AN EVALUATION OF COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
AND TECHNIQUES FOR
REMOVING PYRITIC
SULFUR FROM FINE COAL
Final Report
to Division of Process Control Engineering
Air Pollution Control Office
Environmental Protection Agency
by Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
for the period January 197O- April 1971
Contract No. CPA 7O-26
-------
AN EVALUATION OF COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
AND TECHNIQUES FOR
REMOVING PYRITIC
SULFUR FROM FINE COAL
Final Report
to Division of Process Control Engineering
Air Pollution Control Office
Envi ron mental Protection Agency
by Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
for the period January 1970- April 1971
Contract No. CPA 70-26
-------
II.
III.
IV.
I.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.
B.
C.
Backgro\lIld .....................................
Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approach
.................. .....................
DISCUSSION OF PHASE I EVALUATIONS
...................
A.
B.
Test Procedure.................................
SUInInary' of Results.............................
DISCUSSION OF PHASE II EVALUATIONS
..................
A.
Test
1.
Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coal Cleaning_of the No. 14 Concentrating
Tab Ie ...................................
2.
Pyrite Beneficiation of the No. l5-S
Metallurgical Concentrating Table.......
B.
SUInIna:t:"j' of Results............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A.
B.
I Evaluations............................
II EV'aluations ...........................
Phase
Phase
Appendix A, Phase I EV'aluations - Float-sink
Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix B, Phase II EV'aluations - Concentrating
Table and Pyrite Beneficiation ...............
Appendix C, Fuel and Pyrite Concentrate
EV'alua tions ..................................
-iii-
~
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
10
10
10
10
26
32
32
34
A- 35
B- 59
-------
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
LIST OF FIGURES
Text
Total Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize for 22 United States
Coals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize for 112 United States
Coals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Flow Sheet for Coal Cleaning and Pyrite Beneficiation
Te s ts ..........,............................."'"
Sampling Flow Sheet for Concentrating Table Tests ...
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper
Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania,
BCR SaJ'Ilple No. 2546 ...............................
View of l5-S Concentrating Table Showing Band of
High Grade Pyrite Produced ........................
View of Sampling Device for l5-S Concentrating Table
Sample Flow Sheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests ....
Appendix
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper
Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania,
BCR Sample No. 2546 ...............................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for
Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia,
BCR Sample No. 2555 ...............................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Ohio
No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio, BCR Sample
No. 2556 ..........................................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Ohio
No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio, BCR Sample
No. 2574 ..........................................
-v-
~
7
8
11
12
14
16
17
24
B- 62
B- 76
B- 88
-------
Figure
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
B-9
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Appendix
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for
Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland,
BCR SBDIple No. 2579 ...............................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper
Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia)
BCR SBDIple No. 2630 ...............................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Illinois
No.6 Seam, Franklin County, Illinois, BCR SBDIple
No. 2651 ..........................................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Ohio
No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, Ohio, BCR SBDIple
No . 2694 ..........................................
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and
3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper
Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania,
BCR SBDIple No. 2713 ...............................
-vi-
~
B-112
B-124
B-136
B-148
-------
Table
1
3
4
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
LIST OF TABLES
Text
2
Pyritic Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as'
Related to Nominal Topsize of Coal..................
Total Sulfur Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as
Related to Nominal Topsize of Coal..................
Ash Reduction at 1.60 Specific Gravity as Related
to Nominal Topsize of Coal..........................
Screen Analysis of a Sample Coal......................
5
Analyses of ROM Coals Subjected to Deep Cleaning
studies, Dry Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Ash Reduction Obtained by Concentrating Table Cleaning
of 3/8 Inch x 0 ROM Coal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results from a Typical 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and
Pyrite Precleaning Test on the No. 14 Concentrating
Tab le ...............................................
7
Results from a Typical 30 Mesh x 0 Pyrite Cleaning Test
on the No. l5-S Concentrating Table .................
9
Results from a Typical 60 Mesh x 0 Pyrite Cleaning
Test on the No. l5-S Concentrating Table ............
Compilation of Results from a Typical Pyrite
Beneficiation Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sample Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests ..
Summary of Sulfur Recovery in Pyrite Concentration
Te s ts ...............................................
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fractions from
Phase II Coals Using Conventional Three-split
Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fractions from
Phase II Coals Using "Unconventional" Three-split
Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fractions from
Phase II Coals Using Conventional Two-split
Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
-vii-
~
5
6
9
13
15
19
20
21
22
23
25
27
28
29
-------
Table
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Text
~
16
Composites of Potential Combustion Feedstocks from
Phase II Coals Using a Conventional Three-split
Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
17
Composites of Potential Combustion Feedstock from
Phase II Coals Using a Conventional Two-split
Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Appendixes
Table Seam County State Page
A- 1 Upper Freeport Preston West Virginia A-37
A- 2 No.6 Tuscarawas Ohio A-38
A- 3 No.9 Muhlenburg Kentucky A-39
A- 4 Black Creek Jefferson Alabama A-40
A- 5 No.5 Tuscarawas Ohio A-41
A- 6 Upper Freeport Preston West Virginia A-42
A- 7 Wadge Routt Colorado A-43
A- 8 Baxter Crawf'ord Kansas A-44
A- 9 No.9 Ohio Kentucky A-45
A-10 No. 3A Tuscarawas Ohio A-46
A-ll Lower Freeport Butler Pennsylvania A-47
A-12 No.8 Belmont Ohio A-48
A-13 No. 12 Muhlenburg Kentucky A-49
A-14 Upper Freeport Preston West Virginia A-50
A-15 No.9 Hopkins Kentucky A-51
A-16 No.9 Hopkins Kentucky A-52
A-17 No.6 Butler Kentucky A-53
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
Table Seam County State Page
A-18 Upper Freeport Preston West Virginia A-54
A-19 No. 14 Hopkins Kentucky A-55
A-20 Fire Clay Crawf'ord Kansas A-56
A-21 No.6 Hopkins Kentucky A-57
A-22 No.9 Davies Kentucky A-58
B- 1 through B-13 Upper Freeport Armstrong Pennsylvania B-61
B-14 through B-23 Pittsburgh Monongalia West Virginia B-75
B-24 through B-33 Ohio No.9 Harrison Ohio B-87
B-34 through B-43 Ohio No.8 Jefferson Ohio B-99
B-44 through B-53 Franklin L. B. Garrett Maryland B-lll
B-54 through B-63 Upper Freeport Preston West Vir~inia B-123
B-64 through B-73 Illinois No.6 Franklin Illinois B-135
B-74 through B-85 Ohio No.5 Muskingum Ohio B-147
B-86 through B-95 Upper Freeport Armstrong Pennsylvania B-161
C-l, C-2, C-3 Upper Freeport Armstrong Pennsylvania C-175
C- 4, C- 5 Pittsburgh Monongalia West Virginia C-178
C- 6, C- 7 Ohio No.9 Harrison Ohio c-180
C- 8, C- 9 Ohio No.8 Jefferson Ohio c-182
C-IO, C-ll Franklin L. B. Garrett Maryland c-184
C-12, C-13 Upper Freeport Preston West Virginia c-186
c-14, C-15 Illinois No.6 Franklin Illinois c-188
c-16, C-17 Ohio No.5 Muskingum Ohio C-190
c-18, C-19 Upper Freeport Armstrong Pennsylvania C-192
-------
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, INC.
SPONSORED RESEARCH PROGRAM
AN EVALUATION OF' COAL CLEANING PROCESSES AND
TECHNIQUES FOR REMOVING PYRITIC SULFUR
FROM FINE COAL
Report for the Period January 1970 - April 1971
(BCR Report L-404)
April 1971
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background
During the combustion of fossil fuels, sulfur oxide compounds are
formed and released to the atmosphere. Where it is feasible to physi-
cally remove pyrite from coal in significant quantities, the amount of
sulfur oxide produced from coal firing can be reduced.
Initial investigations indicated that little information existed
on the washability of coals that were mined prjjnarily for use in power
generation. To eliminate this deficiency, contracts were awarded to
the United States Bureau of Mines, the Illinois Geological Survey, and
Commercial Testing and Engineering Company to develop washability data
on these seams.
The washability studies were rather unique in that they were to de-
velop information on pyrite liberation at various stages of crushing and
grinding rather than developing washability data on the various sized
fractions as mined so that the proper sized splits could be made and the
proper cleaning equipment and separating gravity selected.
On June l, 1967, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., was awarded a con-
tract, No. PH 86-67-l39, to develop additional data on selected coals.
The objective of the initial work undertaken by Bituminous Coal
Research, Inc., was twofold; first, to extend the washability data to
finer sizes of coal, and second, to evaluate coal cleaning methods and
techniques for removing pyritic sulfur from the fine-sized coal. From
BCR's previous work with pyrite removal from. finely sized coal, two
size consists were of interest in the washability studies.
The first was the 30 mesh x 0 size as this was the lower limit in
sizing that would contain a size range of pyrite typical of a utility
pulverizer's recycle load. Recycle load here refers to the pulverizer
product which approaches the size capable of escaping the pulverizer
classifier. It is this recycle material that can possibly be removed
-------
2.
clean dewatered coal reinjected into the feed to the pulverizer without
thermal drying.
The second size range of interest was each coal's "as fired," or
pulverized coal (p.c.) grind. It is at this stage of pulverization
that maximum pyrite liberation occurs, insofar as the coal's present
utilization is concerned. Therefore, it is obvious that the maximum
degree of potential pyrite removal has also been reached with each
coal's p.c. grind.
The evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques was carried
out on two size consists, 3/8 inch x 0 and 30 mesh x 0, to optimize
pyrite removal using certain selected coals and conventional coal clean-
ing equipment.
PyTite concentrations were conducted on the 3/8 inch x 0 refuse
after it had been reduced to a topsize of 30 mesh. A portion of this
material was further reduced to a 60 mesh topsize and reprocessed. The
purpose of these studies was to produce a high-grade pyrite concentrate
for possible use as a feedstock to a sulfuric acid plant, or a material
which, in combination with high-Btu refuse :from either the coal clean-
ing or pyrite concentration steps, would yield a feedstock for a spe-
cially designed, non-polluting, high-sulfur combustor.
By effective4" utilizing these high-Btu refuse fractions, the
total seam utilization concept, in which maximum use is derived :from
each coal, will be realized.
The results of the work completed during the calendar year 1969
were reported to the National Air Pollution Control Administration in
an interim report dated February 1970, entitled "An Evaluation of Coal
Cleaning Processes and Techniques for Removing PyTitic Sulfur from Fine
Coal," Contract No. PH 86-67-139.
This report is concerned with the results of the work completed
under Contract No. CPA 70-26.
B.
Objective
The objective of the work undertaken during this time was not
significant4" different from that for prior work already described in
the introduction.
The investigation into the pyrite liberation and removal character-
istics of U. S. coals, when pulverized to the two fine grinds of interest,
was continued.
Studies were also continued on the concentrating table to further
ascertain its potential for removing pyrite from fine-sized coal.
Detailed work was undertaken to determine the potential of fine
-------
3.
the fine coal, in quanti ties commensurate with the total amount avail-
able for removal.
In line with the total seam utilization concept, where on~ the
obvious refuse would be discarded, the use of the intermediate fractions
~ing between the clean coal and the high grade pyrite was studied.
Approach
Twenty-two additional coals were evaluated under Phase I of the
program, Pyrite Liberation and Removal Characteristics. These coals
were from three geographical areas, the East, the South, and the Mid-
west. Each coal was pulverized to a topsize of 30 mesh and to its p.c.
grind; each grind was subjected to a float-sink separation at a 1.60
specific gravity in the centrifuge; and fina~, sulfur reduction calcu-
lations were made for both total and pyritic sulfur.
C.
Nine Eastern coals were collected by BCR personnel and subjected
to two-stage cleaning studies under Phase II of the program to determine
the sui tabili ty of the concentrating table for cleaning these coals at
a topsize of 30 mesh. Each coal was rough cleaned on the concentrating
table at a 3/8 inch topsize to remove the obvious impurities. The coal
fraction was then crushed to a topsize of 30 mesh and recleaned using
the concentrating table.
In the beneficiation studies, the raw material for testing was ob-
tained by accumulating the heavier gravity refuse during the rough
cleaning of the 3/8 inch x 0 coal on the quarter-size (No. 14) concen-
trating table. This heavy refuse was then pulverized to minus 30 mesh
and the pyrite concentration was undertaken using a l5-S metallurgical
concentrating table. The l5-S table has approximate~ one-fourth the
surface, or cleaning area, of the quarter-deck coal cleaning concentrat-
ing table.
To simulate the recirculation of middling product that had been
further reduced in size to increase pyrite liberation, the middling
material from the process was collected, pulverized to minus 60 mesh,
and recleaned on the same l5-S concentrating table. Although these
beneficiation studies were included under Phase IV of the preceding re-
port, they were combined with Phase II studies during this period to
establish a Coal Cleaning and Pyrite Beneficiation Phase.
Numerous high-sulfur, high-ash fractions containing significant
quantities of combustible material were also collected during the three
concentrating table tests and ana~zed. Sufficient data were obtained
so that an initial evaluation could be made of the potential use of
these fractions in a high-sulfur combustor. Tests for calorific value,
ash fusion, and ash ana~sis by spectrography were added to the Phase II
program during this period, and reflect the increased importance of
determining the combustion and ash characteristics of the high-ash,
high-sulfur fractions having potential for use in a high-sulfur combus-
-------
4.
II.
DISCUSSION OF PHASE I EVALUATIONS
A.
Test Procedure
The test procedure utilized f'or the twenty-two coals was identical
to the procedure described in the preVious interim report, submitted to
NAPCA by Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., dated February 1970. This
test procedure, in brief', consisted of the pulverization of small repre-
sentati ve samples of the ROM coal as received from Commerical Testing
and Engineering Company to (1) a topsize of 30 mesh and (2) the coal's
p.c. grind. Each sample was then separated into a clean coal fraction
and refuse fraction at a 1.60 specific gravity in a centrifuge. Total
sulfur and pyritic sulfur analyses of the "as received" ROM coal and
the clean coal, or 1.60 float material, of both the 30 mesh x 0 grind
and p. c. grind, were utilized to determine the percent sulfur reduction.
