Search Documents

By O. Koatlhai

Mine closures have traditionally prioritised environmental rehabilitation, often overlooking the deep socio-economic disruptions that follow, particularly in mining-dependent communities. This paper argues that mine closure should not mark the end of prosperity but rather the beginning of a sustainable transition. The coproduction model, which integrates community participation, governance, and economic planning, offers a transformative approach to closure planning. Drawing on case studies from Ghana, Zambia, and Indonesia, this research examines the successes and failures of past closures, highlighting the critical role of stakeholder engagement, skills development, and economic diversification. By incorporating emerging technologies such as AI-driven economic forecasting, blockchain for governance transparency, and decentralised finance (DeFi) models, mining companies can ensure a just and sustainable post-mining future. This study challenges outdated closure models and presents a forward-looking strategy that sees mine closure not as an endpoint, but as a catalyst for social resilience and economic transformation. It underscores the need for policy reforms, stronger governance, and investment in alternative industries to prevent mining towns from becoming economic wastelands. By shifting the paradigm from remediation to regeneration, this research calls for a new era of mine closure planning that puts people and prosperity at its core.

Apr 25, 2025

By K. Isaac, S. O. Bada

This research focuses on the co-firing of discard coal with refuse-derived fuel (RDF) to utilize this abundant resource in South Africa for energy generation and reduce the volume of waste disposed of at landfills. The potential of a coal with a high ash content (> 40%), which is a grade used in some power stations in South Africa, and its combustion compatibility with two different RDFs in terms of emission reductions has been established. Gaseous emissions and ash residues from the combustion and cocombustion of the coal, two different RDFs and coal/RDF blends of different proportion were analysed. One of the RDF samples contained mostly paper (PB) and the other mostly plastic (PL). Co-combustion ash from the discard coal and RDFs showed a decrease in chloride and alkali metal contents as the coal ratio in the blend increased. The slagging propensity of the co-fired blends was found to be very low, while the propensity for fouling decreased from high to medium for all the blends with < 75% RDF. Cocombustion of RDF with coal showed a decrease in SO2 emissions from 387 ppm (discard coal) to 50 ppm for the sample containing 25% coal discard plus 75% PL. A 15% PL to 85% coal blend also reduced NOx emissions from 145 ppm (100% PL) to 88 ppm. The lowest CO2 emission observed was 6000 ppm for the blend of 85% discard coal plus 15% PB. It was established that the most favourable fuel blend that can produce the lowest sulphur emissions if used for power generation is the 25% coal discard plus 75% PL sample.

Aug 2, 2022

By G. M. Humphrey

It is a great honour and privilege to be here in this distinguished company of the outstanding men in the mining industry and the political life of Canada. I fully recognize that I am so honoured as a symbol of the combination of American and Canadian leaders in industry who are partners in the sponsor-ship of the Quebec-Labrador iron-ore mining development which we are undertaking, and as such I want to express our great appreciation of the co-operation and assistance we have met on every hand in Canada, and the genuine friendliness and never-failing courtesy which we are always accorded. We are quite aware that it springs primarily from the very high regard in which our partner and sponsor, Jules Timmins, and our other Canadian associates are held. Their high standing among you is well known and we quite naturally fall heir to the benefits of the great esteem in which you hold them. Jules Timmins and his long-time associate, John Knox, were the original inspiration for our participation in this venture. It was their enthusiasm and vision which caught our interest and led to our joining with them in the years of exploration and search which have brought us to the threshold of this great development where we stand today. So much has been written of the details of our exploration and plans for future development that it would bore you for me to review them further here, but there is a phase of this development, and an extremely important phase of it, which I think has passed almost unnoticed and which it may be well worth while for me to bring to your attention this evening.

Jan 1, 1951

By Jean-Pierre Birat, François Hanrot, Gérard Danloy

Global warming presents an enormous challenge to the steel industry, which is both carbon-intensive and energy efficient. Lean production can provide some short-term emission mitigation, at the level of the Kyoto requirements. In the middle term, more use of scrap will also help alleviate emissions. But to reach much larger reductions in GHG emissions, on a par with the likely targets that will be set after the Kyoto period, the steel industry will have to imagine new production paradigms, which constitutes its most formidable challenge for the years to come. Carbon capture and sequestration, processes leaner in carbon use, electricity and hydrogen from green sources will have to be added together in a patchwork of process routes, which will have to be developed at great risk in the next decade, hopefully through broad international cooperation.

Jan 1, 2004

By G. M. Bond

Reduction of the emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO,, is currently the subject of extensive research. A novel strategy is put forward here, based on a biomimetic approach providing accelerated deposition into carbonate form for long-term sequestration. It offers the advantages of a process that: does not require concentration of CO, from flue gases; could potentially be used in an on-site scrubber to provide a plant-by-plant solution to reducing CO, emissions; is an environmentally benign procss with an environmentally benign product; and is based on readily available, low-cost reagents (except perhaps the catalyst).

