due diligence, mine facility
construction, power plant construction & maintenance and pipeline construction. With companies such as Bechtel,
GE Power Systems, Flour Daniels, Cleveland Cliffs and Wisconsin Gas & Electric and the DOE. Mr. Sitkoski has
experience with environmental technology processes
Daniel Carlson
Mr. Carlson is a Series 7 licensed broker and Investment Banker. Recently, Dan was working with Primary Capital where
he was responsible for evaluating, marketing and working with Chinese companies seeking public listings in the US
and financings through PIPE transactions. Mr. Carlson started his career on the Pacific Coast Stock Exchange
where he worked for over 5 years, achieving the level of Specialist on the trading floor. Mr. Carlson graduated in
1989 from Tufts University with a degree in Economics.
Clean Coal Limited (China) Staff
Rob Abbanat, Managing Director, Clean Coal China
Mr. Abbanat has 13 years of experience in finance, business development, and operations of high-growth companies. He has spent the last three
years living in China, where he has served as Managing Director of M1 Capital Group’s China organization. He has played a key role in structuring
deals and securing financing internationally for multiple companies at various stages of development, He has earned numerous awards including
SBA’s “Young Entrepreneur of the Year” and was inducted into Georgia Tech’s Council of Outstanding Young Engineering Alumni. Mr. Abbanat
holds a Bachelors degree in physics from Boston College, a Masters in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech, and an MBA from MIT. Rob is
also the author of LETTER FROM SHANGHAI, a monthly column published in Private Equity International's PEI Asia magazine
(www.letterfromshanghai.com). Rob's LETTERs offer an inside look at private equity, investment banking and the ever-changing economic and
political landscapes within China.
Alex Pang, Business Development Manager, Clean Coal China
Mr. Pang brings to Clean Coal Ltd. extensive experience in corporate finance, project financing, direct investments, and portfolio investments. Mr.
Pang has worked for some of the world's largest financial institutions, including HSBC Bank (China) and Citibank (China), as a financial manager
providing investment advice, financial planning, financing, and other services for a wide range of customers. He is familiar with both the domestic
and international capital markets, and has a successful track record of investments in China’s A-share markets as well as long-term management
of QDII investments in Hong Kong, the United States, and Europe. Mr. Pang is well versed with the nuances of China’s capital markets, and
possesses a deep understanding of China's fiscal, monetary, and industrial policies.