Search Documents

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 J. G. Balkestein, J. W. R. Baerts

During an attempt to develop a method for accurate, rapid, continuous analysis of ash content of wal, the Dutch State Mines Laboratory found that the absorption coefficient for X-rays was related to ash content. This relationship was utilized in the development of an apparatus called CendreX, used to measure the absorption and in turn the ash content. The principle, procedure, accuracy, and applications of the CendreX automatic determination of ash in coal are discussed in detail. Until recent years coal preparation research was concentrated on the possibilities and efficiency of preparation equipment. Ever increasing demands for quality in coal, however, have caused researchers to become concerned with quality control. One of the characteristics strongly influencing quality (calorific value) and, consequently, the price of coal is ash content. Both customer and producer require that the ash content be controlled. To make this possible it is necessary for the producer to collect samples from the coal stream in the washery and to determine their ash content. On the strength of the results obtained the production process can then be adjusted, if required. Until recently incineration was the only method for determining ash content. When coal is incinerated with oxygen, it takes at least 15 min to determine the ash content. Even then some time may be lost in passing on the data. Therefore, this discontinuous and time-consuming method does not make a suitable starting point for checking, re-adjusting, or modifying the production process. Since it was not possible to accelerate incineration by mechanization and automation, another type of rapid continuous analysis had to be found. This would have to depend on some coal characteristic closely linked with ash content. At the Central Laboratory of Dutch State Mines, Dijkstra and Sieswerda found that the absorption coefficient for X-rays was suitable for this purpose. An apparatus based on the measurement of this characteristic was developed. Named CendreX,* this patented equip- *A Stamicarbon N. V. registered trademark. ment, used in combination with a sampler and conditioning apparatus, permits continuous determination of ash content with satisfactory exactness to within 3 min.t At the American Mining Congress meeting of May 1961, Log A. Updegraff, surveying aspects of continuous analyaia, reported on the CendreX appartus (Mining Congress Journal, August 1961). Since the first Condition for correct ash determination, whatever the method used, is always a sample taken in the right way, some practical aspects of sampling will be discussed first. SAMPLING In coal handling operations, each grain has its characteristic properties. In both the cross-sectional and longitudinal direction of the product stream the mixture of these grains is imperfectly blended. The elimination of the factor of segregation between the cross-sections from the direction of the stream is the principal aim of continuous analysis. Therefore, the samples to be analyzed are withdrawn in various places from the segregated product stream in such a way that they form a semi-continuous flow. In order to be truly representative of the product stream, the sample flow must fulfil two conditions: 1) The sample flow must be sufficiently large to insure that adventitious differences between the composition of the product stream and sample flow will be as small as possible. 2) All grains through the entire cross section of the product stream must have an equal chance to get into the sample flow. Since there is always a segregation through the cross section the sample flow will have a bias if the sampler collects only part of this section. In order to prevent the volume of the sample flow from becoming too large, the cross sections are taken discontinuously. However, this discontinuity gives rise to the adventitious differences that arise between the composition of product stream and the sample flow, and these differences become greater and are more deranging as the fluctuations follow each other more quickly. Moreover, the intervals between the morrnents of sampling mean a delay in the analysis. The aim will, therefore, be to collect small samples, or in other words thin cross-sectional increments, taken at sufficiently high frequencies. The following points should also be taken into account: 1) The smallest dimension of the openings in the sample collector must be equivalent to at least 3 d in

Jan 1, 1962

By C. D. Allman

Specifications for coal at the Grand Lake thermal electric station read in part: "Coal will be Rom Minto Bituminous (strip operation). Maximum lump 3x3x4 ft. Very corrosive, abrasive and when damp, sticky. Coal may consist of frozen lumps of coal, snow and ice." To maintain quality control it was necessary to develop an automatic sampling system capable of: 1) sampling from one 10-ton truckload every 1½ min; 2) permitting an operator to automatically take a sample from each truckload; 3) depositing the sample in a pre-selected container, one of a possible 10; and 4) performing the sampling operations in accordance with latest ASTM specifications for sampling coal with an ash content of 35%. This paper tells how these and other problems were resolved and describes the equipment used. The New Brunswick Electric Power Commission issued detailed specification No. 5351-5009 outlining the scope of work and general requirements for a mechanical coal handling system to be installed at the Commissions Grand Lake Generating Station. The thermal station is located at Newcastle Creek, some 40 miles east of Fredericton, N.B. Canada, on the shore of Grand Lake. This particular location is immediately adjacent to the Minto strip mining coal area of New Brunswick. Contained in the specifications, but not detailed specifically was an automatic coal sampling system. The system outlined, was to be designed and specified by the individual equipment tenderers. In conjunction with the Hardinge Co., the Barber-Greene Co. designed a sampling system which was contained in the general contract proposal. The system as designed originally, however, presented certain limitations to a continuous coal handling system and was ultimately changed. However, it was only through preliminary study and design that problems created by the specifications were determined, and these problems discussed and finally negotiated with the NBEPC engineering staff created the subsequent sampling system now being installed by Barber-Greene. It must be considered that where the original specifications did not detail the mechanical equipment, it was necessary to present a system which would correspond to the intent of specification and for which Barber-Greene would be responsible as to function, but remain in a competitive position with regard to the tender considered primarily on a price basis. The system now being installed, contains basically all the components which were detailed originally, with the exception of the holding bin arrangement, which was changed to allow a continuous operation of the entire coal handling system. SPECIFICATIONS The specifications covering the sampling system follow. 4.5 Sampler: An automatic sampling system shall be installed capable of sampling one-truck load of coal every 1½ min. When the coal is dumped into the receiving hopper, the operator shall push a button and the sampler shall automatically take a sample of that particular coal when it reaches the sampler. Then the sample taken shall be crushed and reduced in quantity to a workable sample and deposited in a pre-selected container, one of a possible ten. All samples and sampling operations shall be in accordance with the latest edition of ASTM designation 492 for sampling coal with an ash content of 35%. The coal for the initial sample shall have maximum sized lumps of about 3/4 in. and the final sample shall be adjustable from 2 to 5 lb per sample and capable of passing through a sieve with 1/8-in. diam openings. It should be noted that, because of the time delay between the time the sample is requested and when it is actually taken, the operator may call for one or two additional samples from different coal before the first sample is completely refined and in the final sample can. Coal is received from a number of different suppliers on the same day, therefore, the system shall be designed so that there is no possibility of mixing or contaminating the coal from the different suppliers. All coal rejected from the sample shall be returned to the main conveyor. All chutes, hoppers, etc. shall be designed in accordance with Section 4.6 of these specifications. 4.6 Chutes, Hoppers, etc. All chutes and hoppers