Jan 1, 1999

With the dawning of a new century came the beginning of a new era in the coal industry. Instead of the traditional practice of only buying and selling produced coal in the United States, a coal futures market was established. The New York Mercantile Exchange began trading coal futures in July 2001. But, even in this new era, many of the old is-sues that have beset the coal industry still remain, as was evident in2001. Coal production increased to are cord level during 2001, according to preliminary data from the US Energy Information Administration(EIA). Production in 2001 rose by4% to 1.01 Gt (1.12 billion st), compared with 2000 (Table 1). This barely surpassed the previous record level of 1 Gt (1.11 billion st)set in 1998. Coal consumption remained unchanged. The additional production was used to replenish the depleted stockpiles that had resulted after two years of declining coal production and increasing coal consumption.

Jan 1, 2002

By G. A. Vissac

O. R. LYONS *—I wish to thank Mr. Vissac for his compliment. I hope that his paper is not only well received, but that it will serve to bring forth more papers on the subject of thermal drying. One of the primary purposes of the work performed by Battelle for Bituminous Coal Research in investigating the thermal drying of coal was to stimulate other investigators and to get them to contribute their knowledge in the form of papers such as this one. We at Battelle and the personnel of Bituminous Coal Research are very gratified that Mr. Vissac and other persons have responded in this matter of the thermal drying of coal. I wish to state that I think that Mr. Vissac&apos;s paper is a very clear and easily understood description of a method of calculating the design requirements for a screen type drier, and I think that it would be exceedingly valuable to operators and to those who intend to purchase any type of thermal drier and use it in the future, if the manufacturers or operators who have such information for other types of driers would provide the same type of information for the other makes of driers now on the market. 1 also wish to point out—an idea that is new to me, and I know is new to most of the operators of driers in the United States-—the idea of recovering the heat that is normally lost in the coal and in the exhaust gases. This heat is not being recovered at most (of the thermal drying operations in the United States, and the possibility of recovering it should be called to the attention of every single one of those operators. I know many of them have never given any thought to the matter, but they will be interested once they realize the ease with which it could be done and the savings that could be realized. I also wish to compliment Mr. Vissac for presenting the method of analysis that he uses to determine the difficulty of drying any particular coal. It is a very simple method, and yet it seems to me that it should be a very effective, very efficient method for determining the difficulty of drying for his particular problems. C. Y. HEINER*—I do not know that I can add anything very illuminating to what Mr. Vissac has said. I think anything that Mr. Vissac said in regard to coal drying is a contribution because, to my personal knowledge, he has studied the matter carefully for many years and made many valuable contributions. I am not too familiar with coal drying problems in the east, but I know in the west we have not made enough coal drying studies. I think coal operators too often just take the coal as it is and make more or less the best of it. There are relatively few washing plants in the west now, and so the problem has not come to the front as much as it probably will in the future. In this connection, it seems to me that this matter of drying the raw coal, as Mr. Vissac brings up, is an extremely important one. We have not a continuous miner ourselves, yet, but we expect to get some this year, and we think the percentage of fine coal-—that is, minus 3/16 in.—will double. We have about 20 pct minus 3/16 in. in the 8 in. by 0 size now, and we think we will likely have 40 pct, which will have a surface moisture of the order of 8 pct. To wash it satisfactorily, we will have to dry the raw coal first in order to screen it, and after that, I suppose, there will have to be dry cleaning of some sort. We have not really used dry cleaning on fines in the west yet to my knowledge, but it is a matter that has to be faced by the industry, and I am very hopeful that Mr. Vissac&apos;s study will assist us in that connection. W. L. McMORRIS*-In my company we are preparing largely metallurgical coal for a great number of byproduct coke plants. The most outstanding thing to me about the requirements of moisture in the finished product is that there is a different requirement for almost every coke plant. Each operator has a different set of factors on which he establishes his coking costs where they involve moisture. For our corporation operations in Birmingham, my company does not produce the coal, but in Birmingham they are getting away with moistures very much higher than our plant at Clairton, Pa., would tolerate. The moisture that we have to produce for the plants along the lakefront where they are subject to much more severe weather is something else again. We have not tackled heat drying, primarily because our customers do not know what heat drying will do to the coking characteristics of the coal. If the temperature of drying can be held down