B.
Summary of Results
The percent sulfur reductions are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1
also shows the percent pyritic sulfUr reduction obtained by Commercial
Testing and Engineering Company with these coals when they were crushed
to topsizes of 3/8 inch and 14 mesh, and cleaned at 1.60 specific grav-
i ty. Table 2 shows the same information for total sulfur reduction.
Figure 1, a series of curves, shows the total sulfur reduction at
1.60 specific gravity for the 22 Eastern, Southern, and Midwestern coals
as a function of topsize. The range is f'rom Commercial Testing's
1-1/2 inch topsize down to BCR's extremely fine p.c. grind. It can be
seen that, at the 1-1/2 inch topsize, about 55 percent of the coals
tested (12 coals) could be reduced in total sulfUr content by 30.1 to
40 percent when washed at a 1.60 specific graVity. The highest total
sulfur reduction obtained was in the 70.1 to 80 percent range, with
about 9 percent (two coals) at their p.c. grind. The actual reductions
for these coals were 75.8 and 76.5 percent for Lot Nos. 2446 and 2478,
respectively. These curves also show that the greatest total sulfur
reduction is obtained when the coal is reduced in size from a 30 mesh
topsize.
Figure 2 combines this total sulfur reduction data with that ob-
tained on the original 90 coals as reported in the two preVious interim
reports to NAPCA, dated September 1969, and February 1970. Here the
curves show that the greatest total sulfUr reduction is obtained when
the coal is reduced in size from a 1-1/2 inch topsize. This is shown
by the horizontal displacement between the curves. Also, the second
greatest reduction is obtained when the coal is reduced from a 30 mesh
topsize to the coal's p.c. grind.
The ash reductions obtainable with these coals, when they are
cleaned at 1. 60 specific graVity, are shown in Table 3. High ash re-
ductions at the largest topsize indicate that this ash equivalent
occurred as obvious imPurities, such as roof material or seam-included
-------
TABLE 1. PYRITIC SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL
Pyritic Sulfur, Reduction at 1.60 Float, Percent
Coal Identification Location Weight Percent, CTECO CTECO BCR BCR
Lot Seam County, State Raw ROM Coal 3/8" X 100M 14M X 0 30M X 0 p.c. Grind
2437 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 1.93 75.4 83.3 86.0 90.7
2438 No.6 Tuscarawas, Ohio 3.57 63.6 66.7 61.6 70.0
2439 No.9 Muhlenburg, Ky. 2.89 52.5 55.2 37.7 49.5
2440 Black Creek Jefferson, Ala. 0.34 78.6 77.4 76.5 44.1
2441 No.5 Tuscarawas, Ohio 5.99 59.1 63.1 64.6 73.5
2442 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 0.82 78.0 85.6 92.7 85.3
2443 Wadge Routt, Colorado 0.30 44.4 60.0 40.0 20.0
2444 Baxter Crawford, Kansas 3.33 37.6 53.4 46.2 67.6
2445 No.9 Ohio, Kentucky 2.77 44.7 50.7 33.9 53.4
2446 No. 3-A Tuscarawas, Ohio 2.28 80.6 87.0 88.2 89.0
.2447 Lower Freeport Butler, Pa. 1.55 46.8 76.2 76.1 90.3
2448 No.8 Belmont, Ohio 3.35 32.8 40.2 31.6 45.7
2449 No. 12 Muhlenburg, Ky. 3.16 46.2 50.2 49.1 62.0
2450 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 1.71 74.1 84.5 84.2 91.8
2476 No.9 Hopkins, Ky. 2.20 55.5 58.4 30.9 28.6
2477 No.9 Hopkins, Ky. 2.72 64.3 65.1 46.3 56.2
2478 No. 6 Butler, Ky. 3.85 76.2 82.2 85.5 88.1
2479 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 1.48 61.2 73.9 77.0 89.9
2480 No. 14 Hopkins, Ky. 2.92 53.5 51.8 49.7 65.1
2481 Fire Clay Crawford, Kansas 3.28 36.3 41.7 40.2 58.8
2482 No.6 Hopkins, Ky. 1.53 57.7 57.4 56.2 64.1
2483 No.9 Davies, Ky. 3.13 66.4 68.7 56.2 59.4
\11
-------
0\
.
TABLE 2. TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS RELATED TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL
Total Sulfur, Reduction at 1.60 Float~ Percent
Coal Identification Location Weight Percent, CTECO CTECO BCR BCR
..1Q1 Seam County~ State Raw RON Coal 3/8" X 100M 14M X 0 30M X 0 p.c. Grind
2437 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 2.47 61.2 67.6 66.8 70.0
2438 No.6 Tuscarawas, Ohio 4.46 46.5 51.0 52.5 59.2
2439 No.9 Muhlenburg, Ky. 4.28 28.2 30.2 31.3 41.6
2440 Black Creek Jefferson, Ala. 0.93 21.1 23.9 24.7 24.7
2441 No.5 Tuscarawas, Ohio 7.15 42.9 46.3 56.4 64.2
2442 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 1.38 49.3 55.6 55.1 52.2
2443 Wadge Routt, Colorado 0.54 7.4 9.4 18.5 7.4
2444 Baxter Crawford, Kansas 4.43 23.0 35.2 36.6 52.6
2445 No. 9 Ohio, Kentucky 4.00 21.4 25.8 24.7 36.2
2446 No. 3-A Tuscarawas, Ohio 2.69 65.2 70.9 75.8 75.8
2447 Lower Freeport Butler, Pa. 2.20 32.9 56.1 58.2 66.8
2448 No.8 Belmont, Ohio 5.06 17.8 22.5 24.3 33.4
2449 No. 12 Muhlenburg, Ky. 4.08 32.7 36.6 42.4 52.2
2450 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 2.44 55.8 64.0 65.2 69.7
2476 No.9 Hopkins, Ky. 3.98 16.7 18.3 17.1 20.6
2477 No.9 Hopkins, Ky. 3.83 30.2 31.6 33.7 39.2
2478 No.6 Butler, Ky. 4.48 63.3 71.3 75.0 76.5
2479 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 2.10 38.9 50.0 49.0 57.6
2480 No. 14 Hopkins, Ky. 3.68 37.4 37.4 42.4 52.2
2481 Fire Clay Crawford, Kansas 4.18 20.5 26.5 32.1 44.7
2482 No.6 Hopkins, Ky. 2.28 36.8 37.0 38.6 44.7
-------
C
1&1
is
~
....
'"
'"
....
-------
8.
100
90
80
c 70
U,I
C
:)
I- 60
\It
\It
.....
-------
TABLE 3. ASH REDUCTION AT 1.60 SPECIFIC GRAVITY AS REIATED TO NOMINAL TOPSIZE OF COAL
Ash, Reduction at 1. 60 Float, Percent
Coal Identification Location Weight Percent, CTECO CTECO BCR BCR
Lot Seam County, State Raw ROM Coal 3/8" X 100M 14M X 0 30M X 0 p.c. Grind
2437 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 19.2 63.5 64.5 64.1 67.1
2438 No.6 'li.1scarawas, Ohio 7.76 55.2 57.4 62.2 70.6
2439 No.9 Muh1enburg, Ky. 9.44 31.4 32.8 37.3 51.5
2440 Black Creek Jefferson, Ala. 6.71 66.0 67.7 69.3 70.0
2441 No.5 'li.1scarawas, Ohio 12.6 60.0 62.0 70.6 77.5
2442 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 14.2 55.2 55.6 56.0 62.9
2443 Wadge Routt, Colorado 9.48 7.9 12.8 16.7 27.5
2444 Baxter Crawford, Kansas 30.9 59.9 62.4 69.1 72.9
2445 No.9 Ohio, Kentucky 14.0 48.0 47.0 52.5 59.5
2446 No. 3-A Tuscarawas, Ohio 7.52 46.2 49.7 51.9 55.9
2447 Lower Freeport Butler, Pa. 14.0 22.1 33.6 33.8 44.1
2448 No.8 BeJlJ1ont, Ohio 12.4 30.0 33.5 36.4 48.1
2449 No. 12 Muh1enburg , Ky. 15.2 38.5 38.9 43.2 50.1
2450 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 18.2 52.2 54.3 56.0 62.5
2476 No.9 Hopkins, Ky. 9.48 45.3 44.9 50.2 54.4
2477 No.9 ~opkins, Ky. 14.9 50.8 50.8 56.4 59.6
2478 No. 6 Butler, Ky. 15.6 72.5 71.5 79.1 76.7
2479 Upper Freeport Preston, W. Va. 20.8 54.4 56.9 59.0 65.2
2480 No. 14 Hopkins, Ky. 20.4 68.1 62.3 70.7 73.0
2481 Fire Clay Crawford, Kansas 33.8 65.7 66.2 70.8 69.8
2482 No. 6 Hopkins, Ky. 9.60 65.6 59.2 68.7 70.8
2483 No.9 Davies, Ky. 15.2 48.9 49.2 59.7 59.8
\0
-------
10.
pyritic sulfur as the topsize of the ROM coal is decreased, but these
reductions could also reflect the liberation and removal of other im-
purities ranging fram pure shales to high-ash coal particles.
The individual data sheets for the Phase I test work are contained
in the Appendix A to this report, Tables A-l through A-22.
III.
DISCUSSION OF PHASE II EVALUATIONS
A.
Test Procedure
1. Coal Cleaning on the No. 14 Concentrating Table: Nine coals
were selected for the modified Phase II, Coal Cleaning and Pyrite Bene-
ficiation Tests, a schematic of which is shown in Figure 3. Each coal
was rough-cleaned at the 3/8 inch x 0 size consist on the No. 14 concen-
trating table to effect a separation in which the obvious refuse was
removed prior to further size reduction. Figure 4 shows the various
zones of material obtained fram the concentrating table separation, and
the analyses performed on the various fractions.
In the 3/8 inch x 0 rough cleaning, the high carbon refuse fraction,
which is normally discharged in actual cleaning plant practice because
of its high ash content, was combined with the Zone C material for fur-
ther processing. It is fram this high carbon refuse fraction, together
with the high-ash coal normally reporting to Zone C, that significant
additional pyrite liberation and removal can be obtained through size
reduction and recleaning.
The material obtained fram Zones A, B, and C was pulverized to
30 mesh for a second 5-zone separation on the No. 14 concentrating table.
Table 4 shows the size consist of the feed material for both the
3/8 inch x 0 and the 30 mesh x 0 concentrating table tests for a sample
coal (BCR Lot No. 2546).
Figure 5 shows the size distribution for the two size fractions
discussed for the sample coal. Table 5 shows the ROM chemical analyses
of the coals tested under Phase II of the program.
2. ite Beneficiation on the No.1 -S Metallur ical Concentrat-
ing Table: The Pyrite Beneficiation work formerly Phase IV was
started during the period covered by the previous report. BCR purchased
a smaller concentrating table, designated as a l5-S, or metallurgical
table, having one-fourth of the cleaning area of the quarter deck table
(No. 14) being used in the coal cleaning studies and one-sixteenth of
the area of a commercial coal cleaning deck.
Figure 6 shows the wide band of pyrite concentrate produced by
this table. The sampling mechanism is shown in Figure 7. It should be
noted that the smaller table was set up with five sampling zones, paral-
-------
Crushed to 30 mesh )( 0
Coal Cleaning
No. 14 Table
Clean Coal
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch )( 0
- >- Ref...
Figure 3. Flowsheet for Coal Cleaning and Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Cleaning and
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
I Crushed to 30 mesh )( 0
No. 15-5 Table
---+---
Refuse
Initial Pyrite
Concentrate
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh )( 0
30 mesh )( 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh )( 0
Secondary Pyrite
Concentrate
No. 15-5 Table
-
t
Refuse
li.
High Grade
Pyrite
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh )( 0
-~
Refuse
-------
Feed
~
.
Float-Sink at 2.95 sp. gr.
Float, Sink
t
,
Chemical Analysis*
Adjustable -
Division
Float-Sink at
1.60 and 2.95 sp. gr.
!
Chemical Analysis*
Chemical Analysis*
Float-Sink at 1.60 sp. gr.
Float, Sink
* Note: Chemical Analysis Consists of Moisture,
Ash, and Total Sulfur Plus Ultimate
Carbon on 2.95 Sink Fractions
t
t
t
Chemical Analysis*
Chemical Analysis*
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6070022
Figure 4.
-------
13.
TABLE 4. SCREEN ANALYSIS OF A SAMPLE COAL
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam. Armstrong County, Pa.
BCR Sample No.
2546
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 1/4 in. 9.7 9.7
1/4 in. x 6 M 28.1 37.8
6Mx12M 22.8 60.6
minus 12 M 39.4 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 3.7 3.7
30 M x 50 M 32.7 36.4
50 M x 100 M 26.5 62.9
minus 100 M 37.1 100.0
-------
II(
Sieve opening In mm
~
~
.
r uR" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
Figure
1.0
10
.
30
u. S. standard.leve ""e.
6072GS
BITUMINOUS COAL mEARCH, IN(.
5. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8 Inch X 0
Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper Freeport Seam,
-------
TABLE 5. ANALYSES OF ROM COALS SUBJECTED TO DEEP CLEANING STUDIES, DRY BASIS
Weight Percent Calorific
Coal Identification Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Organic Pyritic Value,
Lot Seam Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/1b
2546 Upper Freeport 18.6 31.2 50.2 2.14 0.04 0.50 1.60 12,368
2555 Pittsburgh 10.5 36.0 53.5 2.52 0.02 1.16 1.34 13,522
2556 Ohio No.9 15.4 38.2 46.4 3.02 0.06 0.62 2.34 12,238
2574 Ohio No.8 10.9 39.2 49.9 3.81 0.12 0.76 2.93 12,998
2579 Franklin L.B. 23.6 17.0 59.4 4.28 0.14 0.77 3.37 11,583
2630 Upper Freeport 18.4 28.4 53.2 2.32 0.08 0.47 1.77 12,497
2651 Illinois No.6 13.4 37.3 49.3 3.45 0.04 0.85 2.56 12,384
2694 Ohio No.5 14.0 41.2 44.8 6.88 0.24 0.60 6.04 12,146
2713 Upper Freeport 23.1 29.0 47.9 1.86 0.02 0.53 1.31 11,510
I-'
\J1
-------
l $, -..f.~ ~~ i
-- ~ - ~ :.;,.