Jan 1, 1963

By W. J. Verner, J. R. Lucas

Billions of tons of bulk solid materials are processed through our industrial plants each year, and the tonnage is steadily rising. It has been estimated that for every dollar spent in industry as a whole, approxinlately 30 cents is consumed in the handling of bulk solid materials. It is in this category that tremendous savings are possible through the use of improved techniques. Since World War 11, the mining, steel, chemical, and grain industries, among others have made use of increased materials-handling automation in order to gain some of these savings. However, in a chain of automatic operations, every link must be completely reliable, for if there is a single failure, the whole system immediately becomes ineffective. Only too often the weak link in the chain proves to be the flow of bulk solids from bins. To contribute to the fundamental knowledge in this area, a research study has been continuing at The Ohio State University. The principal objective of the investigation has been to study the internal stresses existing in confined bulk solids. LITERATURE SURVEY Literature studies have revealed that many outstanding people have made contributions to the field of bulk solids. For instance, C. F. Jenkin,1 suggested: a. The pressure on a bin wall is not directly proportional to the depth beneath the surface of material in the bin. b. The vertical pressure distribution on the base of a bin is not actually uniform but is a variable. c. Arches form in bins as a result of very small deformations of the material in the bin. This deformation causes a series of gaps to appear, and consequently causes the disappearance of diagonal forces that cannot act across these gaps. The removal of the diagonal forces causes horizontal forces to be introduced which seem to be the chief cause of arching. 11. A. Janssen,4 in 1895 in connection with his experiments on bins, derived a differential equation to describe both the lateral and vertical pressure in bins with vertical sides. This represents a significant contribution to bulk solid theory, and thus its solution is reproduced as follows: L = KV = RW/U' [l-e -U'KY/R] I where L is the lateral pressure of the bulk solid in psf., V is the vertical pressure of the bulk solid in psf., K is the ratio of the lateral pressure to the vertical pressure at any point, R is the hydraulic radius of the bin in feet, W is the density of the bulk solid in lbs. per cubic feet, U' is the coefficient of friction between the stored material and the bin wall, and Y is the head of material above the point in question in feet. In 1903, Jamieson,6 in an elaborate series of experiments on full sized bins measured vertical and lateral pressures by hydraulic diaphragms. He determined many values for mediums of corn, wheat, peas, and flaxseed. In 1951, Caughey, Tooles, and scheer3 measured both lateral and vertical pressure in deep bins by using strain guages on steel bands. Values were calculated for cement, gravel, sand, soy beans, shelled corn

Jan 1, 1961

By W. R. Kube, W. H. Oppelt

Five low-rank coals, including two lignites, a steam-dried lignite, and two subbituminous coals, were carbonized at 940°F, in a bench-scale carbon-ize~ with a nitrogen and hydrogen atmosphere, or both, using pressures from atmospheric to 1000 psig. Coking characteristics were observed, and yields, composition, and distribution of products from thermal degradation were determined. The influence of pressure on yields from coal carbonization, as well as on modification of coke structure, has long been of interest. One of the first attempts at pressure carbonization was that of Capps and Hulett1 who in 1917 investigated the effects of pressure ranging from 1 to 20 atm on yields at 600° C for bituminous and subbituminous coals. High-pressure carbonization has not been used commercially for coke production. More recently, carbonization at relatively high pressure in the presence of catalysts and hydrogen has been proposed for the production of metallurgical-grade coke from low-rank fuels.' Another approach involves carbonization at high pressure in a hydrogen atmosphere to produce heating gas and a solid residue that is gasified with oxygen and steam to produce the hydrogen required for hydro-genation 3-4 or, alternatively, is burned to raise steam. Recently it has been proposed to carbonize coal under pressure, burn the gas in a gas turbine to produce power, and use the solid residue as fuel in a conventional steam-power plant.5 Our primary interest in pressure carbonization stems from an attempt to determine the influence of pressure on the coking characteristics of lignite to design a high-pressure slagging gasifier using oxygen and steam. At atmospheric pressure, North Dakota lignite is generally considered to be non-coking. However, lignite and subbituminous coals have been reported to show increased agglomeration properties in steam, hydrogen, or carbon-dioxide atmospheres at elevated pressures, although no strong coke was formed at pressures up to 3000 psig.6 If lignite would agglomerate seriously under gasification conditions, proper flow of charge through the gasifier could not be maintained without installing a mechanical stirring device or destroying the caking properties of the coal before gasification. Data on the caking properties of lignite or other gasification fuel, as well as on yields of products under conditions simulating the carbonization process in the pregasification zone, were required in the preliminary design stage of the gasifier. No information was available concerning the influence of pressure and type of atmosphere on North Dakota lignite. To provide this basic data, the U. S. Bureau of Mines investigated the effect of pressure and a hydrogen or nitrogen-rich atmosphere on the yield of products and on coke formation in a bench-scale pressure carbon-izer. SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION Five coals were tested at 940°F in nitrogen and hydrogen atmospheres, at pressures from atmospheric to 1000 psig. Yields and composition of solid, liquid, and gaseous products were determined as a function of the process pressure, and attention was given to the physical appearance of the solid residue. Percentage of carbon converted, sulfur retained in char, and thermal balances were calculated. In this paper, primary consideration is given to carbonization in a nitrogen atmosphere and to data concerning the solid phase. The effect of pressure in hydrogen is presented in detail for only one lignite. More complete information on the response of the other coals in a hydrogen atmosphere will be published in a USBM Report of Investigations. DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT Details of the bench-scale pressure carbonizer are given in Fig. 1. The body of the carbonizer was