Jan 1, 1950

By W. E. Bearce

The recent concern for the recovery of even the finest fractions of coal preparation plant feeds has created needs for new equipment. Thermal dryers currently available have difficulty reducing the filter cake moisture on down to the desired point. This difficulty involves 1) the physical problem of handling this wet, sticky material and making each particle accessible to the hot gases, and 2) removing the extremely fine dried particles from the cooled gases. The dryer described in this paper handles the first of these problems, and eliminates the second by the substitution of steel balls for air as the heat transfer medium. As a general statement, the cost of preparing coal for market is inversely proportional to the size of the lumps or particles. In the not too distant past the finer sizes were discarded as being uneconomical to treat and this practice might be still continuing if it were not for the insistence of the public that this material be kept out of our streams. This being the only cost-free outlet, the disposal of fine refuse became a significant item of expense in every preparation plant. When this happened it was only reasonable to look to the recovery of the values in this material, not only to defray this expense, but to reduce the tonnage which had to be wasted. There seemed to be no device available suited to reducing the moisture in this material to what the market requires. All of the fine coal dryers commonly employed make use of air to bring the heat of combustion into contact with the coal particles. Any device employing air as a heat transfer medium, has the following two strikes against it in attempting to handle 28 mesh by 0 filter cake: 1) It is practically impossible to bring the hot air into intimate contact with the enormous number of fine particles stuck together in the cake. 2) Even if this can be effected, it is impossible to remove the dried coal from the air. A wet scrubber must be employed, the discharge of which must go back to the filter and dryer as a circulating load of the most objectionable sort, being the extreme fines. Various compromises have been used to cope with the problem of drying this relatively small tonnage of high moisture coal. Often some of the dried coal is mixed back with the feed to the dryer in an attempt to make the mixture more handleable and more available to contact with the hot air than the filter cake alone would be. This may help to some extent with the first problem but it does nothing about the second and a dryer operated in this way has to be oversized. Sometimes the filter cake is mixed with a coarser fraction for the same reason. Here again, while this may make a mixture (the particles of which are more readily brought into contact with the hot air), the problem of getting the fine coal out of the air remains and a larger percentage of the total coal to be dried is handled by the most expensive means. Mechanical dewatering has accounted for more and more of total coal drying lately and in many cases would satisfactorily handle the whole load, down to 28 mesh, if there were a means available for doing a good job on the —28 mesh by itself. The dryer which is the subject of this paper was designed expressly for doing this job — drying fine material by itself regardless of how wet it may be to start with, how fine it may be, or how gummy and sticky these properties in combination may make it. The essential features are depicted in Fig. 1. A rotating cylinder is supported on a frame in such a way that one end may be raised or lowered by hy-

Jan 1, 1968

By S. A. Braley

THE first commercial production of bituminous coal in the United States was in 1820, and formation of acid in the areas from which the coal was removed began at that time. Thus it is 130 years since the development of mine acid began. The coal operator has had to deal with the acid water produced in his mines, and his losses from corrosion of pumps and equipment have been tremendous. Other industries and the public have been forced to spend large amounts for their water requirements because of the acid discharge from the mines. There are many contradictions in the literature on this subject probably because of variations in the analytical procedures followed and differences in the methods of calculation and reporting. The opinions previously expressed may be summarized as follows: The production of mine acid has been looked upon as a simple chemical reaction wherein the oxygen of the air has reacted with pyrite to produce ferrous sulphate and free sulphuric acid. This reaction appears in many chemistry texts and generally has not been considered worthy of further study. Since the measurement of hydrogen ion concentration or activity was developed and expressed in terms of pH, indicator and instrumental methods for pH determination have become readily available, making it natural to think of it as a measure of acid content. Special purpose analytical methods applicable to potable waters, sewage effluents, and boiler waters, based in general upon the determination of what may be regarded as impurities, have been applied to more concentrated solutions constituting mine discharges, without reference to the fact that these specialized procedures had been developed to serve as operating guides for water-treatment plants. It has been assumed that the pounds of acid deliv- Table I. Showing pH and Titratable Acid of Varying Concentrations of Ferrous and Ferric Sulphates Ferric Ferrous ion Acldfty Ion Acidity (Fe+++) ppm CaCO3 We++) ppm CaCOa ppm PA equiv. PPm pH equiv. 11.200 1.80 30,000 11,200 3.98 20,000 5,600 2.01 15,000 5,600 4.15 10,000 2,800 2.21 7,500 2,800 4.41 5,000 1.120 2.48 3,000 1,400 4.68 2.500 560 2.60 1,500 140 5.00 250 280 2.65 750 28 5.00 50 112 2.81 300 56 3.07 150 28 3.38 75 ered by a mine was roughly a constant varying with the number of acres mined, and that the concentration of the acid in the drainage was inversely proportional to the volume of flow. Increased flow was thought to result in a dilution of the acid produced. When the Sanitary Water Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania established a fellowship at Mellon Institute, the first approach to the problem was to review some of the chemical reactions involved and their relation to acid production. Since the sulphates of iron were among the principal constituents of coal-mine drainage, the first studies were based upon solutions of chemically pure ferrous and ferric sulphate. These are both neutral salts, that is, the iron and the sulphate are equivalent, but they produce acid reactions in water solution because as salts of strong acids with weak bases, they hydrolyze to form acid solutions. Solutions of each salt, of varying concentrations, were prepared and the pH, titrable acidity and iron and sulphate