.,~'.'...,. ~' ~ ~,.
".",;,,), J~ I...~J
1.6.
I-
.r!'". :.,.
..
,
..
6070P60
Figure 6. View of 15-S Concentrating Table Showing
Band of High Grade Pyrite Produced
-
. ,
-------
17.
I
,
,
.~
6070P61
-------
18.
The feed materials for the pyrite beneficiation studies were ob-
tained by collecting all the normal Zone E material, plus a portion of
the material that would have ordinarily gone to adjacent Zone D, during
a normal 3/8 inch x 0 cleaning test.
As shown in Figure 4, Zone E is a pyrite-rich fraction fram the
cleaning test and Zone D is the remaining refuse. The material diverted
fram Zone D to Zone E is the highest gravity material normally report-
ing to Zone D and, hence, the material most likely to contain additional
pyrite that could be liberated by further size reduction. Nine coals
were processed in this manner, and the ash reductions obtained when
cleaning these coals at a 3/8 inch x 0 are shown in Table 6.
Table 7 shows the results fram a typical 3/8 inch x 0 cleaning
test in which a deep cut had been made into the normal Zone D so as to
insure that all the pyrite had been captured for subsequent recleaning.
This so-called deep cut is evidenced by the higher than normal percent-
age of 2.95 float material in Zone E.
The modified Zone E material fram the coal cleaning test was pul-
verized to 30 mesh in size for the initial pyrite beneficiation test
with the metallurgical table, utilizing the slime deck shown in Figure 3.
Table 8 shows a sample copy of the information obtained on the
30 mesh x 0 pyrite cleaning test. The pyrite concentrate fram Zone E
in this 30 mesh x 0 test, which was very high in total sulfur and low
in carbon, was not further processed. The Zone D material fram this
test was collected, pulverized to minus 60 mesh to further liberate
high grade pyrite, and recleaned on the metallurgical table for eight
of the nine coals. The 30 mesh x 0 metallurgical table test failed to
increase the pyrite concentration for the Ohio No.5 seam coal and thus
the 60 mesh x 0 test was deleted.
Table 9 is a sample copy of the data sheet utilized to show the
separation obtained on the metallurgical table when using 60 mesh x 0
feed material. The material breakdown by zones is shown with the sec-
ondary pyrite concentrate being obtained fram Zone E.
Table 10 is a tabulation of the pyrite cleaning steps, showing, in
the last line of figures, that 0.28 percent of the total feed is recov-
erable as high grade pyrite containing 47.4 percent sulfur.
The sample f1owsheet, Figure 8, shows the steps of pyrite cleaning
in a different manner, utilizing a schematic flow diagram and showing
the distribution of total sulfur in pounds per ton of ROM coal.
The final sample copy of a data sheet (Table ll) shows the chemical
data by steps and the total quantity of material removed fram each step
-------
TABLE 6. ASH REDUCTION OBTAINED BY CONCENTRATING TABLE CLEANING OF 3/8 INCH x 0 ROM COAL
Ash in Clean Coal, Ash in
Coal Identification ROM Coal, Weight Clean Coal, Reduction,
Lot Seam Percent Percent Percent Percent
2546 Upper Freeport 18.6 85.6 10.0 46.2
2555 Pittsburgh 10.5 94.8 7.32 30.3
2556 Ohio No.9 15.4 91.2 12.9 16.2
2574 Ohio No. 8 10.9 93.1 7.66 29.7
2579 Franklin L. B. 23.6 89.1 19.4 17.8
2630 Upper Freeport 18.4 83.9 10.5 42.9
2651 Illinois No.6 13.4 93.0 9.38 30.0
2694 Ohio No.5 14.0 93.1 9.98 28.7
2713 Upper Freeport 23.1 85.7 14.8 35.9
"D
-------
20.
TABLE 7. RESULTS FROM A TYPICAL 3/8 INCH x 0 ROUGH CLEANING AND
PYRITE PRECLEANING TEST ON THE NO. 1.4 CONCENTRATING TABLE
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam. Am.strong County. Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2546
Chemical Ana:l„sis, Dry Basis,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A "<8.6 0.80 5.9S 0.92
Zone B 1'1.'1 0.64 6.51 1.06
Zone C
Float at 1.60 7.4 '14."< 0.68 11.1 2.'10
1.60 by 1.90 4.1 29.7 0.84 41.2 4.56 44.6
Sink at 1. 90 2.2 16.0 0.76 66.3 5.04 23.5
Composite 1':1.7 100.0 ':10.0 "<.41
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 1.0 8.'1 0.72 '16.9 4.98 44.7
1.90 by 2.95 10 4 RR 0 0.77 81 8 '1.64 9.2
Sink at 2.95 0.4 ':1.7 0.41 ~O.O ':1R.Q ----*
Composite 118 100 0 77."< SOh
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1 . c; c;R.c; O.hL. R?h '1.'14
Sink at 2.95 1 1 L., . '1 O. "<0 Ih?.l 41.7
Composite ?h 100 0 174..1 20.'1
Composite of
Zones A B C 85.6 10.0 1.'17
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 79.'1 6.8E 1.11
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 1.'1 61.5 41.0
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 19.6 2."<1
Ana:l„sis of
Feed to Table 1.50 18.6 2.14
Run Date: 4-9-70
-------
21.
TABLE 8. RESULTS FROM A TYPICAL 30 MESH x 0
PYRITE CLEANING TEST ON THE NO. 15-S CONCENTRATING TABLE
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2546
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 0.24 68.8 1 .0
Zone B 1 . O. 2 6.8 6. O
zone C 44.2 0.12 81. 11.4
Zone D 15.8 0.11 65.7 41.3 5.9
Zone E
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 75.04 19.22
Analysis of
Feed to Table 75.2 19.2
Run Date:
-------
22.
TABLE 9. RESULTS FROM A TYPICAL 60 MESH x 0
PYRITE CLEANING TEST ON THE NO. l5-S CONCENTRATING TABLE
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Zone D. ~O Mesh x 0 Run (4-24-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2'546
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 14.5 0.16 65.8 39.6
Zone B ~~.7 0.16 6'5.6 ~9.4
Zone C 47.8 0.18 6'5.8 40.2
Zone D 1.7 0.18 66.'5 4~.2 ~.8
Zone E 2.~ 0.14 66.2 48.0 2.2
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 65.8 40.1
Analysis of
Feed to Table 6'5.7 41. ~
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
23.
TABLE 10. COMPILATION OF RESULTS
FROM A TYPICAL PYRITE BENEFICIATION TEST
Coal Identification ~er Freeport Seam, Annstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2546
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 4-9-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight ~
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 18.6 2.14
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.6 74.1 20.5
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 4-24-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E. ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight 0
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 75.2 19.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 10.6 64.6 47.4
%
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 4-28-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (4-24-70) Crushed to
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight 0/0
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 65.7 41. 'i
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2i 66 2 48.0
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.28
64.7
-------
24.
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
46.2
6072G14
Figure 8. Sample Flowsheet for Pyrite
Beneficiation Tests
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
12.0
Basis:
.LR-
-...L.Q
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
~
Upper Freeport Seam,
Armstrong County, Pa.
BCR Sample No. 2546
Pounds of Total SUlfur/Ton
of Run-of-mine Coal
No. 15-5 Table
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
3..JL
~
~
~
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
0.48
1.58
1.09
High Grade
Pyrite
2.69
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
-------
25.
TABLE 11.
SAMPLE FLOW SHEET DATA FOR PYRITE BENEFICIATION TESTS
Coal Identification. Up.per Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2546
Fraction
Weight Percent
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' ht e e t
'l'otal Sulfur
Ash
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
2.6
11.8
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
11.4
41.
0.41
o
Table No. l5-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
0.14
o
0.01
0.01
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
1 .7
2.26
Analysis of Feed
Coal
18.6
-------
26.
B.
Summary of Results
From the analyses obtained, the Ohio No.5 seam coal contained the
highest percentages of both total and pyritic sulfur. However, the
most significant sulfur reduction occurred when the Upper Freeport seam
coal from West Virginia was rough cleaned at the 3/8 inch x 0 size and
the total sulfur content was reduced from 2.32 percent to 1.32 percent.
When the clean coal fraction was pulverized to 30 mesh x 0 and recleaned,
the total sulfur content was reduced from 1.32 percent to 1.02 percent.
The Ohio No.5 seam behaved in a similar manner. The total sulfur
content was reduced from 6.88 percent to 4.41 percent when the coal was
rough-cleaned at 3/8 inch x O. Pulverizing the clean coal fraction to
30 mesh and recleaning reduced the total sulfur content from 4.41 per-
cent to 3.30 percent.
Table 12 shows the results obtained to date from the nine Phase II
coals tested in preparing a high-grade pyrite concentrate. Column 1
shows the total amount of sulfur available in the ROM coal for removal,
and Column 2 shows the percent of pyritic sulfur. Columns 3 and 4 show
the percentage of sulfur recovered in the pyrite concentrate; the first
for total sulfur and the second for pyritic sulfur. Using the Pittsburgh
seam coal as an example, the data show that 3.6 percent of the total
sulfur available in the ROM coal ended up in the pyrite concentrate,
and this represented 6.7 percent of the pyritic sulfur in the ROM coal.
The last column shows the percentage of sulfur in the high grade pyrite.
The complete coal cleaning and pyrite beneficiation data for the
nine Phase II coals are shown in Appendix B, Tables B-1 through B-95,
and Figures B-1 through B-9.
The pyrite beneficiation data for the Ohio No.5 seam coal are
shown for two size consists: the raw run-of-mine coal crushed to
3/8 inch x 0 and Zone E from the 3/8 inch x 0 test crushed to 30 mesh x o.
The data are shown in Tables 75 through 85.
To evaluate the nine Phase II coals for potential use in a high
sulfur combustor, the chemical analysis data for each coal was tabulated
according to the gravity separations performed on the 3/8 inch x 0 coal
cleaning test fractions. Sample data sheets are shown in Tables 13
through 15.
In Table 13, the gravity separations were combined using a conven-
tional three-split separation to obtain three products: a conventional
or low sulfur combustor feedstock, a high sulfur combustor feedstock,
and a refuse product. The low sulfur combustor feedstock should have a
low total sulfur content and a high calorific value; ideally, the total
sulfur content should be below one percent, but this level was not ob-
tained in any of the present tests. The high sulfur combustor feedstock
can have a higher sulfur content and a lower calorific value. The third
product, refuse, contains high-ash, low-calorific value material. Com-
posites of the fractions which compose the three products for each of
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF SULFUR RECOVERY IN PYRITE CONCENTRATION TESTS
Total Sulfur, Pyritic Sulfur, Sulfur Reclaimed in Pyrite Total Sulfur,
Coal Identification ROM Coal, ROM Coal, Concentrate, Percent Pyrite Concentrate,
Lot Seam Percent Percent Total Sulfur Pyritic Sulfur Percent
2546 Upper Freeport 2.14 1.60 6.1 8.1 47.4
2555 Pittsburgh 2.52 1.34 3.6 6.7 43.3
2556 Ohio No.9 3.02 2.34 18.2 23.5 44.1
2574 Ohio No. 8 3.81 2.93 13.1 17.1 45.0
2579 Franklin L. B. 4.28 3.37 2.8 3.6 39.8
2630 Upper Freeport 2.32 1.77 23.7 31.1 45.9
2651 Illinois No.6 3.45 2.56 8.1 10.9 45.9
2694 Ohio No.5 6.88 6.04 15.9 18.1 42.0
2713 Upper Freeport 1.86 1.31 14.8 21.0 45.8
Averages 3.36 2.58 11.8 15.6 44.4
-------
TABLE 13.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
e?,
.
Coal Identi:fication Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Lot No.
2546
Chemical Ana1„sis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Ca1ori:fic Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Ca1ori:fic Total Usable
Low SulfUr Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.6 5.99 0.92 14,478
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.3 6.53 1.06 14,366
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 7.4 13.1 2.30 13,222
Composite o:f Fractions 79.3 6.88 1.11 14,314 93.5 90.0
High SulfUr Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1. 90 4.1 41.2 4.56 8,395
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.2 66.3 5.04 4,146
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.0 36.9 4.98 9,132
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.0 38.9 4,137
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.1 62.1 41.7 3,742
Composite o:f Fractions 8.8 50.4 10.9 6,644 4.8 10.0
Refuse
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 10.4 81.8 3.64 1,781
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 82.6 5.54 1,648
Composite o:f Fractions 11.9 81.9 3.88 1,764 1.7
-------
TABLE 14. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Lot No. 2546
Chemical Ana4rsis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.6 5.99 0.92 14,478
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.3 6.53 1.06 14,366
Composite of Fractions 71.9 6.24 0.98 14,426 85.4 81.6
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 7.4 13.1 2.30 13,222
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 41.2 4.56 8,395
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.2 66.3 5.04 4,146
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.0 36.9 4.98 9,132
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.0 38.9 4,137
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.1 62.1 41.7 3,742
Composite of Fractions 16.2 33.4 6.97 9,650 12.9 18.4
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 10.4 81.8 3.64 1,781
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 82.6 5.54 1,648
Composite of Fractions 11.9 81.9 3.88 1,764 1.7 ~
.
