Coal - Coal Washing in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska - Discussion

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