Jan 1, 1952

By Harlan W. Nelson, James B. Purdy

A study of data obtained during laboratory tests to determine the suitability of bituminous coals for use in residential underfeed stokers of the clinkering type has led to the following general conclusions: 1. Performance data obtained during the test furnish useful and practical information upon which to judge the performance of stoker coals. 2. Conclusions derived from the results of evaluation tests are in general agreement with use experience of the coals in the field. The method is of practical use in this regard. 3. Few direct relationships were found between data furnished by the evaluation test and determinations by standard laboratory tests. This is particularly true with regard to coke formation and clinker formation, two of the most important factors in determining the degree of satisfaction to be obtained in applications of the small underfeed stoker. It has not been the intention in this paper to prescribe this evaluation test as the best method for the evaluation of coals for use in residential stokers. That there are other test methods having similar objectives serves to point out the necessity for full-scale laboratory tests. At the present time, a standard test procedure for the evaluation of coals for use in residential stokers is not available. For the past several years a joint committee, appointed from the membership of the Residential Stoker Committee of Bitulninous Coal Research, Inc., and from the Engineer- ing and Research Committee of The Stoker Manufacturers Association, has been working to develop a standard procedure for testing and evaluating bituminous stoker coals. This procedure has been completed to the extent that it has been drawn up in tentative form. It is now planned to install the equipment in several laboratories and to run check tests, using portions of identical lots of coal, to determine the degree of reproducibility offered by the method. Completion of this standard test procedure should greatly facilitate the evaluation of coals for use in residential stokers. Acknowledgments The cooperation of coal operators sponsoring the coal evaluation tests, in granting permission to use data and results from their tests, is gratefully acknowledged. Acknowledgment is also made to Carroll F. Hardy, Chief Engineer, Appalachian Coals, Inc., for his interest and timely suggestions on the preparation of this paper. Special thanks are due to Ralph Sherman, Assistant Director, Battelle Memorial Institute, who was largely responsible for development of the evaluation procedure, for helpful suggestions and advice. References I. H. A. Sherman: The Evaluation of Coal for Use in Domestic Stokers. Univ. of Ill., Eng. Experiment Station, Circular No. 39 (1939). 2. . Q. Shotts: The Relation of Free- swelling Indexes to Other Characteristics of Some Alabama Domestic Stoker Coals. TP 2314, Coal Tech., (Feb. 1948); Trans. AIME (1948) 177, 502. 3. . J. Helfinstine and C. C. Boley: Correlation of Domestic Stoker Combustion with Laboratory Tests and Types of Fuels 11. Combustion Tests and Preparation Studies of Representative Illinois Coals. Ill. State Geol. Survey, Re1. of Zntlestigations No. 120 (19467 ) p. 35. DISCUSSION E. R. Kaiser*—AS a former fuel engineer assigned to residential stokers at Battelle, the writer has read with considerable interest the paper by Messrs. I&apos;urdy and Nelson. It is gratifying to note that earlier test techniques have been developed and that criteria found important in the years 1935 to 1938 are still important in judging the performance of stoker coals for residential heating. The authors have plotted a number of the primary coal data singly against performance data of the stoker in an effort to establish relationships. Unfortunately, wide scattering of points usually resulted, which did not illustrate what experience generally indicates to be the case. For example, Fig 3 indicates almost no trend in the percentage of released ash converted to clinker with change in ash-softening temperature. Other factors, such as fuel bed temperatures and zones of heat release must have influenced the results. In the present state of our knowledge, we cannot explain all of the reasons why suitable stoker coals perform satisfactorily, nor why one satisfactory coal may be better than another. It would therefore

Jan 1, 1950

By J Price, M. R. Geer, H. F. Yancey

COAL mine operators recognize coal as an abrasive material, because the wear of drilling, cutting, and conveying equipment is reflected as a cost item for replacement of parts. Similarly, industrial consumers of coal experience abrasive wear on all coal-handling equipment. Operators of pulverized fuel plants are doubtless most keenly aware of the abrasiveness of coal, because under the high contact pressures developed between coal and metal in pulverizers, abrasive wear is increased many fold. Moreover, experience in operating pulverized fuel plants has demonstrated that some coals are much more abrasive than others. Hardgrove&apos; stated that maintenance costs entailed by the wear of grinding elements is often a more important variable than the cost of the power required to pulverize different coals. Craig2 also reports that one coal may cause pulverizer parts to wear several times faster than another. It is apparent, therefore, that those concerned with pulverizing coal could profitably employ a method for estimating the abrasiveness of different coals, just as they utilize standard tests for thermal value, grindability, and ash-fusion temperature to assist in selecting the most suitable and economical coal to use in a particular plant. The objective of this investigation was to develop a test procedure that would be suitable for general use in estimating the abrasiveness of coals. However, few, if any, of the standard tests now used for evaluating the properties of coal are the product of a single investigation or the result of a single investigator&apos;s efforts. Rather, in each case, a testing procedure was devised by one investigator, used by others on a wider variety of coals, and finally refined completely as the result of the joint efforts of a number of interested people. Thus, the test procedure for estimating abrasiveness developed in the course of this work may not be refined sufficiently in its present form for general use, but it may serve as the starting point from which an acceptable test procedure can be developed. The method has been used thus far on only about a dozen coals, and there has been no opportunity to attempt a correlation between experimental results and actual plant experience. Only wider use of the procedure by other investigators and correlation with plant experience can determine to what extent the method will have to be modified to render it suitable for general application. Test Method Although the literature contains no record of an attempt to devise a method for estimating the abrasiveness of coal that could be used industrially, several investigators have tested properties of coal that are closely related to its abrasiveness. The abrasiveness of a material generally is considered to be related to its hardness, and hardness tests for coal have been employed by Heywood,&apos; O&apos;Neill," and Mathes. Also, the resistance of coal to abrasion, a property that presumably is related to the abrasiveness of coal, was measured by Heywooda and by Simek, Pulkrabek, and Coufalik.2 11 these investigators tested only individual pieces of coal. Since coal is a heterogeneous material having components of varying properties, tests of this type can yield results having little more than academic interest. Only a test method that utilizes a representative sample of coal can give results that are useful industrially. The abrasion tests used for various other materials have been considered for adaptation to testing the abrasiveness of coal. The tests used for metals,7-9 paving and flooring,&apos;" and rubber," cannot be used because coal is not sufficiently abrasive.~ The present experimental work was begun before World War II and was conducted by three research fellows"&apos;" working under a joint agreement between the University of Washington and the Bureau of Mines. After a great deal of preliminary work with a variety of apparatus and materials, a test procedure was developed which consisted of rotating a test disk 2Yz in. diam in a steel mortar containing the coal sample. The shaft carrying the test disk at the lower end and a 100-lb load on the upper end was free to move vertically. The bed of coal in the mortar was kept fluid by low-pressure air admitted through a port near the bottom of the mortar. Measurable wear on an Armco iron disk could be obtained in this test procedure, but, despite extensive efforts to eliminate them, several major disadvantages remained in this test method. First, with most coals the amount of wear on the iron disk did not exceed a few milligrams. Second, a single type of disk was not applicable for all coals. A smooth iron disk gave satisfactory results with both bituminous and sub-bituminous coals, but hardly any wear with anthracite or coke. A disk having studs or projections gave more satisfactory abrasion losses with anthracite and coke and presented no operating difficulties with free-burning bituminous and sub-bituminous coals. It could not, however, be used with caking coals because these coals formed a