-------
TABLE 15. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL ~O-SPLIT SEPARATION
UJ
o
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Lot No. 2546
Chemical Anal„sis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor FeedstoCk Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.6 5.99 0.92 14,478
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.3 6.53 1.06 14,366
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 7.4 13.1 2.30 13,222
Composite of Fractions 79.3 6.88 1.11 14,314 93.5 90.0
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 41.2 4.56 8,395
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.2 66.3 5.04 4,146
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.0 36.9 4.98 9,132
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.0 38.9 4,137
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.1 62.1 41.7 3,742
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 10.4 81.8 3.64 1,781
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 82.6 5.54 1,648
Composite of Fractions 20.7 68.5 6.86 3,838 6.5 10.0
-------
TABLE 16. COMPOSITES OF POTENTIAL COMBUSTION FEEDSTOCKS
FROM PHASE II COALS USING A CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Chemical Ana4rsis, Weight
Percent9 Dry Basis
BCR Product, Calorific Available
Lot Weight Total Value, Calorific Total Usable
No. Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Value, Percent Product9 Percent
-
Composites of Fractions 2546 79.3 6.88 1.11 14,314 93.5 90.0
for Conventional or Low 2555 92.8 6.54 1.97 14,177 97.8 96.5
Sulfur Combustor Feedstock 2556 87.3 11.3 2.19 12,885 91.8 87.3
2574 90.9 6.88 2.78 13,689 97.1 95.0
2579 81.8 16.2 3.27 12,929 92.3 88.3
2630 79.3 8.38 1.15 14,162 93.5 90.9
2651 90.3 8.33 2.32 13 ,179 96.5 94.9
2694 88.2 8.21 3.51 12,931 94.8 90.3
2713 77.8 10.6 1.08 13,667 92.7 88.4
Composites of Fractions 2546 8.8 50.4 10.9 6,644 4.8 10.0
for High Sulfur Combustor 2555 3.4 48.8 12.0 6,437 1.6 3.5
Feedstock 2556 9.1 37.1 8.94 8,419 6.3 9.4
2574 4.8 48.6 25.0 5,790 2.2 5.0
2579 10.8 52.6 10.3 6,321 6.0 11.7
2630 7.9 51.0 16.1 6,329 4.2 9.1
2651 4.9 48.4 16.8 6,234 2.5 5.1
2694 9.5 49.4 31.5 5,375 4.3 9.7
2713 10.2 55.2 6.68 5,883 5.2 11.6
Composites of Fractions 2546 11.9 81.9 3.88 1,764 1.7
for Refuse 2555 3.8 74.6 5.19 2,010 0.6
2556 3.6 49.2 6.15 6,668 1.9
2574 4.3 76.0 7.07 2,267 0.7
2579 7.4 75.4 7.38 2,719 1.7
2630 12.8 78.2 5.03 2,162 2.3 w
2651 4.8 69.9 9.92 2,714 1.0 I-'
.
2694 2.3 56.6 22.4 4,917 0.9
-------
32.
In Table 14, the gravity separations were combined to form the
same three products, but the method of combining the separations was
altered slight4r and labeled "unconventional." In order to decrease the
percentage of ash and total sulfur content, and increase the calorific
value of the low sulfur combustor feedstock, the 1.60 float fraction
from Zone C was transferred from the low to the high sulfur combustor
feedstock. By doing this, the total sulfur content of the low sulfur
feedstock was reduced from 1.11 percent to 0.98 percent. However, both
the percentage of available calorific value and the percentage of total
usable material contained in the low sulfur combustor feedstock decreased
by about 8 percent.
Table 15 presents the gravity separations that were combined using
a conventional two-split separation to obtain on4r two products, a con-
ventional or low sulfur combustor feedstock and a refuse product. This
method would app4r when on4r a low sulfur combustor was utilized. Com-
posites of the fractions which compose the two products are shawn in
Table 17 for each of the Phase II coals.
It should be mentioned that the combination of the various gravity
separation fractions is by no means a standard method. Instead, it is
mere4r meant to be a very general guideline. In most cases, the optimum
combination of these fractions will vary from coal to coal depending on
whether quantity or quality of feed material for the combustor is
stressed. Also, the terms "conventional" and lIunconventional" are used
mere4r to distinguish between two possible methods of combining the
fractions.
The complete sulfur combustor data for the nine Phase II coals are
shawn in Appendix C, Tables C-l through C-19.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
A.
Phase I Evaluations
The coals evaluated during this period were quite different from
the 20 coals evaluated during the calendar year 1969. The pyritic sul-
fur content of the ROM coals varied from 0.34 to 5.99 percent, and con-
siderable progress was made in sulfur reduction by gravity separation
in most of the coals. As usual, those coals which showed the least
total sulfur reduction contained a high proportion of organic sulfur.
Addi tional data are needed to obtain a broader outlook on the
effects of fine grinding on pyrite liberation for United States coals.
Therefore, it is suggested that Phase I work be continued on coal seams
and/or areas that have, with limited data, shawn potential for this
-------
TABLE 17. COMPOSITES OF POTENTIAL COMBUSTION FEEDSTOCK
FROM PHASE II COALS USING A CONVENTIONAL '!WO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
BCR Product, Calorific Available
Lot Weight Total Value, Calorific Total Usable
No. Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Value , Percent Product, Percent
Composites of Fractions 2546 79.3 6.88 1.11 14,314 93.5 90.0
for Conventional or Low 2555 92.8 6.54 1.97 14,177 97.8 96.5
Sulfur Combustor Feedstock 2556 87.3 11.3 2.19 12,885 91.8 87.3
2574 90.9 6.88 2.78 13,689 97.1 95.0
2579 81.8 16.2 3.27 12,929 92.3 88.3
2630 79.3 8.38 1.15 14,162 93.5 90.9
2651 90.3 8.33 2.32 13,179 96.5 94.9
2694 88.2 8.21 3.51 12,931 94.8 90.3
2713 77.8 10.6 1.08 13 ,667 92.7 88.4
Composites of Fractions 2546 20.7 68.5 6.86 3,838 6.5 10.0
for Refuse 2555 7.2 62.4 8.42 4,100 2.2 3.5
2556 12.7 40.5 8.16 7,922 8.2 12.7
2574 9.1 61.5 16.5 4,129 2.9 5.0
2579 18.2 61.9 9.11 4,855 7.7 11.7
2630 20.7 67.8 9.25 3,754 6.5 9.1
2651 9.7 59.0 13.4 4,490 3.5 5.1
2694 11.8 50.8 29.8 5,280 5.2 9.7
2713 22.2 67.9 4.54 3,786 7.3 11.6
w
w
-------
34.
B.
Phase II Evaluations
The results obtained from. the Phase II, Coal Cleaning and Pyrite
Concentration Studies, differed somewhat from those obtained in previous
test series. The average total sulfur in the ROM coals was slight4"
less than that for the six previous Phase II coals, and the average
pyritic sulfur was very similar. However, the nine present Phase II
coals were not as amenable to the coal cleaning and pyrite concentration
processes as were the previous coals. The situation was further compli-
cated by the fact that the average organic sulfur content (ROM) of the
present coals was considerably less than that of the previous coals.
The only variable introduced into the two coal cleaning tests on
the quarter-size concentrating table was that the end table elevation
(refuse end) was increased fram 1 inch to 1-1/2 inches in 8 feet. The
elevation was increased in order to effect a better distribution over
the entire table, especially when cleaning high-refuse coals.
In the Pyrite Concentration Tests, the percent sulfur reclaimed in
the pyrite concentrate, both total and pyritic, was considerably less
than for the previous coals tested.
In the Sulfur Combustor Studies, seven of the nine coals studied
showed possibilities for use in a high-sulfur combustor, in line with
the total seam utilization concept. It should be emphasized that these
coals appeared promising when evaluated under very general guidelines.
It is recommended that further Phase II evaluations be continued
-------
A-35.
Appendix A
PHASE I EVAWATIONS--FLOAT-SINK TESTS
Moisture as reported on all Tables
is the moisture of the sample as
received in the analytical laboratory.
This value is used to place other
-------
TABLE A-l
A-37.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2437
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight 10, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
1.41 9.2 28.4 52.4 2.47 0.12 1.93 0.42 12,494
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Jry BasJ.s Reduc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, .10 Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 79.6 6.90 0.82 0.27 86.0 66.8
Sink at 1.60 20.4 65.7 8.60 8.19
Composite 100.0 18.90 2.41 1.89
Chemical Analysis,
D .
Weight, %
t.
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1. 60 77.9 6.32 0.73 0.18 90.7 70.0
Sink at 1.60 22.1 64.3 8.64 8.13
Composite 100.0 19.13 2.48 1.94
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, 10
-------
A-38.
TABLE A-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No.6 Seam, Tuscarawas County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2438
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
4.77 7.76 43.1 49.1 4.46 0.15 3.57 0.74 13,448
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, oJo
ti
Drv Bas J.S Reduc on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, . % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 91.3 2.93 2.12 1.37 61.6 52.5
Sink at 1. 60 8.7 54.4 27.4 -- *
Composite 100.0 7.41 4.32 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, oJo Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 89.8 2.2c 1.82 1.07 70.0 59.2
Sink at 1.60 10.2 51.5 ~.8 25.9
Composite 100.0 7.3C 4.37 3.60
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Weight, oJo
Reduction
-------
TABLE A-3
A-39.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No.9 Seam, Muhlenburg County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2439
Chemical Ana:l„sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/1b
6.42 9.44 41.7 48.9 4.28 0.21 2.89 1.18 12,973
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, %
Dry Bas J.S Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, . % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 92.1 5.92 2.94 1.80 37.7 31.3
Sink at 1.60 7.9 49.1 20.4 -- *
Composite 100.0 9.33 4.32 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1. 60 90.2 4.5E 2.50 1.46 49.5 41.6
Sink at 1.60 9.8 48.4 19.3 17.6
Composite 100.0 8.8, 4.15 3.04
Chemical Ana:l„sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
A-40.
TABLE A-4
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Black Creek Seam, Jefferson County, Alabama
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2440
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight oJ" Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
1.08 6.71 31.9 61.4 0.93 0.06 0.34 0.53 14,524
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
Weight, %
Drv Basis Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, oj, Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 92.4 2.06 0.70 0.08 76.5 24.7
Sink at 1.60 7.6 62.4 3.27 -- *
Composite 100.0 6.65 0.90 -- *
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Su
Float at 1.60 91.6 2.01 0.70 0.19 44.1 24.7
Sink at 1.60 8.4 56.9 2.86 2.33
Composite 100.0 6.6~ 0.88 0.37
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Weight, oj,
Reduction
lfur
-------
TABLE A-5
A-41.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No.5 Seam, Tuscarawas County, Ohio
Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2441
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
4.78 12.6 40.2 47.2 7.15 0.27 5.99 0.92 12,388
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
)ry' asJ.s Re uc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 84.0 3.71 3.12 2.12 64.6 56.4
Sink at 1.60 16.0 53.3 25.2 24.3
Composite 100.0 11.64 6.65 5.67
Chemical Ana~is,
DB.
Weight, %
d t'
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Su
Float at 1.60 83.1 2.83 2.56 1.59 73.5 64.2
Sink at 1.60 16.9 57.1 28.4 27.6
Composite 100.0 12.00 6.93 5.99
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
A-42.
TABLE A-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam. Preston County. West Virginia
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2442
Chemical Ana4rsis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/1b
o.qO 14.~ 26.6 59.2 1.38 0.12 0.82 0.44 13,176
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis, Weight, %
D Basis Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 8 . 6.2 0.62 0.06 .1
Sink at 1.60 14.1 66.8 5.42 4.7
Composite 100.0 14.79 1.30 0.73
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 83.7 5.27 0.66 0.12 85.3 52.2
Sink at 1.60 16.~ i5q.8 5.46 4.q7
Composite 100.0 14.16 1.44 O.Ql
Chemical Ana4rsis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
-------
TABLE A-7
A-43.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Wadge Seam, Routt County, Colorado
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2443
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
4.26 9.48 40.4 50.1 0.54 -- 0.30 0.24 12,410
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, %
d t.
DrY BasJ.s Re uc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 96.5 7.90 0.44 0.18 40.0 18.5
Sink at 1.60 3.5 45.2 1.30 -- *
Composite 100.0 9.21 0.47 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 93.5 6.87 0.50 0.24 20.0 7.4
Sink at 1.60 6.5 41.4 1.02 0.76
Composite 100.0 9.11 0.53 0.27
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
A-44.
TABLE A-8
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2444
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight 10, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
1.24 30.9 30.4 38.7 4.43 0.38 3.33 0.72 10,066
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, %
t.
Drv Bas J.S Reduc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, 10 Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 66.0 9.29 2.81 1.79 46.2 36.6
Sink at 1.60 34.0 t71.4 7.50 6.37
Composite 100.0 30.41 4.41 3.35
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Su
Float at 1.60 64.3 8.36 2.10 1.08 67.6 52.6
Sink at 1.60 35.7 70.8 8.74 7.49
Composite 100.0 30.65 4.47 3.37
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
TABLE A-9
A-45.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification N0.9 Seam, Ohio County, Kentucky
Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2445
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight 10, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
1.86 14.0 39.0 47.0 4.00 0.16 2.77 1.07 12.282
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
Weight, %
Drv Bas~s Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, 10 Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 88.9 6.65 3.01 1.83 33.9 24.7
Sink at 1. 60 11.1 64.7 10.8 --*
Composite 100.0 13.09 3.88 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink
Weight, %
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Total Pyritic
Ash Sulfur Sulfur
Weight, %
Reduction
Pyritic Total
Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1. 60
Composite
36.2
Sink at 1.60
100.0
4.01
11.7
2.80
-------
A-46.
TABLE A-IO
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No. 3A Seam, Tuscarawas County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2446
Chemical Anal„sis, As Received:
Weight ofo, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
2.07 7.52 41.4 51.1 2.69 0.12 2.28 0.29 13,448
Anal„ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
Weight, %
Drv Basis Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, ofo Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 g3.2 3.62 0.65 0.27 88.2 75.8
Sink at 1.60 6.8 155.2 26.2 -- *
Composite 100.0 7.13 2.39 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 92.2 3.32 0.65 0.25 89.0 75.8
Sink at 1.60 7.8 51. 7 23.8 23.1
Composite 100.0 7.09 2.46 2.03
Chemical Anal„sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, ofo
Reduction
-------
TABLE A-ll
A-47.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur :from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2447
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
2.28 14.0 33.0 53.0 2.20 0.09 1.55 0.56 12 ,716
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
Weight, %
t.