Jan 1, 1961

By S. C. Sun, John A. L. Campbell

The surface properties exhibited by bituminous coal and bituminous coal lithotypes were ascertained by using streaming potential techniques. The electro kinetic prop-erties wereascertainederties of bituminous coal were found to be similar to those of anthracite. The principle electrokinetic properties of the coal and lithotypes, zero-points-of-charge (ZPC), and potential determining ions, were established. The effects of indifferent electrolytes, hydronium and hydroxyl ion sources, and polyvalent ions (cationic and anionic) were also evaluated. Location of the ZPC's with respect to pH is discussed in terms of chemical and mineralogical composition of the respective surfaces. To account for the observed electrokinetic phenomena, a generalized surface model and adsorption mechanism are proposed. Surface-dependent processes, such as froth flotation and flocculation, are important or potentially important techniques for combating some of the current major problems in coal preparation. In order to correctly apply or improve a surface-dependent process, it is of paramount importance to understand the interfacial phenomenon, especially the double layer properties, exhibited by the solid. The specific objective of this research was to determine the properties of the bituminous coal/liquid interface by an electrokinetic method, streaming potential, and to relate the findings, wherever possible, to the existing unit operations of froth flotation and floccula-tion tion. The electrokinetic properties of both the whole coal and its lithotypes were investigated. As part of the total investigation, the role played in the double layer by the reagents commonly employed in the surface dependent process was also established.' These data will be presented at a later date. Experimental Procedures The coal samples used in this research and their designations are listed in Table 1. The classical description of humic coal lithotypes as developed by Stopes" was used for the delineation of the lithotype samples. The samples were taken from the working face of a producing deep mine of the Pittsburgh seam in the area of Ellsworth, Pa. To avoid oxidation, only freshly exposed areas were sampled. The normal precautions against contamination were also exercised. Two types of samples were taken, specimens rich in a particular lithotype and a representative channel sample. The latter sample was prepared for analyses by grinding it to —35 mesh. It was screened repeatedly during the grinding to provide the largest amount of 35 x 48-mesh (standard Tyler sieves) material possible. The screened fraction was passed over a magnet and then washed several times with distilled water and finally with conductivity water. The resulting sample now termed "whole coal" was stored under conductivity water in a glass bottle. Pure lithotypes were obtained from the lithotype concentrates by hand picking, and were processed in the same manner as the representative sample. Maceral analyses, employing standard petrographic procedures," were performed on the lithotype samples to determine the purity of the samples. The results are presented in Table 2. Reflectance measurements of the vitrinites and fusinites are also reported in this table. Proximate and ultimate analyses of the samples are given in Tables 3 and 4. The electrokinetic properties of the coal samples were determined by streaming potential methods.'-' All of the chemicals used in the investigation were reagent grade (Baker analyzed). The conductivity water was prepared by doubly distilling the water in a pyrex Yoe-type still and passing the distillate through a mixed bed ion exchange column. Results In general, the electrokinetic properties of the investigated bituminous coal were found to be similar to the results of a previous study of anthracite by Camp-bell bell5 and are in accord with the suppositions of Brown." The zeta potentials of the coal and all the lithotypes were found to be negative in conductivity water. Jowett? in a study of slime coatings on coal also found bituminous coal to exhibit a negative surface. Fig. 1 shows that the negative charges, at neutral pH's, for both fusain and the gangue are very small, almost zero, while at the same pH, vitrain has the largest negative charge, almost 30 mv. Durain has a negative charge of 17.5 mv. The determination of the affect of pH on the charge of the coal surfaces revealed that hydronium and hydroxyl ions apparently behave as potential determining ions; however, they do not appear to be potential determining for the gangue. These results are illustrated in Fig. 1. As the pH of the solution was decreased, hydronium ions were adsorbed, causing the surface of the coal to reverse polarity and become

Jan 1, 1971

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'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.' 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.' 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 H. B. Charmbury, D. R. Mitchell

Everyone in the coal industry from top management to the preparation engineer is vitally interterested in recovering as much salable coal as possible from the run-of-mine product. Coal losses from a preparation plant occur in the solid refuse material being discharged from the plant and in the bleed-off slurry from the water circuit. The refuse is generally hauled from the plant in solid form by trucks, conveyors, or aerial trams to the refuse or culm banks or it may be crushed and transported by hydraulic methods to refuse ponds or dams. The loss of coal in refuse material and the extent of this problem has been covered in another paver.' The loss of salable coal in the plant bleed-off slurry is one of the water circuit problems in coal preparation plants. Slurries originate at various places in the processing circuits and are usually disposed of by transportation to waste ponds known as slurry ponds. Even though the combustible material discharged as slurry and refuse from the plant is labeled a loss, the loss must only be considered temporary. There is a tendency at the present time to examine refuse and slurry losses and to reprocess these materials to recover valuable coal. Slurries from eight bituminous coal preparation plants in central and western Pennsylvania have been sampled and examined to determine the amount of recoverable coal in each. Examinations of the samples were made to determine the tons per hour of solids and the gallons per minute of water in the slurry; the size, ash, and sulfur analyses of the solids; and the sink-float characteristics of the larger solids. The extreme fines (—325 mesh material) from one of the samples has been examined further to determine the micron size fractions as well as the ash and sulfur content of the micron sizes. Collection of the Samples: Field trips were made to each of the plants where samples were obtained and discussions held with the preparation engineer prior to sampling. The flowsheet of the plant operation was studied and a time-period selected to obtain a representative sample. At least 20 1-gal samples of total plant bleed-off suspensions were collected at each plant in increments over designated periods belived to be typical of the plant flow Three of the samples were obtained from plants in the Pittsburgh area. Each plant supplied information on the capacity, operating time, type of cleaning equipment used, water and material balances, and auxiliary equipment. From the time required to collect given amounts of slurry and from the amount of solids in the slurry, total solids discharges from the plant were calculated and compared with the plant flow. Ash and sulfur analyses of the total solids were also checked, at some plants, with company figures. In all cases where checks could be made there was reasonable agreement between company figures and those reported here. Analysis of the Slurries: Representative fractions of properly agitated samples were examined in the laboratory to determine the specific gravities of the slurries. The solids and water were separated by filtration to check the weight of each so that the percent of solids in the pulp could be determined. From the resulting data, presented in Table I, it may be seen that the percent solids in the slurries ranges from 2.8 to 39.0 and the amount of solids from 2.61 to 45.61 tph. Size Analysis of Solids: Representative fractions of the slurries were permitted to settle and the clear water was removed by siphoning. The solids were then wet-screened at 28, 35, 48, 65, 100, 150, 200 and 325 mesh. Results of the size analyses are presented in Table 11. These results indicate the extreme variation of sizes and in most cases the degree of fineness of the solids. The amount of —325 mesh ranges from 22.5 to 84.5 pct and the amount of+200 mesh from 8.3 to 69.1 pct.