Jan 1, 1952

By W. J. Parton

D. R. MITCHELL*—The Chairman mentioned that we have had many papers on cleaning of fine coal and treatment of wash water solids. There are, of course, two reasons for that. One is that we have legislation, particularly in the east. that is making us go into these things whether we want to or not. It just so happens at the present time that I have four plants that are going up under my general direction, three new and one rehabilitation job, and in all of them, we have these problems. Therefore, I was very happy to be able to listen to these papers, because some of the things that are in them are going to help me solve some of the problems that I am facing. Of course, the second reason why we are concerned about fine coal recovery is the fact that coal has become a luxury item in a good many places, particularly in the anthracite region, so that we cannot afford to have it go to waste like we did in former years. There is a third minor reason, and that is that we are finding how to handle and use the extremely fine sizes that we did not know how to use in former years. Now, I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask. First, what are the maximum solids that you could have in a pulp going to one of these launder screens? I realize that it would be for anthracite. Second, of course the life of these screen surfaces is not very long— with brass or bronze, I believe it is a week, and with stainless steel, a month. Would it be possible to use screen surfaces like the Bixby-Zimmer round rod for the small sizes and possibly increase the life? Have you experimented with that? Another point that I would like to bring out, both in Mr. Parton&apos;s paper and in some of the others, in studying cyclones and any settling apparatus where we use orifices, the life of the orifices is very short, and that is a problem that still has to be solved. The capacity of the cyclone seems to be small, and if you have a bat-

Jan 1, 1950

By J. C. Rengel

Why and how the nuclear industry entered the electric power generation business is discussed in terms that nuclear energy was an undoubtedly additional energy resource and that it had promise of becoming a virtually inexhaustible generating power if breeder reactors could be devised. The growth of nuclear power, its total generation capacity, are related to the need of increasing energy requirements. The use of atomic energy for power generation will grow if it can compete economically with other fuels. The rate of growth, the time scale and direction of technical development is dependent on ore supplies. It is predicted that by 1980, 50% of all new power installations will be nuclear stations. INTRODUCTION Ten years ago, the nuclear industry was virtually unborn, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 had just been signed, and peaceful applications of atomic power was little more than a phrase. Serious discussion of the practical application of nuclear energy to electric utility installations in the West was highly unlikely. The questions: Why and how did the nuclear industry enter the electric power generation business at all?; What is the predicted growth of nuclear power?; What technological changes do we predict?; How will the above changes affect the utilities? will in part be answered by this paper. WHY NUCLEAR POWER? The only justification for the West as for any other section of the country for atomic power is economics. Whatever energy source will provide the lowest generation cost will prevail; the only electric utilities which have shown an interest in nuclear power are those to whom it means lower generation costs. It is true that the Government sponsored the development of this technology long before there was any evidence of better economics; but a Government must take a very long-range view and it is the only type of organization that can afford to look more than twenty or thirty years into the future. The Government looked at projections such as shown in Fig. 1, which shows various rates of energy consumption, and matched these against estimates of fossil fuel resources. This showed that we will exhaust our low-cost fossil fuel supplies within 75 to 100 years and our total known fuel supplies within 150 to 200 years. The decision to invest in nuclear energy rested, therefore, on two arguments: a) It was undoubtedly an additional energy resource; and b) It has promise of becoming a virtually inex-haustable resource if breeder reactors could be devised if, while generating power, the reactors would produce more fissile materials than they consumed. This decision produced an unexpected bonus: nuclear power became competitive with fossil power much earlier than had been expected and, as shown in Fig. 2, forced the coal industry to take a hard look at its own position. I believe that the drop of coal prices shown here is the direct result of the entry of nuclear power into the energy supply business. At this point, it ought to be explained why and under what conditions nuclear power can be cheaper than fossil power. Fossil fuel cost to the utility is composed of two factors: a) Mining; and b) Transportation. As a result, the cost of fossil fuel to the utilities varies from 126, 106 Btu to 306, 106 Btu and higher. Nuclear energy is highly concentrated and the transportation factor becomes insignificant. Today the cost of nuclear fuel to the utility ranges between 156

