Discussion - Using Geostatistics To Predict The Characteristics Of Washed Coal - Technical Papers, Mining Engineering, Vol. 36, No. 4 April, 1984, pp. 369-373 – Armstrong, M.

M. Armstrong's paper is very interesting and can be regarded as a pioneering work of applying geostatistics on washed coal. The density levels used in her study are uniformly spaced, which facilitated curve fitting through a proper experimental design. Most of the existing coal washing plants in the US, however, gather washability data at non-uniform intervals which, in turn, affects the goodness of curve fitting. We would like to emphasize the importance of having a proper experimental design, if a similar geostatistical application is to be conducted on washed coal. We, at the University of Arizona, tried the variogram on recovery (Kim, Barua, and Baafi, 1982, SME preprint 82-143) which showed a similar pattern as Fig. 4 of Armstrong's paper. In both cases, the first experimental variogram value is invariably and inexplicably higher than the second variogram value. Although Armstrong ignores the first point because of "small number of sample points," we did not do so because there were 17 sample pairs. As a consequence, we concluded that the obtained experimental variogram was unsatisfactory and that further research is warranted. In other words, this disagreement in variogram interpretation between M. Armstrong and the University of Arizona begs the question whether the experimental variogram of Fig. 4 truly reflects the spatial correlation in washed coal, assuming there is such a correlation. Finally, we wish that Armstrong could have done a similar study on clean sulfur, which is a vital interest to the coal mines in the US. Her implied remark on sulfur in the concluding section of the paper may turn out to be incorrect because our experimental variograms on clean sulfur at different density levels were even less satisfactory than those on recovery. ?