Jan 1, 1961

By E. E. Donath

Application of the coal hydrogenation process for the production of chemicals is described. It has been estimated that a plant to produce 31,090 bbl per day of chemicals and fuels would cost $326,- 000,000. These products would consist of 6.1 pct by weight tar acids, 50.8 pct aroma tics, 16.4 pct LPG, and 26.7 pct gasoline. THE coal hydrogenation process is well known as a means for the production of liquid fuels from coal. In this paper the possibilities of the coal hydrogenation process as a source of chemical raw materials will be discussed. The recovery of chemicals from coal hydrogenation products necessitates some modifications and additions to the equipment used for the production of fuels. The conversion of coal into liquid fuels such as gasoline requires two steps: liquid phase and vapor phase hydrogenation. Intermediate oils obtained in the liquid phase contain oxygen and nitrogen compounds, especially aromatic compounds, since the coal itself is composed mainly of cyclic compounds. These oils are the raw material for the separation of high molecular weight aro-matics and of tar acids and tar bases. The relative amounts of heavy and middle oil—boiling above and below, e.g., 325°C—can be influenced by temperature, residence time, and catalyst of the liquid phase hydrogenation. In the vapor phase hydrogenation a solid bed catalyst is used to convert the intermediate oil from the liquid phase operation into hydrocarbons of the gasoline boiling range. Essentially pure hydrocarbons with a low content of sulphur, oxygen, nitrogen, and olefines are obtained. Depending mainly on the catalyst, the high ring compound content of the liquid phase oil can be preserved and gasoline rich in aromatics obtained. However, with other catalysts, these ring compounds can be split into gasoline with a high content of isoparaffins.' Again, depending on the operating conditions, products of varying boiling range can be obtained. Selection of catalyst and operating conditions therefore makes possible the production of different grades of motor fuel and also variations in the relative amounts of benzene, toluene, and xylene when aromatic hydrocarbons are produced. The schematic flowsheet, Fig. 1, shows the main steps of the coal hydrogenation process, and the product streams used for the recovery of chemicals are indicated. In the liquid phase hydrogenation stage, coal is made into a paste with recycle heavy oil. The coal paste is mixed with hydrogen and preheated at a pressure of 300 to 700 atm in heat exchangers and preheaters. The coal paste and hydrogen enter high pressure converters where the liquefaction of coal, conversion of the high boiling liquid materials initially obtained, into intermediate oils is performed at a temperature around 470°C. The reaction products enter the hot catchpot in which lower boiling oil vapors are separated from the residue containing unreacted coal, ash, and heavy oil. This residue, usually called H.O.L.D. (heavy oil let down), is processed to separate solid and liquid material. By thermal treatment of the residue, e.g., a coking process, distillate oil is obtained, which can be recycled as part of the pasting oil. This stream is rich in polynuclear aromatics and can be, and has been, used for the recovery of such material. The oil vapors and hydrogen from the hot catchpot are cooled in heat exchangers and a cooler, and the condensed oil is separated from the recycle hy-

Jan 1, 1953

By E. E. Donath

Application of the coal hydrogenation process for the production of chemicals is described. It has been estimated that a plant to produce 31,090 bbl per day of chemicals and fuels would cost $326,- 000,000. These products would consist of 6.1 pct by weight tar acids, 50.8 pct aroma tics, 16.4 pct LPG, and 26.7 pct gasoline. THE coal hydrogenation process is well known as a means for the production of liquid fuels from coal. In this paper the possibilities of the coal hydrogenation process as a source of chemical raw materials will be discussed. The recovery of chemicals from coal hydrogenation products necessitates some modifications and additions to the equipment used for the production of fuels. The conversion of coal into liquid fuels such as gasoline requires two steps: liquid phase and vapor phase hydrogenation. Intermediate oils obtained in the liquid phase contain oxygen and nitrogen compounds, especially aromatic compounds, since the coal itself is composed mainly of cyclic compounds. These oils are the raw material for the separation of high molecular weight aro-matics and of tar acids and tar bases. The relative amounts of heavy and middle oil—boiling above and below, e.g., 325°C—can be influenced by temperature, residence time, and catalyst of the liquid phase hydrogenation. In the vapor phase hydrogenation a solid bed catalyst is used to convert the intermediate oil from the liquid phase operation into hydrocarbons of the gasoline boiling range. Essentially pure hydrocarbons with a low content of sulphur, oxygen, nitrogen, and olefines are obtained. Depending mainly on the catalyst, the high ring compound content of the liquid phase oil can be preserved and gasoline rich in aromatics obtained. However, with other catalysts, these ring compounds can be split into gasoline with a high content of isoparaffins.' Again, depending on the operating conditions, products of varying boiling range can be obtained. Selection of catalyst and operating conditions therefore makes possible the production of different grades of motor fuel and also variations in the relative amounts of benzene, toluene, and xylene when aromatic hydrocarbons are produced. The schematic flowsheet, Fig. 1, shows the main steps of the coal hydrogenation process, and the product streams used for the recovery of chemicals are indicated. In the liquid phase hydrogenation stage, coal is made into a paste with recycle heavy oil. The coal paste is mixed with hydrogen and preheated at a pressure of 300 to 700 atm in heat exchangers and preheaters. The coal paste and hydrogen enter high pressure converters where the liquefaction of coal, conversion of the high boiling liquid materials initially obtained, into intermediate oils is performed at a temperature around 470°C. The reaction products enter the hot catchpot in which lower boiling oil vapors are separated from the residue containing unreacted coal, ash, and heavy oil. This residue, usually called H.O.L.D. (heavy oil let down), is processed to separate solid and liquid material. By thermal treatment of the residue, e.g., a coking process, distillate oil is obtained, which can be recycled as part of the pasting oil. This stream is rich in polynuclear aromatics and can be, and has been, used for the recovery of such material. The oil vapors and hydrogen from the hot catchpot are cooled in heat exchangers and a cooler, and the condensed oil is separated from the recycle hy-