Jan 1, 1967

By C. T. Holland

This discussion is concerned with those com-J- paratively infrequent bumps that eject material from the failed mass with enough energy to wreck heavy machinery and seriously injure or kill people. In such cases there is a loud report, and the pressure waves set up in the mine atmosphere wreck ventilation controls several hundred feet from the site of the failure. Vibrations are induced in the earth&apos;s crust which may be detected several miles from the point of origin, and explosive gases may be released in large quantities." Usually a dense suspension of dust is produced from the failed mass, together with dust placed in suspension by the resulting air blast. These rock bursts or bumps have also been called mountain shots, bounces, pillar bursts, and crumps. Such occurrences, when extensive, are serious catastrophes, and may force abandonment of the mine.&apos; CAUSES OF ROCK BURSTS Rock bursts in coal mines have occurred in sev-eral places under diverse geological conditions, mining methods, and/or practices. A study of many such occurrences indicates that they depend on the following conditions: 1) cover thickness of 500 ft or more, 2) cover composed of strong members and having a strong member lying close to or on the coal bed, and 3) a floor that does not readily heave. The minimum thickness of cover under which coal mine rock bursts occur is based on observation. Under unusual circumstances involving very strong roof members and/or mining systems, and/or practices especially likely to induce bursts, a burst conceivably could occur under less roof. Under special circumstances rock bursts have occurred in marble quarries almost at the surface.&apos; Furthermore, under very heavy cover it is likely that controlling roof members need not be as strong and as close to the coal bed to cause bumps. Just what constitutes a strong roof or roof member is open to question. Obviously the strength of a roof member is determined by its thickness, the distance between bedding planes across which little or no bond exists, the spacing and development of joints, and the inherent strength of the rock material. Strata sections showing roofs under which rock bursts in coal mines have developed are illustrated in Fig. 2. In several instances the strength of rocks composing the roof of mines developing bumps has been tested. The tests (Table I) show that these rocks develop considerable strength in compression, bending, and shear and that in some cases the strengths are very high. No quantitative data are available concerning joints in roof members over coal beds where rock bursts have occurred, but the author has examined many mines subject to bursts and has received the impression that joints in the shales immediately over the coal beds are always present and well developed. In the main sandstone or conglomerate members themselves, however, where observed, he has yet to see a fracture system indicating well developed joints. Undoubtedly joints are present, but the evidence indicates that they are few, poorly developed, and widely spaced. In a mine subject to bumps, moreover, actual measurements of roof spans up to 225 ft between supports under a cover of about 800 ft have been made before roof failure occurred. Such spans signify strong roof. In coal beds subject to rock bursts, the bottom rock is usually a sandy shale. A few tests (Table I) have been made on the floor rock of coal beds. Observations in mines indicate that they are usually weaker than roof rocks and that under load they show more plastic effects. Observation in ground subject to bursts invariably indicates a relatively strong floor highly resistant to heaving, although some heaving may occur. Other factors listed as favorable to rock bursts are: 1) mountainous surface; 2) steeply dipping beds; 3) proximity of faults, folds, and other similar geologic structures. Many bursts have occurred in mines under mountainous country, although many bursts in mines under a surface with little relief indicate that thickness of cover, not relief, is the essential factor. In steeply dipping beds, many bursts occur in mines that are essentially flat, and rock bursts have been recorded in beds dipping as much as 35o Most rock bursts in the U. S. occur in beds that dip less than 10 pct. It is also true that most U. S. coal is produced from beds dipping less than 10 pct. Geologically, faults are regarded as providing stress relief, but in the vicinity of faults, as well as sharp folds, it would seem that residual stresses could be present. The fact that rock bursts occur in areas remote from faults and sharp folds suggests that their presence is not necessary for this phenomenon to take place. There have been many bursts close to faults and folds, and it may be assumed that occasionally such structures accentuate their occurrence3 The conditions and circumstances under which they occur, coupled with the effects produced, leave In the Crowsnest Pass coalfield, British Columbia, a rock burst is estimated to have released 1.8 million cu ft of methane.

Jan 1, 1959

By Phil Shelton

What exactly does clean coal mean? Mining coal creates dust and releases methane gas. And burning coal liberates CO2 and emits particulates, including SO2 and NOx. Coal creates wastes that are often stored in unsightly and potentially dangerous slag heaps and lagoons. When clean coal technology is discussed, it sometimes seems that creating modern or ?ultra super critical? coal-fired power stations is presented as the main or even the only answer. However, there may be a more holistic approach. Using the energy potential of coal is always going to have environmental impacts. Some of these will be negative. But the need to secure future energy resources demands that society tackle these negative issues and find ways to minimize and offset them.