Dry Bas~s Reduc ~on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 88.1 9.27 0.92 0.37 76.1 58.2
Sink at 1.60 11.9 47.0 10.6 --*
Composite 100.0 13.76 2.07 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Su
Float at 1. 60 85.3 7.8~ 0.73 0.15 90.3 66.8
Sink at 1.60 14.7 48.1 10.6 9.96
Composite 100.0 13.75 2.18 1.59
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
lfur
-------
A-48.
TABLE A-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No.8 Seam, Belmont County, Ohio
Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2448
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
1.58 p-2.4 42.0 45.6 5.06 0.25 3.35 1.46 12,638
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
)ry asJ.s e uc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyrit~c Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 89.3 7.89 3.83 2.29 31.6 24.3
Sink at 1.60 10.7 49.6 14.6 13.2
Composite 100.0 12 . 35 4.98 3.46
Chemical Ana~s is,
DB.
Weight, %
R d t.
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, 'fa Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 86.2 6.43 3.37 1.82 45.7 33.4
Sink at 1.60 13.8 47.8 15.2 13.9
Composite 100.0 12.14 5.00 3.49
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, 'fa
-------
TABLE A-13
A-49.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No. 12 Seam, Muhlenburg County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2449
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
1.98 15.2 38.3 46.5 4.08 0.20 3.16 0.72 12,008
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Jry as ~s Re uc ~on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 85.8 8.64 2.35 1.61 49.1 42.4
Sink at 1. 60 14.2 56.0 15.0 13.9
Composite 100.0 15.37 4.15 3.36
Chemical Analysis,
DB'
Weight, %
d t.
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 84.5 7.5E 1.95 1.20 62.0 52.2
Sink at 1.60 15.5 54.6 15.2 14.3
Composite 100.0 14.8~ 4.00 3.23
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
-------
A-50.
TABLE A-14
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2450
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/1b
1.02 18.2 28.2 53.6 2.44 0.26 1.71 0.47 12,418
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, %
ti
Drv Bas J.S Reduc on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 81.5 8.01 0.85 0.27 84.2 65.2
Sink at 1.60 18.5 63.0 8.40 7.79
Composite 100.0 18.18 2.25 1.66
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 79.0 6.82 0.74 0.14 91.8 69.7
Sink at 1.60 21.0 60.8 8.18 7.59
Composite 100.0 18.16 2.30 1.70
Chemical Analys is, .
Dry Basis
Weight, %
-------
TABLE A-15
A-51.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification N0.9 Seam, Hopkins County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2476
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
Moisture Ash
. 8
0.12
2.20
1.66
13 237
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, oJ,
d t.
Dry Bas J.S Re uc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, . % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 92.0 4.72 3.30 1.52 30.9 17.1
Sink at 1.60 8.0 63.8 11.9 --*
Composite 100.0 9.45 3.99 --
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1. 60 91.1 4.~ 3.16 1.57 28.6 20.6
Sink at 1.60 8.9 57.6 12.2 10.8
Composite 100.0 9.oE 3.96 2.39
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
A-52.
TABLE A-16
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification N0.9 Seam, Hopkins County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2477
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight 10, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
3.51 14.9 38.8 46.3 3.83 0.09 2.72 1.02 12,149
An~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
Weight, %
Dry Basis Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, 10 Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 87.2 6.49 2.54 1.46 46.3 33.7
Sink at 1.60 12.8 62.6 11.0 10.3
Composite 100.0 13.67 3.62 2.59
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 85.2 6.02 2.33 1.19 56.2 39.2
Sink at 1.60 14.8 60.9 12.1 11.3
Composite 100.0 14.14 3.78 2.69
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
-------
TABLE A-17
A-53.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2478
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/1b
~.80 15.6 37.4 47.0 4.48 0.24 3.85 0.39 12,031
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, oJ,
t.
Dry Bas1S Reduc J.on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, oJ, Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 81.3 3.26 1.12 0.56 85.5 75.0
Sink at 1.60 18.7 63.1 17.8 17.0
Composite 100.0 14.45 4.24 3.63
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 81.1 3.6~ 1.05 0.46 88.1 76.5
Sink at 1.60 18.9 62.1 18.4 17.7
Composite 100.0 14.68 4.33 3.72
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
-------
A-54.
TABLE A-18
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur :from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2479
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight 10, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
Moisture Ash
O. 2
20.8
2.10
0.06
1.48
O. 6
12 10
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Ana~is,
Weight, oJo
t
DrY' Bas is Reduc ion
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, .10 Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 78.0 8.52 1.07 0.34 77.0 49.0
Sink at 1.60 22.0 62.7 5.36 4.91
Composite 100.0 20.44 2.01 1.35
Ana~ses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink
Weight, oJo
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Total Pyritic
Ash Sulfur Sulfur
Weight, %
Reduction
Pyritic Total
Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60
.1
.6
Sink at 1.60
24.
Composite
100.0
2.13
-------
TABLE A-19
A-55.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
'\
Coal Identification No. 14 Seam, Hopkins co~ty, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2480
Moisture Ash
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight 'fo, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
3 .68 0 .20 2 . o. 56 11 360
2. 0
20.4
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
)rY' asJ.s Re uc on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 77.9 5.98 2.12 1.47 49.7 42.4
Sink at 1.60 22.1 71.6 8.87 8.12
Composite 100.0 20.48 3.61 2.94
Chemical Analysis,
DB.
Weight, %
d ti
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink.
Weight, %
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Total Pyritic
Ash Sulfur Sulfur
Weight, 'fo
Reduction
Pyritic Total
Sulfur Sulfur
Sink at 1.60
22.7
1.02
2.2
Float at 1. 60
Composite
100.0
9.78
3.58
9.02
-------
A-56.
TABLE A-20
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification Fire Clay Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2481
Chemical Ana4"sis, As Received:
Weight 10, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
Moisture Ash
30.0
36.2
4.18
.28
0.60
6 2
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analys is,
Weight, %
Drv Basis Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, 10 Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 63.3 9.88 2.84 1.96 40.2 32.1
Sink at 1.60 36.7 72.5 6.38 5.50
Composite 100.0 32 .86 4.14 3.26
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1. 60 61.9 0.2 2.31 1.35 58.8 44.7
Sink at 1. 60 38.1 59.6 7.41 6.47
Composite 100.0 32 . 83 4.25 3.30
Chemical Ana4"sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
-------
TABLE A-2l
A-57.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification No.6 Seam, HoPkins County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch. x 0
BCR Lot No.
2482
Chemical Analysis, As Received:
Weight 'fo, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
Moisture Ash
.6
2.28
0.2
0.50
12
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
Weight, oj,
Dry Bas is Reduction
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, 'fo Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 89.8 3.00 1.40 0.67 56.2 38.6
Sink at 1. 60 10.2 64.8 9.72 9.04
Composite 100.0 9.30 2.25 1.52
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Su
Float at 1. 60 88.9 2.8c 1.26 0.55 64.1 44.7
Sink at 1.60 11.1 59.6 9.30 8.56
Composite 100.0 9.1C 2.15 1.44
Chemical Analysis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
A-58.
TABLE A-22
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Coal Identification N0.9 Seam, Davies County, Kentucky
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 1-1/2 Inch x 0
BCR Lot No.
2483
Chemical Ana~sis, As Received:
Weight %, Dry Basis
Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Calorific
Moisture Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Value, Btu/lb
5.74 15.2 38.4 46.4 4.10 0.14 3.13 0.83 11,992
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 30 Mesh:
Chemical Analysis,
.
Weight, %
d ti
Dry Bas J.S Re uc on
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur
Float at 1.60 85.2 6.12 2.2q 1. ~7 ,6.2 44.1
Sink at 1.60 14.8 61.6 13.5 12.8
Composite 100.0 14.33 3.95 3.06
Analyses of As-received Sample Reduced to Minus 200 Mesh:
Float & Sink Total Pyritic Pyritic Total
Weight, % Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Su
Float at 1.60 84.0 6.11 2.20 1.27 5q.4 46.~
Sink at 1.60 16.0 58.4 13.6 12.8
Composite 100.0 14.48 4.02 3.11
Chemical Ana~sis,
Dry Basis
Weight, %
Reduction
-------
B-59.
Appendix B
PHASE II EVAWATIONS--CONCENTRATING TABLE
AND PYRITE BENEFICIATION
Moisture as reported on all Tables
is the moisture of the sample as
received in the analytical laboratory.
This value is used to place other
-------
B-61.
TABLE B-1
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pa.
BCR Sample No.
2546
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent CUmulative
plus 1/4 in. 9.7 9.7
1/4 in. x 6 M 28.1 37.8
6Mx12M 22.8 60.6
minus 12 M 39.4 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 3.7 3.7
30 M x 50 M 32.7 36.4
50 M x 100 M 26.5 62.9
minus 100 M 37.1 100.0
-------
Figure
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
11(
Sieve opening in mm
.
1.0
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
400 325 270
140
100
.
.
.
60 50
40
30
18 16 14
U. S. standard sieve series
b:I
I
0'\
I'\)
.
10
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, INe. 6072 G 5
x 0
B-1. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8 Inch
Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper Freeport Seam,
-------
B-63.
TABLE B-2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam. Armstrong County. Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2546
, ,
Product Weiaht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab le Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 38.6 0.80 5.99 0.92
Zone B 33.3 0.64 6.53 1.06
Zone C
Float at 1.60 7.4 54.3 0.6tS [1.3.1 2.30
1.60 by 1.90 4.1 29.7 0.tS4 1.2 1+.50 Ii4.6
Sink at 1. 90 2.2 16.0 0.76 6.~ '5.04 23.5
Composite B.7 100.0 0.0 3.41
Zone D
Float at 1.90 LO 8.~ 0.72 ~6.Q 4.Q8 44.7
1.90 by 2.95 'o.L. 88 0 0.77 81-8 ~-64 Q.2
Sink at 2.95 oL. ~.7 o_L., ,nO.O ~8-Q ----*
Composite n8 100.0 :77.~ '5.06
Zone E
Float at 2.95 ,e; e;FL e; o.6L. 82-6 e;-e;4
Sink at 2.95 , -, 1L, .e; o_~o Ih2.' 41-7
Composite 2 6 100 0 174.1 20.15
Composite of
Zones A. B. C lie;.h 11 () () , _~7
Composite of 1.60 6.8E
Float Fractions 79.3 1.11
Composite of 2.95 61.5 41.0
Sink Fractions 1.5
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 19.6 2.31
Ana4"sis of
Feed to Table 1.50 18.6 2.14
Chemical Ana4"sis Dry Basis
Run Date: 4-9-70
-------
B-64.
TABLE B-3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification UQJ;)er Freeport Seam, ArmstroM COWlty. Pennsylvania
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2546
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weip;ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 66.1 0.48 6.3~ 0.q6
Zone B 23.8 0.44 7.31 1.02
Zone C
Float at 1.60 2.q 84.2 0.60 17.q Lqq
Sink at 1.60 0.'5 1'5.8 0.60 47.6 5.20
Composite q.4 100.0 22.1 2.50
Zone D
Float at 1.60 1.2 20.2 0.'56 25.q q.qO
1.60 bv 2. q5 4.8 78.2 O.ql 152.g 4.70
Sink at 2.g5 0.1 1.6 0.2g 63.2 37.2
COJlIDosite 6.1 100.0 47.6 4.g4
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.25 42.4 0.42 174.1 10.6
Sink at 2.Q'5 O.q') 57.6 0.20 162.7 41.4
COJlIDosite 0.60 100 0 67.'5 28.q
Composite of 7 .1l
Zones A. B. C Qq.q LOq
Composite of 1.60 94.0 7.r 1.04
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 0.5 ~2.8 40.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products 1 fV"I ('\ oaf 1 k~
Analysis of 1.45 1.49
Feed to Table 10.1
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
B-65.
TABLE B-4
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam. ArmstroM County, Pennsylvania
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (4-16-70)
BCR Sample No. 2546
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Produ~ts Percent Wei£lht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A "ih_h h.~n O..Oh
Zone B 20.4 7.37 1.02
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 2.4 84-2 tL7.~ l.qq
Sink at 1.60 0.5 111.8 ~7.6 5.20
Composite 2.g 100.0 1:>2.1 2.110
Zone D
Float at 2.95 16.5 q7.1 )8.4 4.02
Sink at 2.95 0.5 2.g 0.6 38.6
Composite 17.0 100.0 :,tS .2 5.02
Zone E
Float at 2.gS 1.7 ~L._R Al.h 6.14
Sink at 2.q5 1 .L. h"i.~ ~~ ~ L., h
Composite ~.1 100_0 t72.8 22.2
Composite of 71h
Zones A. B. C 70.0 LO~
Composite of 1.60 79.4 6.90 1.01
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 1.9 1)1.8 40.8
Sink Fractions
Composite of Lq.6 2.:17
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of ....8.6 2.14
Feed to Table
-------
B-66.
TABLE B-5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
TfppF!r FrF!P.port. SF!Rm, Armst.ro~ County, Pennsylvania
Zone E, 3/R Tn~n y 0 ~1n (4-9-70) C~]~hF!n t.o 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2546
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 9.9 0.24 68.8 13.0
Zone B 19.5 0.32 76.8 6.90
Zone C 44.2 0.12 81.5 11.4
Zone D 15.8 0.11 65.7 41.3 5.9
Zone E 10.6 0.10 64.6 47.4 3.9
Composite of 75.04 19.22
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 19.2
Feed to Table 75.2
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-67.
TABLE B-6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (4-24-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2546
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 14.5 0.16 65.8 39.6
Zone B ~~.7 0.16 65.6 ~9.4
Zone C 47.8 0.18 65.8 40.2
Zone D 1.7 0.18 66.5 4~.2 3.8
Zone E 2.':1 0.14 66.2 48.0 2.2
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 65.8 40.1
Analysis of
Feed to Table 65.7 41.3
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
B-68.
TABLE B-7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsy1 vania
BCR Sample No.