Jan 1, 1953

By H. J. Gluiskoter

The chlorine content of the coals in the Illinois Basin ranges from 0.00% to more than 0.60%. The chlorine content of the Herrin (No. 6) Coal has been mapped on a regional scale and, in general, increases with the depth of the coal. The depth-chlorine correlation exists because the coal is in apparent equilibrium with the composition of the ground water associated with it, and the salinity of the ground water generally increases with depth. At least part of the chlorine can be easily removed from the coal in the laboratory. In a natural weathering experiment, chlorine values decreased markedly during an 8-week period. Results to date indicate that none of the coals studied has a sufficiently high chlorine content to make it unusable in high-temperature steam boilers, although special steps may be necessary in the preparation or utilization of some of the highest chlorine coals. Investigations into the occurrence and distribution of chlorine in Illinois coals have been in progress at the Illinois State Geological Survey for over 35 years. Since 1948, chlorine analyses of face channel samples and of drill core samples of coal have been made routinely. The increased interest in chlorine and alkalies in coal in the U.S. followed that in Europe, where power plants during World War II were called upon to produce at higher levels than previously and with less down time for maintenance. Higher steam temperatures were reached, resulting in increases in the amount of fouling of external heating surfaces and in corrosion of boiler tubes when high chlorine coals were used. Early studies of the problem showed that coals with high chlorine content were more likely than those low in chlorine to cause difficulties in installations fired with powdered fuel. Crossleyl reported that the first rule of thumb developed for British coals was that coals considered to be high in chlorine (more than 0.30%) caused the most trouble, those intermediate in chlorine content (0.15% to 0.30%) were less likely to cause difficulties and those low in chlorine (less than 0.15%) generally were not associated with alkali bonded deposits and corrosion. However, this relatively simple picture was not adequate to characterize the difficulties that could be expected during the utilization of a large number of coals and Crossley1 developed another scheme for assessing the chances of superheater corrosion. This scheme took into consideration the observation that coals high in sulfur as well as chlorine are more likely to cause corrosion and fouling than coals low in sulfur and high in chlorine. Crossley also considered the ash content. When two coals had the same chlorine and sulfur contents, the one with the greater amount of ash would be the less likely to cause difficulties. Knowing only the amount of chlorine in a coal obviously will not give all the answers. Indeed, the significance of the chlorine content has been much discussed and it has been suggested that perhaps the total alkalies are a better indicator of possible troubles. The observation that the deposits that form

Jan 1, 1968

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

THE increase in the number of coal-cleaning plants employing dense-medium processes occurring since 1946 is especially interesting when viewed historically. Both sand and magnetite were introduced as material for heavy mediums at about the same time, sand in the Chance process in 1921 and magnetite in the Conklin process in 1922, but from that point on their records diverge. The Chance process enjoyed a steady growth from its inception, whereas no additional magnetite plants were built in the United States for over 20 years. Then, following the close of the World War 11, magnetite was again introduced, this time with marked success. During the following years some 47 plants employing magnetite medium were built. This rapid growth of dense-medium cleaning has been concurrent with widespread adoption of full-seam mining on one hand and a return to a more competitive market on the other. At a time when changing mining practice has provided cleaning plants with dirtier coal and changing market conditions have simultaneously demanded a cleaner product, the industry has through necessity turned to improved preparation. The inherently greater sharpness with which dense-medium processes can separate coal from impurity is thus helping to hold the line against ever-increasing mining costs and at the same time assisting materially in retaining badly needed markets. Although dense-medium cleaning unquestionably offers a distinct advantage when the washing problem is difficult, other methods can provide almost equally high efficiency when the coal is easy to wash. Moreover, fine coal cannot yet be treated by heavy medium in a proved process, although the Driessen cyclone is in the pilot-plant stage. Most of the present types of dense-medium equipment have been in use only a few years, and the dearth of information in the literature concerning their performance characteristics is entirely understandable, Nevertheless this information is necessary if the process is to be intelligently applied to individual cleaning problems. Without data on the efficiency of a process in a particular type of separation, it is difficult to assess the advantage to be expected from it. Similarly, the role of particle size in heavy-medium separation is important in some cases, yet there is little published information on this aspect. To mention only one more of the numerous points on which essential information is lacking, the bearing of medium characteristics on performance has been discussed only in qualitative terms. It was with the hope of providing information on some of these points that the Bureau of Mines built a dense-medium pilot plant for cleaning coal at its Northwest Experiment Station in Seattle in 1950. The plant has been operated continuously since that time, and over 50 runs have been made on 7 coals exhibiting a wide range of washability characteristics. An idea of the magnitude of this work will be gained from the fact that examination of the plant products has involved some 600 float-and-sink separations and about 2500 ash determinations. A laboratory pilot plant is especially well adapted to investigate many aspects of performance because close control over test conditions can be exercised and because a large number of tests can be made rapidly. On the other hand, factors such as consumption of medium and other cost items can be investigated satisfactorily only in a commercial plant. Actually, the two forms of investigation should be complementary, with the laboratory work pointing the way for confirming tests in commercial units. Pilot Plant The dense-medium pilot plant employed for this work comprises a 24x30-in. drum-type separating vessel, a 12-in. densifier, a 12-in. magnetic separator, a 26-in. x 9-ft vibrating screen, and the necessary pumps and conveyors for handling materials. Arrangement of these units corresponds with the flowsheet used in most commercial plants, except that a thickener is not provided for the feed to the magnetic separator. Coal and refuse discharge from the separating drum to the vibrator, which is divided longitudinally down the center. Medium draining through the first 3 ft of the screen is recirculated directly to the drum. Sprays on the middle 3 ft of the screen rinse medium from the products, and the last 3-ft section is for dewatering. Dilute medium from the rinsing and dewatering sections is pumped to the magnetic separator, where magnetic solids are recovered. These are pumped to the densifier, from which they return to the medium-drainage sump by gravity through a demagnetizing coil. The drum-type separating vessel is a scale model of a commercial unit. Feed enters axially at one end of the drum just below the surface of the bath, and float material overflows through a circular opening at the other end. Particles sinking to the bottom of the bath are picked up by lifting flights bolted to the inner wall of the drum, elevated out of the bath, and sluiced to the vibrating screen. Baffles suspended in the bath prevent float material from entering the sink-lifting flights. About 8 gpm of medium is used to sluice the feed into the drum. An additional 15 to 24 gpm, depending upon operating conditions, is added through two pipes dipping into the bath behind the baffle on the side where the sink-lifting flights enter the bath. The bath available for separation is 2 ft long and 13 in. wide, giving an area of 2.08 sq ft. Depth of bath from the surface to the top of the sink-lifting flights, measured vertically below the axis, is 6 in.