Jan 1, 2010

By M. R. Geer Olds, H. F. Yancey

.I. S. Huckaba (Western Machinery Co., Spokane, Wash.)—It has been my pleasure and privilege to be able to follow this work with the H.M.S. pilot plant very closely. This has been a very thorough and painstaking piece of work and will be of great value to the dense-media operators and manufacturers. Unfortunately time was not available to make an accurate comparison between this pilot plant and the commercial plant at Bellingham Coal Mines, both plants having Wemco drum separators. Briefly I would like to point out what I consider the most interesting finding of this work. Capacity: Very good results were obtained at a feed mte of 5.2 tons per hr in a 30-in diam by 24-in. long drum separator. The maximum capacity of this drum is not known but it is something over 5.2 tons per hr for the available area of 2.08 sq ft. Medium Preparation: The importance of proper medium preparation is well demonstrated. A "tailored" or

Jan 1, 1954

By Albert L. Toenges

C. P. HEINER*—I would like to ask Mr. Toenges about the highest rank coal. I did not get that clearly. What kind of coal is that? A. L. TOENGES (author&apos;s reply)— The coal in the Matanuska field ranges from high volatile "B" bituminus to anthracite. It all depends on which direction you go in the Matanuska field. C. P. HEINER—Is it a large reserve. A. L. TOENGES—That is what we hope. That is what we are trying to find out. B. W. DYER*—In those strip beds, I wonder how far back the coal would weather ? A. L. TOENGES—I never noticed particularly. B. W. DYER—The weathering does not extend back like it does in this country ? A. L. TOENGES—No, it does not. B. W. DYER—Is that due to the freezing ? A. L. TOENGES—Probably so. B. W. DYER—In this country, you would expect nothing but weathered coal. R. H. SWALLOW*—Along that line, you mentioned some of the seams were on fire. Did you ever know how far back they burned, or was it hard to tell ? A. L. TOENGES—The fires occurred in the mine. That one you refer to was from an inside fire.

Jan 1, 1950

By Hubert E. Risser

Although, for about a half-century the percentage of coal production provided through strip mining has steadily increased, recent trends indicate that a peak in percentage (not tonnage) is being approached, principally because of the decline in economic adrantage enjoyed by strip mining compared to underground mining. Factors contributing to the decline are the decrease in the margin of advantage in manpower requirements held by strip mining; an increase in depth and volume of overhurden, requiring larger equipment and capital investment; increasing lack of reserve land blocks large enough to support extensive strip mining operations; more stringent legislation for reclamation of stripped land, with increasingly higher costs of such reclamation; and the increasing costs of land surface rights for strip mining. Already there has been a peak and suhsequent decline in relative importance of strip mining insome major Eastern coal-producing states; trends indicate that a peaking for the whole Eastern region is on the way. Although, in the West the pressures are less severe, they will, nevertheless, reduce to an increasing degree the advantage that strip mining has possessed. For about half a century, strip mining has been providing an ever-increasing share of total coal output in the United States, and in the past 30 years this share has grown from less than 8% to 33.7%, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 also shows that strip mining is gaining faster in the West than in the East. From 1961 to 1967, output from strip mines grew 63.6 million toqs, or 52.2%. Certainly there is nothing in such performance to indicate any peaking in the level of strip coal-mine production. But the fact is that, if not in actual tonnage, strip mining appears to be reaching its peak in relative importance, at least east of the Mississippi River. And the area east of the Mississippi provides 90.0% of the strip and 94.9% of the total coal production of the nation. The relative economic advantage which spurred strip mining&apos;s growth for a third of a century has been diminishing markedly in recent years. Fig. 2 shows evidence of this decline. From 1947 until 1961, strip tonnage output remained fairly stable, at the end of the period showing only a 12.5% decline. Meanwhile, underground coal production fell 44.5%. As the result of the greater decline in underground coal, strip coal in 1961 furnished 30.3% of the total coal produced, compared to only 22.1% in 1947. In the succeeding six years, however, underground coal output increased by 76.5 million tons, while strip output increased only 63.6 million. Further evidence of the strengthening of underground coal&apos;s relative position — or if you will, the weakening of strip coal&apos;s position — can be found in the major coal stripping states: Illinois, West Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and West Virginia, which in 1966 provided 80% of the nation&apos;s strip coal. Fig. 3 shows what has been happening in three states lying in the Appalachian field and in the total output of these three states. In the figure, the column height represents the output of coal mined by all methods. The number at the base of each column is the percentage mined by stripping. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, the percentage of strip mining increased between 1956 and 1961, but by 1966 had declined from the 1961 level. In West Virginia, a decline occurred during the first five years but was followed by a rise. In January 1968, Coal Age published an article listing the locations and capacities of new large mines in the planning and construction stages that would be operating by 1968-1971. The plans for West Virginia and Pennsylvania indicated all the new mines would be underground. Except to the extent they might replace existing under-