2546
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test . Run Date 4-9-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: .t<8.W Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 18.6 2.14
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.6 74.1 20.5
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 4-24-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:-Zone- E, V8 Inch x 0 Run (4-9-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Producti Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis. Weight %
Wei!2:ht Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 75.2 19.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 10.6 64.6 47.4
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 4-28-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D. 10 Mesh x 0 Run (4-24-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 65.7 41.3
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.3 66.2 48.0
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.28
64.7
-------
B-69.
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
46.2
TABLE B-8
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Fa.
BCR Sample No. 2546
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
12.0
~
...2.A
L.!L
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
9.9
No. 15-5 Table
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
2...L
3.4
High Grade
Pyrite
~
~
~
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
2.....69-
3.3
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
:...Q...Q6
0.48
1.09
-------
B-70.
TABLE B-9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2546
Fraction
Weight Percent
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e" ht e e t
'l'otal Sulfur
Ash
.---------
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
2.6
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
0.41
1l.4
41.
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
0.06
0.19
0.01
0.01
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
1 .7
2.26
Analysis of Feed
Coal
18.6
-------
B-71.
TABLE B-10
EvaJ.uation of CoaJ. Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine CoaJ.
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
CoaJ. Identification
"(JpJ;Ier Free.];)ort Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsyl vRniR
BCR Sample No. ?54h
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentratin~ Table No. 14 Test Run Date 4-9-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Rnn-o:f'-Mine CDi'll C'I"'11!'1hen -to 3/R Tn~h yo 0
Product, ChemicaJ. AnaJ.ysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash TotaJ. Sulfur
AnaJ.ysis of Feed to Table 100.0 18.6 2.14
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.6 74.1 20.5
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 4-24-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E. ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (4-Q-70) Crushed to ~O Mesh x 0
Product, ChemicaJ. AnaJ.ysis. Dry Basis Weight %
Weight ~ Ash TotaJ. Sulfur
AnaJ.ysis of Feed to Table 100.0 75.2 19.2
Zones D and E 26.4 64.6 47.4
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test
Feed to Concentrating Table:
Run Date
Process Deferred
Product, ChemicaJ. AnaJ.ysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash TotaJ. Sulfur
Analvsis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
65.3
43.7
Two Stage Pyrite Product
-------
B-72.
TABLE B-ll
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pa.
BeR Sample No. 2546
46.2
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur ITon of
Run-of-Mine Coal
12.0
...1..£.
.2JL
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
9.9
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
High Grade
Pyrite
0.6
2.6
0.7
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
Process Deferred
~
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
-------
B-73.
TABLE B-12
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2546
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' ht e t
Fraction Weight Percent Ash 'l'otal Sulfur
.--------
Table No. 14
Zone A 38.6 5.99
Zone B
Zone C 1 .
Zone D 11.8
Zone E 2.
Table No. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No. 15-S Process eferred
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 1 .7 2.2 I
Analysis of Feed
-------
B-74.
Table
Products
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
1.60 Float
1.60 by 1.90
1.90 Sink
Composite
Zone D
1.90 Float
1.90 by 2.95
2.95 Sink
Composite
Zone E
2.95 Float
2.95 Sink
Composite
Composite of
Table
Products
Analysis of
Feed to
Table
Run Date: 4-9-70
TABLE B-13
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3!8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam. ArmstroDP: County. Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 21)46
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei~ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic ReduciAA Atmosphere Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Percent Sink Weight 1, Moisture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT SiOol Ala 0:3 Fe.a ~ MgO Cao TiG.3 Naa 0 I Kg 0
~8.6 0.80 I).QC; 0.Q2 0.01 0"~7 0.1)4 b.4.478 2100 2460 271)0+ 2610 267'5 271)0~ 46.,'5 'u.r:; 12.1 0.64 4.6'5 1.35 o_~, ~.r.
33.3 0.64 6.53 1.06 -- 0.54 0.52 ~4,366 2020 2470 2740 2585 2660 2750 48.0 29. 5 11.0 0.68 3.25 1.28 0.2C 2.1
0.60 ~0.2 ~.~8 0.01 2.87 0.50 110. ':!62 2060 2"60 2680 2621) 2691) 271)0 51. 0 24.0 18.0 0.68 10_00 1.23 n 1C ':I 1
7.4 54.3 0.68 13.1 2.30 0.02 1.73 0.55 b.3.222 2060 2460 2600 2540 2615 2745 46.0 28.0 17.5 0.55 2.10 1.20 O.lE 2 . I)
4.1 29.7 0.84 41.2 4.56 0.02 lJ..0t5 0.46 8.395 2460 2550 2705 2635 2700 2750 54.0 25.0 15.0 1.040.6QI1.50 O.H ',L4
2.2 16.0 0.76 66.3 5.04 0.02 4.79 0.23 4.146 2450 2580 2750+ 2560 2735 2750 55.0 23.7 12.3 1.12 O. '59 1.25 O.2e 4 6
13.7 100.0 30.0 3.41 0.02 2.92 0.47 10.336
0.68 77.0 ".46 0.02 ~ .26 0.18 2.481 2150 2580 2750+ 2605 2740 2 0 ;5.0 24.1) 11.'5 (\ A, (\ 4t::; 1. 22 0 ~(. 4 ~
1.0 8.':! 0.72 ~6.9 4.98 0.02 1.46 o. r50.Q~ i- 2 2170 248r:; 2680 21)41) 2660 2 0 0.0 2t . 0 17. 4 n. r:.t:. n .7Q 1.24 n ~-:: ':I 7
10.t 88.0 0.77 81.8 ~.64 0.01 .49 0.14 1.on1 2500 2620 271)0+ 2745 2750+ 2 0 ;7.0 2t .5 8.6 1 , 8 n 4" 1. 24 0 ~r i; - 0
o. ~.7 o. ~1 60.0 ~8.9 0.1~ ~8.~ 0.47 4.17 2q40 2~80 2480 271)0+ 2750+ 2 0 8.5~ I . q-i 85. 0 n ..~. n "4 0.20 n no:: n ~
11.8 100.0 77.3 5.06 0.02 4.86 0.18 2.478
0.30 5.2 19.2 0.06 18.8 0.34 2.339 2005 2095 2380 2510 2570 2615 41.0 17.~ 36.0 0.'510.6" 0.81 n'~ ':I.~
1.5 58.5 0.64 2.6 1).54 0.02 5.41 0.11 1.-648 24140 2560 2750+ 2560 2750 2750 54.5 2£. 11.5 1.1r:; 0.r:;1 1.14 0 ~c C;.7
1.1 41.5 0.30 e.1 41.1 0.10 40.8 0.78 3 .742 2310 2380 2410 2150+ 2150+ 2150 1.8-i J.1 85.0* 0.26 0.42 0.16 o.o~ 0.2
2.6 100.0 74.1 20.5 0.06 20.1 0.39 2.517
100.0
1.50
19.6
0.01
1.82
0.48 12.146
2.31
18.6
2.14
26.0 13.0 0.81 1.43 1.25 0 2" ':t. 7
0.04
0.1)0 12.Q68
2040 24Q'5
2710
1.60
2620
2680
27'50 '52.'5
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-75.
TABLE B-14
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2555
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size
Weight Percent
Cumulative
plus 1/4 in.
1/4 in. x 6 M
6Mx12M
minus 12 M
7.7
25.3
23.2
43.8
7.7
33.0
56.2
100.0
Total
100.0
Zones A, Band C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (5-13-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 4.3 4.3
30 M x 50 M 34.6 38.9
50 M x 100 M 25.9 64.8
minus 100 M 35.2 100.0
-------
r lOR" ovenlze percentage
by weight 0.1
1
II(
Sieve opening In mm
.
tx:I
I
~
~
.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
.
40
.
20
30
50
.
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
30
18 16 14
U. S. standard aleve .en8.
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, IN(. 607 2 G 6
Figure B-2. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8 Inch X 0
Concentrating Table Feeds for Pittsburgh Seam,
-------
B-77.
TABLE B-15
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur fram Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification
Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2555
Product Wei!lht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 51.8 1.02 6.04 1.84
Zone B 38.8 0.96 6.52 2.06
Zone C 2.2 5~.~ 0.96 18.4 3.54
Float at 1.60 1 4 'i1. 8 0.72 ~8 6 ~.q4 49.0
1.60 by 1.90 0.6 14.9 0.50 57.0 7.74 28.'i
Sink at 1.90 4.2 100.0 'i0.6 4.29
Composite
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 0.6 15.8 0.74 '16.0 '1.50 49.0
1.90 by 2.95 2.8 76.4 0.8'i 7'i.2 5.~4 14.9
Sink at 2.95 O.'i 7.8 0.42 70.4 'i4.'i 7.7
Composite 'i.7 100.0 67.1 7.'i1 19.7
Zone E
Float at 2.95 10 66.8 0 6~ 78 6 4,76
Sink at 2.95 0.5 'i'i.2 0.'i1 69.7 'i6.8
Composite 1.5 100.0 75.6 15.4
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 94.8 7.'i2 2.04
Composite of 1.60 6.'14
Float Fractions 92,8 1.97
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 0.8 69.'i 'i1).9
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 10.6 2.4'i
Anal„sis of
Feed to Table 1.08 10,1) 2,1)2
Chemical Anal„sis, Dry Basis,
-------
B-78.
TABLE B-16
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia C01mty. West Virginia
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (5-13-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2555
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 7P.dt:; O.ex> 6.0~ 1.86
Zone B 16.4 0.82 6. 7~ 1.(y,)
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 L2S q6.~ 1.02 0.2 2.17
Sink at 1.60 O.OS ~.7 0.75 45.6 8.84
Composite l.iO 100.0 ...1. 5 2.42
Zone D
Float at 1.60 2..20 (,o.q 0.66 9.~ 2.92
1.60 by 2.95 L~6 ~8.0 0.81 ~4.9 6.23
Sink at 2.95 0.04 1.1 0.44 54.4 35.0
COMPosite ~.60 lOO.O ;>9.~ 4.53
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.12 58.0 0.63 =>5 .0 14.8
Sink at 2.91) 0.08 42.0 0.52 :'2. 4 42.0
COMPosite 0.20 100.0 53.9 26.2
Composite of 96.2 6.2~ 1.88
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 98.3 6.4,
Float Fractions 1.90
Composite of 2.95 0.12 53.1 39.7
Sink Fractions
Composite of 7.1c
Table Products 100.0 2.02
Analysis of
Feed to Table 1.30 7.1-= 2.10
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
TABLE B-17
B-79.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (5-13-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run .(5-26-70)
BCR Sample No. ?555
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 74.4 6.0:: 1.86.
Zone B 15.6 6.73 1.92
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 1.16 96.3 1'-0.2 2.17
Sink at 1.60 0.04 3.7 k-5.6 8.84
Composite , 20 100.0 ~.Ij 2.42
Zone D
Float at 2.95 h.R ar:;.R ~8 2 4 61
Sink at 2.95 (L~ 4.2 59.7 34.38
Composite 7." ()() . () +<:).1 5.86
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1.1 64.7 rn.l 5.e3
Sink at 2.Q'j O.f) ~'j.~ oe.? '17.52
Composite 1.7 100.0 74.1 17.02
Composite of 91.2 6.21 1.88
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions <:)1.16 6.1<; 1.87
Composite of 2.95 0.9 69.0 36.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products 1 ()() () , ()u. ?..u.?
Analysis of 1.08 10.5 2.52
Feed to Table
Chemic~ Analysis
-------
B-80.
TABLE B-18
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Pittsbur~h Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
Zone E, ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (5-13-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2555
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 2.5 0.69 71.0 11.3
Zone B 9.9 0.62 73.0 10.2
Zone C 9.4 0.52 71.6 10.4
Zone D 70.5 0.38 78.0 11.0 7.8
Zone E 7.7 0.21 68.0 43.5 3.8
Composite of 76.0 13.4
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 13.4
Feed to Table 0.52 75.8
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-81.
TABLE B-19
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (6-4-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2555
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 1.7 0.56 78.1 8.16
Zone B 20.0 0.49 78.4 8.20
Zone C 24.4 0.60 78.6 7.66
Zone D 44.9 0.37 76.6 9.26 6.8
Zone E 9.0 0.19 69.2 43.0 3.0
Composite of 76.8
Table Products 100.0 11.7
Analysis of 0.62.
Feed to Table 77.2 12.0
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-82.
TABLE B-20
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Pi ttsburg}1 Seam, MonOn~Li8. Count.y, West Vh.g; 11; II
BCR Sample No.
2555
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 5-13-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 10.5 2.52
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 1.5 75.6 15.4
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 6-4-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:~one ~. ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (5-1~-70) Crushed to ~O Mesh x 0
Producti Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis Weight %
Weight Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 75.8 13.4
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 7.7 68.0 43.5
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 6-2~-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (6-4-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 77.2 12.0
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 9.0 69.2 43.0
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.20
68.5
-------
TABLE B-2l
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, w. Va.
BCR Sample No. 2555
48.6
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur ITon of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
~
19.0
16.0
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
4.0
No. 15-5 Table
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
1.00
High Grade
Pyrite
~
~
~
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
LIL
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
0.82
0.03
0.33
~
-------
B-84.
TABLE B-22
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virdma
BCR Sample No. 2555
Fraction
Weight Percent
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' ht e t
'I'otal Sulfur
Ash
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
51.8 1.84
2.06
.2 4 2
3.7 7.31
1. 1 .
Table No.. l5-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
0.04 11.
0.14 10.4
11.0
o
Table No. l5-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
0.02
0.21
o.
0.48
0.09
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
10.6
2.41
Analysis of Feed
Coal
10.
-------
B-85.