Jan 1, 1954

By T. S. Spicer

The relationship of coal characteristics to the principal types of firing equipment has been known to the coal combustion engineer, but is not as familiar a subject for purchasing agents, salesmen, consumers, and executives of coal-producing and consuming companies. This general survey of characteristics determined by standard laboratory tests, of major types of combustion techniques, and of the relationships between the two is directed toward the latter audience. It will also serve as a review for those actively engaged in the combustion of coal. Although the relationship of coal characteristics to the principal types of firing equipment is well known to the experienced coal combustion engineer, apparently there is need for a summary article on this subject. The author has received numerous requests for such a paper from purchasing agents, coal salesmen, coal customers and executives of coal-producing and consuming companies. Consequently, the scope of this paper will be directed to this audience, with the hope that it may serve also as a review to others actively engaged in the combustion of coal. The magnitude of this subject is so great that only a brief general treatise is possible. The author realizes that because there are so many special cases and exceptions to the generalities which follow, he is in jeopardy of contradicting himself. It is the hope, however, that the many references cited will prove valuable to those who wish to study the details excluded by necessity, due to space and time limitations. Hence, the characteristics of coals as determined by standard laboratory tests will be discussed; the major types of combustion techniques reviewed; and then the characteristics and firing will be related. CHARACTERISTICS OF UNITED STATES COALS The coals of the United States range from lignite to anthracite and each has its own general characteristics. The extensive coal fields of the U. S. are shown in Fig. 1 and the estimated reserve according to rank for each state is illustrated in Fig. 2. Coals may be classified according to rank as shown by Table I from the ASTM Standards on Coal and Coke, D-338-38.1 The basis of this classification is ac- cording to fixed carbon and heating value (Btu per pound) calculated to a mineral-matter-free basis. The high-rank coals are classified according to fixed carbon on the dry basis; and the low-rank coals according to Btu on the moist basis. Agglomerating and slacking (weathering) indices are used to differentiate between certain adjacent groups. While rank is not itself a characteristic it does signify certain characteristics that accompany a class of fuel. Anthracite, for example, immediately implies a hard, free-burning, smokeless coal of low volatile matter, usually having an ash of high fusibility. Coals may also be classified according to grade as described by ASTM Designation D-398-37.1 This quality classification is determined by size, calorific value, ash, ash-softening temperature, and sulfur. This type of classification is not used as extensively by the industry as the rank classification. Fig. 3 shows the heat value of different ranks compared to proximate analyses. Coals may also be classified by sizes, as shown in Tables IIA and IIB, and sizes can be on both top and bottom limits. If this is done, then the coal is called double screened; otherwise, either top or bottom sizes can be specified as a limit. Bituminous coal sizing varies from field to field and depends upon the market demand. The common sizes and their main uses are outlined in Table IIA. Anthracite is usually available in many sizes at the colliery, and Table IIB summarizes standard sizes and names. Although rank, grade, and size designations help identify and describe a coal in question, there still remain other characteristics such as indicated by moisture, free swelling index, grindability tests, etc. A bituminous coal information chart Table III) suggested for use in studying the available coals in a region, lists origin and chemical and physical characteristics. Even this more comprehensive list does not completely spell out all the characteristics of a heterogenous material like coal. For example,

Jan 1, 1961

By Henry R. Linden

The demand for natural gas continues to increase at higher than anticipated rates, partly because of its widening price advantage over most other fossil fuels when the cost of air-pollution control is included. However, there are clear indications that the natural gas supply from the conliguous 48 states and continental shelves will not keep up with this rapid growth in demand indefinitely. Projections are presented which define the extent of potential deficiencies from the 1970's to the year 2000. Among the sources of supplemental gas - imported pipeline natural gas from Canada and Mexico, tanker import of liquefied natural gas, and synthetic pipeline gas from coal and oil shale -by far the most abundant at potentially competitive costs is pipeline gas from coal. The state of development and relative economics of the various coal gasification processes are reviewed. It is shown that synthetic pipeline gas could become a very substantial market for bituminous coal and lignite at current mine-mouth prices - 60-70 million tons of coal for each trillion cubic feet of synthetic pipeline gas produced. This corresponds to only slightly more than the current annual increase in gas demand. Although annual discoveries (gross additions to proved reserves) of natural gas in the United States are still on a general upward trend from the current level of 22 trillion cu ft annually, most forecasters do not expect this to increase substantially in the foreseeable future. For example, the updated (to include 1966 and 1967 data) mathematical model of natural gas discovery and production in the U.S. developed by the Institute of Gas Technology (IGT)' projects that discoveries will level out at about 25 trillion cu ft annually in the late 1970's and during the 1980's and then decline to about 21 trillion cu ft by the year 2000 (Fig. 1). This adds up to a new supply for the period 1968-2000 of about 790 trillion cu ft. Experts who usually reflect the producers' viewpoint, such as Radford L. Schantz of Foster Associates,* are relatively more pessimistic. In contrast, a forecast just made by the U.S. Dept. of the Interior is much more optimistic.3 It assumes an increase in gas discoveries of 2.2% per year over the period 1965-80, reaching about 30 trillion cu ft in 1980. If this rate of increase were extended to the year 2000, annual discoveries would reach 46 trillion cu ft at that time, for a total over the period 1968-2000 of about 1100 trillion cu ft. To these forecasts of new gas discoveries must be added proved reserves of roughly 290 trillion cu ft,4 bringing total U.S. supplies for the rest of the century to nearly 1100 trillion cu ft (IGT) and possibly as high as 1400 trillion cu ft (U.S. Dept. of the Interior). This is approximately the same range as that of two estimates of total remaining recoverable natural gas supply: Potential Gas Committee, 980 trillion cu ft5 and IGT, 1450 trillion cu ft.6 Only the 1965 estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey7 suggests that economically recoverable natural gas supplies will not be exhausted around the end of the century. These forecasts are, naturally, based on the assumption that changes in technological, economic, and regulatory environment as they affect the gas industry will be of an evolutionary, not revolutionary, nature. The various forecasts of potential natural gas supply must now be compared to forecasts of natural gas demand (Table I). The general consensus is that the recent Future Requirements Committee projection to 1990' (extended to the year 2000 by the most recent U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) projection9) represents the minimum gas requirements (Table 11). They add up to a total of 1030 trillion cu ft for the period 1968-2000. Even this minimum anticipated gas demand exceeds the total remaining supply estimate by the Potential Gas Committee and would nearly exhaust the proved reserves plus new discoveries projected by IGT. The supply situation would appear much tighter if the demand projections of the Texas Eastern Transmission Gorp.10 and the American Gas Assn.(A.GA.)'' were used (Table I). Yet, these higher forecasts probably do not include the effects of such new markets as gas fuel cells, use of liquefied natural gas as a transport fuel, etc. They also may not fully reflect the impact of air quality control on the fuel market. Obviously, the probable discrepancy between projected supply and demand can only be accommodated in four ways. 1) Rapid increase in exploration and drilling activity to provide new supplies in the amount projected by the optimistic U.S. Dept. of the Interior forecast, coupled with an increase in net pipeline imports from Canada and Mexico from the present 0.5 trillion cu ft per year