Jan 1, 1970

By J. D. Price, W. M. Bertholf

A. C. RICHARDSON*—First of all, [ think that the paper represents a lot more work, study, and correlation than has been indicated by the brief talk by Mr. Price. I like the way he started out and described the areas from which the samples were obtained, the locations of the washing plants, the available tonnages, and other background information with which to evaluate the data he submitted later on. Then I like the way in which he described the various types of washing plants, the tonnages handled and the difficulties of the washing problems; showing the amount of material that lies close to the specific gravity at which the washing separation is made. Later he gave figures from washing plant operations showing recoveries and cleaning efficiencies. He then discussed his own plant at Pueblo. It is the same old plant, I think, that I worked around a good many years ago. It is unusual to find a plant treating nearly 5000 tons of coal a day on tables. But this table plant is, I believe, more efficient than is indicated by the figures that Mr. Price gave. To determine the efficiency of a cleaning operation or to compare it with another it is necessary to consider the quantity and character of the material close to the specific gravity at which the separation is made. It is not fair, I believe, to penalize the table operation by something like 4 pct of out-of-place-material as he has done here. The variety and difficulty of the coals that he has to wash, the continuous shift and change in their composition make a very difficult cleaning problem and the table performance is excellent. I believe that the information in this paper will be of interest and value to anyone operating or planning to build a coal cleaning plant in this or other areas; particularly where the cleaning of fine coal is a problem. The data may be used for comparative purposes in determining the relative efficiencies of other cleaning plant separations. E. D. HAIGLER*—What is a Baum jig? J. D. PRICE (authors&apos; reply)—A Baum-type jig is one in which the pulsations of the water is secured by means of a pulsating air current applied on top of the water. I imagine you are all familiar with the old plunger-type jig which is in effect a U tube in which a plunger on one side of the U, moving up and down, causes a corresponding pulsation on the far side of the jig. In the Baum jig, the pulsating air current is applied on the surface of the water on one side of the U tube of the jig and gives a corresponding pulsation on the other. It is also commonly known as a pneumatic jig. The control of the rise and fall of the water in the jig body proper is under much better control than it is in any of the other type jigs. Mr. Richardson could enlarge on that feature, for I know that he has had considerable experience with these jigs. A. C. RICHARDSON—You have asked how to control a Baum-type jig. The pulsations in a Baum jig can be modified and regulated to a marked degree by the amount of water admitted to the jig and by the adjustments of the valve which regulates the manner in which air is admitted. The number of pulsations per minute is controlled by the number of cycles of the air valve. Thirty to forty cycles per minute is a good speed for large jigs treating coarse sizes of cod. With an air valve it is possible to modify the time-velocity curve of the pulsating water to some extent which in turn determines the action in a jig bed. Within limits the following parts of the air valve cycle may be regulated: (1) the rate and period of air admission, (2) the period of air expansion, (3) the rate and period of air exhaust, and (4) the period of air compression. The rate and period of air admission determines the acceleration of the water at the beginning of the pulsion stroke and the amplitude of the stroke. The period of air expansion, after inlet port is closed, is one in which the water has reached the desired velocity, positive acceleration reduced, and the bed held in a mobile condition. The rate and period of the air exhaust can be adjusted to modify the degree of suction and so modify the manner in which the particles in the bed stratify. The compression period, alter the exhaust port closes and before the intake port opens may be used to advantage in retarding the downward velocity of water during the suction stroke. An ideal jig stroke is one in which during the up stroke the bed is lifted slowly in a mass and opens up like an accordian with the bottom layers dropping away first. With the bed open and mobile the particles adjust themselves according to their hindered settling rates. During the down stroke, while the bed is still open the particles of high specific gravity are accelerated toward the bottom layers. It is possible to approach this stroke with all types of jigs but it is less difficult to approximate it with a Baum jig.

Jan 1, 1950

By M. R. Geer, H. F. Yancey

0. R. LYONS*—I know that we are all interested in hearing about problems that other people have. To most of the people from the eastern part of the United States, this kind of coal preparation is completely different. It represents washing difficulties that most operators have never experienced, or, if they have, they have refused to consider them because there are coals that are much easier to wash and, therefore. they leave the more difficult ones alone for the time being. E. R. McMILLAN†—I think the au-thors have summarized the material very well. Dr. Yancey has spent a great many years in the study of washing coals, as has Mr. Geer. I might comment briefly on some of the plants that were mentioned, plants with which I have had some con-nection, particularly those of our own company, the Northwestern Improve-ment Co. I would like to point out this: that ill each case, a great deal of work was done in the way of preliminary studies of washability of the coal before plants were built. The first plant of any size built in Roslyn field was mentioned in the paper. This central cleaning plant was designed and built to handle coal from three different mines. I might say that prior to 1935, the year in which the plant was built, the coal was used largely as railway fuel, close to a million tons annually. But as mining increased in depth, it became increasingly difficult to separate and gob much of the impurities underground, with the result that the run-of-mine coal became so high in ash that the railroad eventually was forced to consider installing some kind of preparation plant at the mine. We spent about a year in preliminary studies in cooperation with the Bureau of Mines to find out the best type of plant that would clean the coal. The result, as Mr. Geer has explained to you, is a rather complicated plant, but it is doing a very satisfactory job. We have, however, made a number of changes and improve-n~euts since it was first built. The last addition was the, installation of a cen- trifugal drier to dewater the minus ¼ in. size. We are now contemplating installing heat driers for further drying of minus ¼ in. We use Vissac heat driers for drying the stoker coal, the ¾ to in. The demand for drier coal, for both railway and industrial use, is forcing us to further drying of the coal. The plant that was mentioned as having been built in Pierce County, during the war, was a government sponsored plant. I happen to have had some connection with its design, construction and initial operation. We did what we thought then, and still think, was a very thorough job of preliminary studies in cooperation with the Burea of Mines of the coal from that field. The plant was as good a plant as could be built with the equipment available at that time, 1943. The plant that was mentioned as having been built at Ravensdale for treating the McKay coal was rebuilt about two years ago, and in addition to the modified Elmore jig washer that was mentioned. we added a coucentrating table for re-cleaning the minus 3/32 in. Our object there was to produce a commercial

Jan 1, 1950