TABLE B-23
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2555
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei~ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Reduciruz: AtmoS'Dhere Oxidizing Atmos'Dhere Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ MoiSture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT 1DT ST,S ST,H FT Si~ AlaC>:3 FeaOa MgO Cao TiOa NaaO iKgO
Zone A 51.8 1.02 6.04 1.84 -- 0.61 1.23 14,274 2460 2540 2740 2580 2640 2750 47.0 25.9 10.0 0.8c 4.3 1.2q 0.75 1.9
Zone B 38.8 0.96 6.52 2.06 -.. 0.80 1.26 14,158 2180 2380 2630 2475 2580 2730 47.0 24.1 12.2 0.9J 4.5 1.15 058 1.9
Zone C 0.62 ru.4 4 2r; 0.02 ~41 0 82 q.q87 2040 21~0 2400 2160 2240 2460 41.0 B.6 12.Q 1.7' l~J (')A'.:I (')~h 1-'~
1.60 Float 2.2 53.3 0.96 8.4 .54 -- 2.42 1.12 12.242 2040 2140 2600 2435 2515 2690 52.5 21.5 17.5 0.8 3.~ 1.lq 0.45 2.6
1.bO by 1.90 1.4 31.~ 0.72 :8.6 .q 0.01 . 1 0.1 2 t,.702 20lJO 2140 2380 21~0 2205 2520 lI-3.5 ll1-.3 1.1.. 6 2.3~ 13.( 0.Q6 o. ~8 1.~
1.90 Sink 0.0 14.9 0.50 ,7.0 .7 0.06 . 8 o. 0 1,.126 2080 2140 2190 2100 2195 2205 2~.0 9.1 16.7 2.01 24.( 0.71 0.21 0.7
Compo81te 4.2 100.0 0.6 I .2 0.01 .J4 0.( 34 '1.907
Zone D 0.4q hA.O 7.0q 0.04 6.76 0.2q ~.5q6 20':10 2140 2450 2180 2210 24~0 40.0 12.9 11.4 1.1< 14. (').At'1 (')_~r; 1 7
1.90 Float 0.6 11 .8 O. ~6.0 ~.'50 0.01 2.80 0.6Q Q.224. 2040 2200 24~0 2240 2340 25!U 54.5 15.8 Q.7 1.7C Q.l "':1 0.4r; 1
1.90 by 2.95 2.8 7~ .4 O.t 7~ 2 5. ~ 4 0.02 r;.16 0.16 2.~84 2050 2150 24':10 2170 2215 261 44.5 14. ~ 8.8 1.2 15.c (')~ (,)_~7 1 S
2.95 Sink o.~ .8 0.' 70.4 ~4. 0.2Q ~~.8 0.20 2.0Q4 2~50 2440 2'500 2~40 2~60 24Q( 6.0~ 2.5* 6. ~i 1.4: 14.~ n , '2 O.O~ 0..1
Composite ':1.7 100.0 57.1 7. 1 0.04 7.02 0.25 ~.442
Zone E 0.60 17'5 . 2 14.6 0.08 14.~ 0.18 1.6':1< 1Q20 2070 221'5 2200 2225 2 00 2<.0 10.3 24.5 O. < 20.( 0, r;~ 0.1~ 0.4
2.95 Float 1.0 66.8 0.6~ 17R.":; 4.76 0.04 4hL. 0.08 Q6 2100 2140 2~00 2180 2200 2' ~~5 !U .O 14.8 8.0 1. 21. (') A':I (').~~ , 7
2.95 Sink 0.5 3~.2 O.'U ~Q.7 ~6.8 O.'U ':16.2 O.':I~ 2.111 2160 2270 2~10 2~85 2750+ 2 750 .o~ 2.5* 70.0 1. 12.E 01'; (')_O~ 01
Composite 1.5 100.0 171) . 6 11).4 O.B 1r;.1 0.16 1.~41
Compo Ii te of
Table
Products 100.0 tLo.6 2.4~ 0.00 1.26 1.17 B. 451
~lis of
Feed to
Table 1.08 n (')." ~.r;2 (').n? 1 .~4 1,1":; 1 ~ . r;2::J ~40 228r; 24~0 2~r;0 2~80 21)40 44.0 18.9 12.Q O.Ql Q ,( , (')':1 (')4c; 1.6
Run Date: 5-13-70
IDT
ST,S ..
ST,H ..
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-87.
TABLE B-24
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Ohio N0.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
~CR Sample No.
2556
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 1/4 in. 8.3 8.3
1/4 in. x 6 M 31.7 40.0
6 M x 12 M 26.8 66.8
minus 12 M 33.2 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-12-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 10.5 10.5
30 M x 50 M 31.5 42.0
50 M x 100 M 22.6 64.6
minus 100 M 35.4 100.0
-------
.c:
Sieve opening In mm
~
r "R" oversize perce"",e
by weight 0.1
1
1.0
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
Figure 8-3.
e
30
18 16 14
u. S. standard .Ieve urie.
b:I
I
ex>
ex>
.
10
e
IlTUMiNOUS COAL RESWOI. IN(. 6072G7
Inch X 0
Size Distri bution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8
Concentrating Table Feeds for Ohio No.9 Seam,
-------
B-89.
TABLE B-25
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio NO.9 Seam. Harrison County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.2556
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab le Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 33.1 0.90 11.2 2.18
Zone B 25.1 1.82 11.1 2.09
Zone C
Float at 1.60 29.1 88.2 1.12 .11.7 2.30
1.60 by 1.90 2.7 8.3 1.07 43.2 3.77 41.0
Sink at 1.90 1.2 3.5 1.61+ b1.8 6.31 2If.3
Composite ~~.O 100 0 16.1 2.r;6
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 It fI hFL7 , o;fI 1 R.L. '.:> h~ h~ '.:>
1.90 by 2.95 , '.:> '.:>It , fI '7'.:> hC;~ '7 ~fI 1;)('\('1
Sink at 2.95 0:-4 72 ().~ hi).Ii L.~.u R.c;
Composite r;.8 100.0 ~2.7 6 60 40.1
Zone E
Float at 2.95 2 2 72.r; 0.01 ~8.0 r;.L.l
Sink at 2.95 oJf 27.C; fI.L.n .hfl.R L.L..h
COJm>osite ~ 0 100.0 44.q 16.2
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 01 .? 1?0 ??O
Composite of 1.60 2.1q
Float Fractions 87.3 11.3
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 1.2 60.7 44.2
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 15.0 2.96
Analysis of
Feed to Table 2.92 15.4 3.02
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
-------
B-90.
TABLE B-26
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio No. g Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-11-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2556
Table Products
Product
Weight Float and Sink
Percent Wei ht Percent Moisture
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Weight Percent
Total Ultimate
Ash Sulfur Carbon
Composite of
Zones ABC
Composite of 1.60
Float Fract ions
Zone B
Zone
6.6
Zone
Float at 1.60
Sink at 1.60
Co osite
96.0
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table
100.0
1.56
3.2
2.27
2.36
Rw1 Date:
-------
TABLE B-27
B-91.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-12-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-10-70)
BCR Sample No. 2556
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A hO 0 h 1 1 1 Pn
Zone B 1~.4 lL2.4 l.Gh
Zone C
Float at 1.60 2..11 0~.7 i7.0 ? ~1
Sink at 1.60 0.2 7.~ ili~ 7~1
Compos i te 2.7 100 0 100 2.h7
Zone D
Float at 2.95 100 oc;~ ~h 7 h.~7
Sink at 2.95 0.' LR ~o 6 h~.o
Composite 1 0 .. C; 1 ("'\("'\ ("'\ ~r:; a h 1'.<
Zone E
Float at 2.95 ?JJ. hR.h l() a h.OC;
Sink at 2. ql) 1 1 "21 !' :1 1 ), J. 1
Composite ~.C; 1("'\("'\ ("'\ L7 ~ 1 P. ("'\
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 86 0 1.11 1.01
Composite of 1.60 85.8
Float Fractions 1.5 1.90
Composite of 2.95 1.6 bO.9 43.8
Sink Fractions
Composite of . Ic;.h
Table Products 100.0 2 O~
Analysis of 2.92 5.4 3.02
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis
-------
B-92.
TABLE B-28
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-12-70) Crushed to 30 l;:esh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2556
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 7.7 1.09 41.2 19.2
Zone B 15.8 1.14 36.6 14.7
Zone C 12.9 1.26 33.5 8.14
Zone D 24.8 0.90 66.6 15.4 16.3
Zone E 38.8 0.32 63.0 44.1 5.4
Composite of 54.2 25.8
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 0.60 53.8
Feed to Table 25.2
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-93.
TABLE B-29
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-17-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2556
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.0 0.88 63.8 13.0
Zone B 22.8 0.80 64.5 12.4
Zone C 34.8 0.7Q 64.6 11.2
Zone D 28.1 0.62 68.6 11.4 1'5.'5
Zone E 11.~ . 0.28 66.2 43.5 1.'5
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 65.9 15.2
Analysis of 0.70 66.4 16.0
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-94.
TABLE B-30
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2556
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentratinp; Table No. 14 Test Run Date 6-12-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-ot-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 15.4 3.02
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 3.0 44.9 16.2
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 7-17-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone E. ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-12-70) Crushed to ~O Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis. Weight %
Weip;ht % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 53.8 25.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 38.8 63.0 44.1
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 8-11-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-17-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 66.4 16.0
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 11.3 66.2 43.5
Two Stage Pyrite Product
1.25
63.2
-------
B-95.
59.2
TABLE B-31
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2556
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur ITon of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
-1.Ji.
14.4
10.4
16.8
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
9...JL
No. 15-5 Table
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
~
1.
High Grade
Pyrite
0.57
0.87
0.42
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
~
1.42
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
~
0.26
-------
B-96.
TABLE B- 32
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County. Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2556
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' ht e e t
Fraction Weight Percent Ash 'I'otal Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 33.1 11.2
Zone B 25.1 11.1
Zone C 33.0 1 .1
Zone D 5. 32.7
Zone E 3.0
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.2 41.2 1 2
Zone B O. 6 6
Zone C 0.39 33.5 8.14
Zone D 0.75 1 .
Zone E 1.1 0
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.02
Zone B 0.1
Zone C 0.2
Zone D 0.21
Zone E 0.09
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 15.3 .2
Ana1ysis of Feed
-------
B-97.
TABLE B- 33
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic SUlfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Ohio No.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.2556
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei.mt Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic Reduciru:c Atmos'Phere Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight 1, Moiiture Ash SUlfur SUlfur SUlfur SUlfur Btu/lb ID'l' ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,R FT Sia.. ALa0:3 FeaOs MgO Cao T1~ NB:a 0 KgO
2.18 1.54 0.64 12,898 2560 :>750+ 2620 54.0 J.4.1 ' 0.28 3.6
Zone A 33.J. 0.90 ll.2 -- 2510 2700 2750+ 25.0 0.64 0.70 1.22
Zone B 25.1 1.82 ll.l 2.09 -- J..43 0.66 12,966 2500 2595 :>715 2640 2710 2750+ 54.0 24.5 J.3.0 0.68 0.70 1.23 0.30 4.2
Zone C 1.~2 16.2 2.66 0.01 2.m 0 62 12.:1;02 2421) 2'5~'5 ::>61)0 2'160 2670 27'10+ &:;hn bh n I, ':I I:) 10.71 0,'56 1,1" f.\ 1:)0 4.0
J..60 Float 29.1 88.2 1.12 ll.7 2.30 -- J..64 0.66 J.2.801 2480 2~60 0 26 2'00 2"~ 0+ 6.0 24.'5 1~.'5 0.57 0.60 1.10 0.25 2.9
J..oO by 1.90 2.7 8.3 1.07 43.2 ~.77 O.O~ ~.~~ 0.36 7.6L 8 2425 2~ :r;o 0+ 2r;1 2 00 2 '~ 0+ 0.0 2~.'5 ll.8 1.ll O.~O J..18 0.21 ~.O
J..90 Sink 1.2 3.5 1.04 61.8 6.31 0.09 6.00 0.22 4.5( 3 2140 2 20 0 24< 2~ :6r; 2 710 :7.0 20.0 lr;.'5 1.16 0.51 1.06 0.19 3.3
Composite 33.0 100.0 J.6.1 2.56 O.OJ. 1.94 0.62 J.2.0l5
Zone D o. e ~ ~.1 6.~6 0.0'5 '5.81 0.50 q. ~40 2000 2170 2~40 2470 2'140 2620 '50.0 11Q.4 22.6 O.Ql 1.0r; 0.90 0.24 4.1
J..90 Float 4.0 68.7 1.0 1.j 2.6~ 0.02 2.02 O.I5Q ll.740 2~Q5 2'51'5 ~720 2r;80 2600 271:\0+ 11:\6.n 2':1,~ 14.2 0 815 0.'56 1.16 0.24 2.8
J..90 by 2.95 1.1 24.1 o. ? 16. 7.30 0.10 .02 0.18 4. Oll 2080 2190 611) 2420 21)20 274'5 1 '16.0 20.7 J.6.~ J. 27 1.6r; O.Q~ 0.22 ~.6
2.95 Sink 0.1 7.2 0.50 16 . j 43.4 0.50 4: .6 0.34 2.964 2435 2440 ~44'5 27'50+ 27'50i 271:\0+ 7.6* '.~* 100 0* I:O..~ O. '5Q 0.08 to. 02 <0.1
Composite 5.~ 100.0 32.7 6.69 0.07 ~ .15 0.47 9.245
Zone E 0.48 45.8 16.2 O.ll 15.7 O. ~ 6 7.04J. J.9' 0 2000 P220 2475 280 2600 1~4.'5 1~.4 47.0 0.71 1.02 0.61 0.12 1.6
2.95 Float 2.2 72.5 0.91 ~9- 5.4J. 0.07 4.Q2 0.1 12 8.~60 20~ :X) 2J.80 ~6~0 24QO 2 ;'5'5 2700 1'54.0 21.0 J. 7.0 1.10 1.2r; 0.98 0.20 4.0
2.95 Sink 0.8 27.5 0.40 1 ~ .8 ~ 0.52 43.8 O. 2 2.964 24 0 2435 p440 27'50+ 2 r'50i 27'50+ 6.~* '~.~* 190.0* ~O. ~ O.'U 0.07 to. 02 <0.1
Composite 3.0 100.0 Ij .9 J.6.2 0.19 15.6 O. 19 6.876
Composite of
Table
Products 100.0 J.5.0 2.96 0.01 2.33 0.62 12.254
Analysis of
Feed to 2600 I,A, 7 0.77 0.7~ 1.~0 0.24
TabJ.e 2.92 J.'5.4 ~.02 0.06 2.~4 0.62 12.2~8 2120 2400 t2510 2520 27'50 I)~.O 22.0 2.9
Run Date: 6-ll-70
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-99.