Jan 1, 1970

By M. A. Elliott

The technology of gasifying coal to produce synthesis and pipeline gas has advanced significantly in the Past 20 to 30 years. This period has seen the extensive use of oxygen in coal gasification, the development of suspension gasification processes and fluidized-bed gasifiers, the operation of various gasification processes at elevated pressures, and operation of gasifiers under slagging conditions. These developments are discussed, and their application to commercial and pilot plant gasifiers is reviewed. Typical processes for synthesis gas production are described, and operating results are compared. Pipeline or high-Btu gas may be produced from coal either by catalytic conversion of synthesis gas to methane, or by the direct reaction of coal with hydrogen (hydrogasification) to produce a methane-rich gas. Neither of these methods has been applied commercially, but developments pertaining to each of them are reviewed, and general processing schemes are discussed. The use of coal as a raw material for manufacturing gas has a long and distinguished history. In fact, the gas industry began in the early 1800's when William Murdock demonstrated that it was feasible to produce and distribute gas made by retorting coal. Coal was used exclusively for gas manufacture until the middle of the 19th centruy, when Lowe invented the carbureted water gas process. In that process, coke was one of the raw materials used, so coal was still an important factor in gas manufacture. However the availability and relatively low cost of natural gas in the United States, and its widespread distribution by long-distance pipelines in recent years, has virtually eliminated the use of coal as a raw material for gas manufacture in this country. It should not be inferred from the foregoing that the technology of coal gasification has remained static in the United States and abroad. In fact, in the past two decades many new concepts have been developed in both the science and the technology of gasification. This progress has been a result of the considerable expansion in research on the fundamental chemistry and physics of gasification reactions, and in development work on gasification processes. This expansion in effort stems in part from increased interest in the use of gas as a raw material for the synthesis of chemicals and liquid fuels, and in part from the need to develop methods for gasifying coal and other solid fossil fuels to ensure a long-range supply of energy in the form of gaseous fuel. In these uses of gas, synthesis gas, a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide in various proportions, is the starting material. It may be converted catalytically to gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons and other chemicals, or to hydrogen for use in hydrogenation or reduction reactions. Since coal is our most abundant fossil fuel, it is inevitable that one day it will regain its prominence as a raw material for gas manufacture. It is of interest, therefore, to consider the present status of gasification technology, directing attention particularly to advances made in recent years. Inasmuch as many comprehensive treatises l-3 and review4-7 of gasification technology are available, no attempt will be made in the present review to cover all processes in detail. Instead, the discussion will be concerned chiefly with typical processes embodying the advances that are most likely to be generally applied. ADVANCES IN GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGY For purposes of this discussion the starting point will be the conventional processes that were used for many years for the complete gasification of coal. These were: 1) carbonization in coke ovens followed by gasification of coke with air and steam in cyclic water-gas generators, and 2) fixed-bed air-blown producers. Both of these methods have obvious deficiencies when we consider that the ideal complete gasification process would be a single-stage, continuous

Jan 1, 1961

This issue presents the first of several articles making up the Bump Symposium, which was held at the 1958 Annual Meeting of AIME. Other Symposium papers will appear in the September issue of Mining Engineering. THE term mountain bump describes the sudden rupture of one or more coal pillars under excessive stress. These bursts occur with varying degrees of violence and sometimes include adjacent strata, especially the bottom rock. Many failures do not develop enough violence to be dangerous and are regarded as an aid to coal production, but severe occurrences are accompanied by tons of flying coal, dense clouds of dust, and excessive gas emission. Such bursts sometimes throw heavy machinery several feet. Major factors to be considered in the problem are the nature of the strata above and below the seam and the depth of cover. Bumps are classified as to their nature, extent of damage, and point of occurrence, e. g., face bump, coal bump, high side bump, low side pavement bump, and district bump. The problem is extremely complex, and it cannot be over-emphasized that preventive measures, if they are to be successful, must be based on a thorough study of conditions in the individual mine. In western Canada, for example, the McGillivray mine, operating in a 9-ft seam at 2000 ft, has experienced severe bumps, but there have been no occurrences in the International mine, which operates in the same coal seam at 2400 ft, where the coal averages 17 ft thick. Differences in conditions governing the operation of these two mines are described in one of the following articles (see page 883). Again, most bumps in coal mines take place along pillar extraction lines, but at the Sunnyside mine in Utah they also occur a long way from active workings and sometimes in virgin territory. It is usual, too, for such failures to occur under fairly deep cover. But at Sunnyside, to cite only one instance, there have been disturbances along the main fault zone under less than 500 ft of cover. All too often conditions favorable to bumps are revealed only by actual mining—at Springhill No. 2 mine, drilling in roof and pavement strata disclosed a 60-ft sandstone bed after operations had started— and where extraction has advanced too far for preventive measures to be incorporated in the mining plan, districts have had to be abandoned. But in an era when premium ores are being rapidly depleted in the face of rising demands, abandonment is not easily justified. There must be systematic planning to eliminate coal mine bumps, insofar as this is possible. As in the Gary district of West Virginia (see page 888) much has been accomplished by planned operations based on known factors in bump control. But even this is not enough. Precise instrumentation is needed to indicate where bumps are likely to occur, and in both the U. S. and Canada stress analysis studies are being carried out with this object in view. These pages reveal the progress being made.

Jan 1, 1959

By Albert L. Toenges

Alaska requires an adequate fuel supply for its development, and has large potential coal reserves ranging from lignite to subbituminous and anthracite. Coal production in the Territory now is less than the requirements. In L947, production was 361,000 tons, divided about equally between bituminous coal from the Matanuska field and subbituminous coal from the Nenana field. There is need for development of modern mechanized mines, which should produce the required output with a minimum of workers. These mines should not be thought of in the light of large potential capacity, as in the States. However, these new mines should be developed by modern methods, which should result in lower costs than at Present. Because of the diverse physical conditions in the coal fields, intensive investigation by diamond drilling is necessary to properly plan the development and equipment of mine sites at minimum cost. The Bureau of Mines is doing this now in the Wishbone Hill area of the Matanuska field. All coal land in Alaska is government-owned and subject to the Coal Leasing Act. Coal mining in Alaska has been handicapped by an inadequate supply of dependable workers. Wage scales have been very high in recent years, and "floaters" have been attracted to the coal mines. This type of labor is not conducive to efficient operation. Modernization of mines will require skilled and dependable workers and to induce such men to become interested in coal mining in Alaska, modern facilities, such as modern houses, schools, churches, and recreation halls, must be provided near the mines. Alaska is still a frontier and improvements in living standards must accompany development of mines in order that a stable community may be established. Coal is known to have been mined in Alaska at Port Graham, on Cook Inlet, by the Russians in 1854. During the Klondike gold rush in 1898, coal was mined in scattered areas for use on steamers plying the Yukon River and its navigable tributaries. After the Alaska Railroad was built, two important fields were developed—the Nenana and the Matanuska (Fig 1). The Bering River field was explored by the Guggenheim interests at one time, and a railroad to the area was constructed. However, the field was abandoned because of litigation and reported unsatisfactory physical condition of the beds. There are areas that today are unimportant but which may be developed in the future. Possibly the most important of these is the deposits of subbituminous coal adjacent to Cook Inlet, near Homer, on the Kenai Peninsula (see Fig 1). It is expected that the demand for coal in the Kenai Peninsula will increase because the population in that area has increased as a result of agricultural development. Numerous outcrops of coal are exposed on the peninsula and development of a mine there would obviate dependence on supplies of coal from the Matanuska field. Coal from this field must be shipped approximately 160 miles by rail to Seward and transported thence by boat about 180 miles to Homer. There has been no regular boat service from Anchorage to Homer. There are deposits of coal in the Arctic region but a description of them will not be given in this paper, which will describe the more important deposits in the Alaska Railroad belt. The results of a reconnaissance in the Arctic have been described.' Description of Fields MATANUSKA FIELD The Matanuska field lies in the valleys of the Matanuska River and its tributaries and their separating ridges. This field has been interpreted by geologists as a sunken fault block that separated the Talkeetna Range of mountains from the Chugach Range. The Matanuska River flows west along the south side of the field and the Glenn highway, which extends from Anchorage via Palmer to the Richardson highway near Glen Allan, follows the Matanuska Valley. This road to the coal field can be traveled the year around. Although the snow-

Jan 1, 1950

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'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 J. R. Dawson, J. A. Glunt

VESTA No. 4 and 5 mines supply most of the high volatile coal required for Jones & Laughlin's byproduct coke plants. Until 1944 all coal produced in these mines was loaded by hand. Pressure to mechanize at Vesta was brought on by the manpower shortage in World War 11, and in 1943 a decision was made to change to mechanical loading. It was the opinion of those concerned that by use of selective mining the coal would be clean enough to be processed by the existing preparation plants. At that time coal cleaning at Jones & Laughlin consisted of hand picking the larger sizes at the mine tipples and wet washing at plants located at the Pittsburgh and Aliquippa Works. A typical section of the Pittsburgh seam as it occurs at Vesta is shown in Fig. 1. The 14 to 16 in. of drawslate immediately over the coal is too soft to be used for roof and must be taken down, leaving the rooster coal just above for roof. In selective mining an attempt is made to mine the coal under the drawslate first and then load out the drawslate separately as refuse. In full seam mining slate and coal are shot down at the same time and loaded out. Mechanical loading at Vesta created new problems. It was found that selective mining, even when carefully applied, increased the refuse in the raw coal to such an extent that the washers at the mills were unable to handle it. Large tonnages of refuse were being transported, a reject disposal problem was created, and good metallurgical coal was being loaded out and lost. In addition, the selective method handicapped operation of the loading machines. Fig. 2 shows how the ash content of the raw coal increased as mechanization proceeded at No. 5 mine. New Preparation Plant: After an exhaustive study of this situation by J & L management, is was decided that a preparation plant should be constructed at the mines, capable of handling full seam mined coal and large enough to process full production of both No. 4 and No. 5 mines. It was decided that from the standpoint of inside operation and haulage the new plant should be located as near as possible to the old No. 5 tipple on the Monongahela River near Vestaburg. Full seam mining at Vesta could be expected to produce a tremendous volume of refuse along with the coal, since 14 to 16 in. of slate would be mined with an average 78 in. of coal. Disposal of this refuse required serious consideration in selecting a plant site. The only area near Vestaburg large enough for disposal of the plant refuse was across the Monongahela River at LaBelle. Ample space was available here, and construction at this location would not interfere with operation at the No. 5 tipple. It had been noted over the years that the sulfur content of the coal produced at Vesta was gradually increasing, and there was every indication that this increase could be expected to continue as the mines developed further from the river. It was decided to construct a three-part separation plant with complete blending facilities to produce both metallurgical and steam coal. In this system an attempt is made to reduce the sulfur in the metallurgical coal in a secondary cleaning process. Construction of the new preparation plant got under way early in 1947 and continued until the spring of 1950. The plant was designed to handle 2400 tph of raw coal containing 30 to 35 pct refuse. Cost of outside buildings and equipment was about $14 million. Total cost of the plant, together with improvements and changes made at this time, was approximately $21 million.

Jan 1, 1957