TABLE B- 34
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
BCR Sample No.
2574
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 1/4 in. 10.8 10.8
}/4 in. x 6 M 31.6 42.4
Mx12M 22.1 64.5
minus 12 M 35.5 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-14-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 5.0 5.0
30 M x 50 M 29.0 34.0
50 M x 100 M 25.4 59.4
minus 100 M 40.6 100.0
-------
Figure
r "R" ovenlze percentage
by weight 0.1
1
II(
Sieve opening in mm
~
1.0
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
.
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
18 16 14
30
U.S. .tandard.leve .erfe.
.
/
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, IN(.
B-4. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8
Concentrating Table Feeds for Ohio No.8 Seam,
Jefferson County, Ohio, BCR Sample No. 2574
tP
I
8
10
6072G8
-------
B-10l.
TABLE B-35
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 SeRIno Jefferson Countv~ Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2574
Product Wei&!:ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 40.9 1.11 6.90 2.66
Zone B 41.2 1.66 6.50 2.74
Zone C .
Float at 1. 60 8.8 80:~ 0 86 8.S2 ~.s4
1.60 by 1.90 1.6 14.4 0.66 ~4.~ 8.80 47.5
Sink at 1.90 0.6 5.3 1.02 57.9 14.1 24.2
Composite 11.0 100.0 14.8 4.86
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 0.5 12.3 1.12 33.2 8.58 45.8
.1.90 by 2.95 2 8 71),1) 1.06 7~.7 7.~~ 1~.2
Sink at 2.95 0.4 12 2 1 22 I)Q,4 44.0 8.0
Composite ~.7 100.0 67.0 12.0 16.6
Zone E
Float at 2.95 loS 47.S 0.55 80.4 6.58
Sink at 2.95 1 .7 '12.'1 0.8J+ ELo.6 44.4
Composite ~.2 100.0 70.0 26.4
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 0~.1 7..hf: 2,Oh
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions Q()..O h..8P 2.78
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions ?1 h() ..L. L.L..~
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 118 4.04
Analysis of
Feed to Table 2.4'7 10.9 3.81
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
-------
B-102.
TABLE B-36
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification
Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-14-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2574
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weiaht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 78.1 1.22 6.1~ 2.46
Zone B 15.9 1.00 6.22 2.50
,
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 1.17 Q7.rs 1.16 748 2.88
Sink at 1. 60 O.O~ 2.5 0.87 ~.2 15.2
Comoosite 1.2 100.0 8.~0 3.19
Zone D
Float at 1.60 ~.21 78.4 0.72 44 4.86
1.60 by 2.95 0.8'i 21.1 1.15 ~q6 10.8
Sink at 2.95 0.02 0.5 0.52 b1.6 43.1
Comoosite 4.1 100.0 2(10 6.30
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.4-:< 61.1 0.72 <)2.7 15.8
Sink at 2.Qrs 0 2'7 ~8.Q 0.12 61.9 45.0
COmDosite 0.7 100.0 56.3 27.2
Composite of 6.17
Zones A. B. C 95.2 2.48
Composite of 1.60 98.4 6.43
Float Fractions 2.55
Composite of 2.95 51.9 44.9
Sink Fractions 0.29
Composite of 7.09 2.81
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 1.40 7.18 2.92
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
TABLE B-37
B-103.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-14-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-30-70)
BCR Sample No.
2574
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Wei/Zht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 72.7 6.1'" 2.46
Zone B 14.8 6.2~ 2.50
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 , .()7 07 ~ 7 kF 2.88
Sink at 1.60 O_O~ 2.c; ~O-2 lC).2
Composite 1.1 100-0 8,~( ~ lq
Zone D
Float at 2.95 7.1 94.4 2.3 6.77
Sink at 2.95 0.4 5.6 )9.5 4.40
COIIIPosite 7.5 100.0 3.3 d.d5
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1.9 4q."i 74 2 8.64
Sink at 2.QC) ~ n ~n ~ ~n A kk~
COmDosite ~.Q lnnn ~7k ~h7
Composite of 88.6 6.17 2.48
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 88.57 6.16 2.47
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 2.4 po.6 44.4
Sink Fractions
Composite of 11.3
Table Products 100.0 3.90
Analysis of
Feed to Table :~.47 J.O.9 3.81
Chemical Analysis
-------
B-104.
TABLE B-38
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-14-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2574
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.2 0.82 70.8 13.8
Zone B 11.0 0.90 71.6 12.8
Zone C 9.2 1.10 70.6 14.0
Zone D 48.7 0.62 77.1 15.1 7.2
Zone E 27.9 0.28 63.2 45.2 4.4
Composite of 71.8
Table Products 100.0 23.1
Analysis of 22.4
Feed to Table 1.12 71.2
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-105.
TABLE B-39
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8..6-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2574
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
, 73.4 16.6
Zone A 2.9 1.05
Zone B 24.9 0.96 73.9 16.9
Zone C 36.0 0.88 74.4 16.3
Zone D 23.0 0.56 78.0 18.6 5.3
Zone E 13.2 0.30 65.4 44.4 4.3
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 73.9 20.7
Analysis of 73.6
Feed to Table 1.71 20.0
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
B-106.
TABLE B-40
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
BCR Sample No.
2'574
Pyrite Prec1eaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 7-14-70
Feed to Concentrating Tab1e:Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ~/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 10.9 3.81
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 3.2 70.0 26.4
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 8-6-70
Feed to Concentrating Tab1e:Z,one .I!:. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-14-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight ofo Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 71.2 22.4
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 27.9 63.2 45.2
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 9-2-70
Feed to Concentrating Tab1e:Z,one D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-6-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of' Feed to Table 100.0 73.6 20.0
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 13.2 65.4 44.4
Two Stage Pyrite Product
1.11
63.6
-------
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
80.8
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
21.8
22.6
14.9
No. 15-5 Table
0.25
B-107.
TABLE B-41
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Ohio No.
8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2574
Bas is :
Pounds of TotaJ.. Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-Mine Coal
8.8
10.6
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
8.14
0.91
0.83
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
~
No. 15-5 Table
-~
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.11
~
-------
B-108.
TABLE B-42
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2574
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' t
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 6.90 2.66
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.10
Zone B
Zone C 0.29
Zone D
Zone E
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 11.9 4.03
Analysis of Feed
-------
B-109.
TABLE B-43
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Ohio No.8 Seem, Jefferson County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal CrI1shed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2574
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei'lht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic Reduci~ Atmos'J)here Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrog~aphy
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ ltt>18ture Ash Sul:f\1r SUlfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT SiOci Ala 0:3 Faa Oa MgO Cao T10a NaaO IKa0
Zone A 40.9 1.11 6.9< 2.66 0.04 1.81 0.81 13,686 198q 2100 2520 2535 2575 2610 46.0 21.5 27.0 0.58 0.94 0.92 0.27 1.7
Zone B 41.2 1.66 6.5< 2.74 0.04 1.88 0.82 13,756 1945 2050 2500 2530 2570 2600 44.0 21.0 29.5 0.45 0.98 0.92 0.34 1.5
Zone C 0.74 15.0 4.76 o.or; ~.or; 0.76 12 281 2000 208'5 2hho 2'540 21170 2'58'5 4'5.0 20.0 ~o.o 0.42 0 1)11 0.86 0.28 1.8
1.60 Float 8.8 . 80. 0.86 8.5 3.54 0.03 2.65 0.86 1~ . 3( 6 1940 2020 2420 2540 2560 2580 41.0 20.0 ~4.0 0.40 0.82 0.88 0.29 2.1
1.bO by 1.90 1.6 14.1 0.66 3. .80 0.0 l .21 0.51 0.91 2040 2115 2420 2545 2580 2620 47.0 21.0 28.5 0.42 O. ~6 0.86 O. US 1. 7
1.90 Sink 0.6 I). 1.02 5.( lL.l 0.1 1.6 0.28 4.8 lQ80 2020 2480 2515 2560 2600 49.0 18.0 ~o.o 0.51 0.42 0.83 0.24 2.3
Composite 11.0 100.0 1 .~ .86 0.0 .o~ 0.78 12 . ~o
Zone D 0.72 67.6 11.~ 0.12 11.0 0.20 ~ 64Q 20'50 21~0 2h~0 2510 2'560 264r; r;~.o 10.r; 20.r; o. 76 1.2~ O.Q~ 0.27 2.2
1.90 Float 0.5 12.~ 1.12 .2 8.118 0.08 .Q8 0.52 9.172 2000 2000 2480 2'5~0 2565 2600 48.0 20.0 28.0 0.41 0.41 0.8~ 0.18 1.7
1.90 by 2.95 2.8 7'5.5 1.06 .7 7.~~ 0.11 .08 0.14 2 646 2180 24~0 26111 2580 2670 27r;0+ I r;6. 0 2~.r; 14.~ 0.81 1.1 1.01 0.27 2.':1
2.95 Sink 0.4 12.2 1.22 ~.4 44.0 0.44 4'. ~ 0.21) 2.784 2440 241)0 2460 271)0+ 271)0-1- 27'50+ 6.70 2.00 fQO.O* 0.2c 0.1 1--0.1 0.02 <0.,
CaDposite 3.7 100.0 7.0 12.0 0.15 11.6 0.20 3.466
Zone E 0.40 o. 26.4 0.21 26.0 0.23 3.175 1960 1980 2200 2510 2580 2600 1':14.0 11.7 40.0 0.48 1.14 0.58 0.12 1.4
2.95 Float 1.5 47.5 0.55 O.J b. 8 0.16 ~.~2 0.10 1.1)60 21':15 2':180 .2700 2~0 2610 2710 1'56.0 21.7 1.0 0.81 2.0':1 0.91 0.27 2.0
2.95 Sink 1.7 52.5 0.84 ie.1 4J.j 0.50 ljj.6 0.~5 2.868 241)0 2455 2460 2750+ 2750-1- 2750+ 6.70 2. ~O IQO.O* 0.25 0.lake.1 0.02 <0.1
CaII.Posite 3.2 100.0 0.0 2b. 0.~4 21; :q 0.23 2.241
Composite of
Table
Products
100.0
11.8
4.04
0.05
3.22
0.77 12.819
~sis of
Feed to
Table
2.47 10.Q ~.81
Run Date: 7-14-70
0.12
2.0~ 0.76
12. QQ8 , oIlo 1 QQO
2~60
?J;20
2'560
2"iOO 44 0 10."i ~'.o 0.1)8 1.08 0.88 0.26 1.8
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Sottening Temperature, Spherical
Sottening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-lll.
TABLE B-44
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
BCR Sample No.
2579
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cwnulative
plus 1/4 in. 8.4 8.4
1/4 in. x 6 M 25.8 34.2
6 M x 12 M 22.5 56.7
minus 12 M 43.3 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, Band C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-20-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 10.1 10.1
30 M x 50 M 35.0 45.1
50 M x 100 M 22.3 67.4
minus 100 M 32.6 100.0
Total 100.0
-------
Figure
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
~
Sieve opening in mm
.
1.0
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
.
.
100
18 16 14
96
60 50
40
30
u. S. standard sieve seriel
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH. INC.
B-5. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8
Concentrating Table Feeds for Franklin L. B. Seam,
Garrett County, Maryland, BCR Sample No. 2579
.
10
b:I
I
~
.
Inch X 0
-------
B-113.
TABLE B-45
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Precleaning
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam. Garrett County, MRryland
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2579
, ,
Product Weillht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab Ie Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 46.3 0.61 15.6 3.12
Zone B 33.5 0.54 16.8 3.44
Zone C
Float at 1.60 2.0 21.2 0.,2 .18.2 q 88
1.60 by 1.90 2.q 24.4 0.64 40.4 6.q4 46.0
Sink at 1.90 5.0 54.4 0.62 63.0 6.16 25.7
Composite 9.3 100.0 48.0 5.72
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 2.2 28.4 0.42 ~7.4 6.86 48.,
1.90 by 2.95 15.1 6,.2 0.47 74.Q 6.47 14.2
Sink at 2.95 o~ 6.4 0.q2 ,)Q.C ) ~a -" ,,--,
Composite 7.8 100.0 6q. 8.6Q 2q.7
Zone E
Float at 2.95 2.q 7q.q 0.154 76.4 a_~8
Sink at 2.915 0-8 26.7 0.q6 60.6 qq.o
Composite q.1 100.0 72.2 17.q
Composite of Ra.l 1 a.li
Zones A. B. C q."l
Composite of 1.60 RLR lh.?
Float Fractions q_?7
Composite of 2.95 hO.q
Sink Fractions Lq qa_2
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 24.15 4 ..~4
Ana4rsis of li_2R
Feed to Tab Ie O.li7 2~.h
Chemical Ana4rs is Dry Bas is
-------
B-114.
TABLE B-46
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam~ Garrett COU1lty, Maryland
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-20-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2579
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weiaht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 74.q 0.~'5 14.5 2.74
Zone B 1~.4 0.24 17.1 2.81
Zone C
Float at 1.60 1.6 71.0 0.60 21.1 _1.11
Sink at 1.60 0.7 2Q.0 0.'56 40.1 7.10
Conroosite 2.1 100.0 26.6 4.14
Zone D
Float at 1.60 1.1 14.4 0.54 27.2 3.78
1.60 bv 2.95 7.4 8~.7 0.39 51.1 7.48
Sink at 2.95 0.2 1 _0 n 22 hn r; 40.7
Comoosite Ro 1()() () 47..r 7.'58
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 29.5 0.38 62.1 20.6
Sink at 2.ql) 0.4 70~ o-~o 61.1 4Lq
Comoosite 0.5 100.0 61.c 15.6
Composite of 90.6 15.2
Zones A. B. C 2.79
Composite of 1.60 91.2 15.2 2.77
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 0.6 61.2 41.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of 1 R ~ ~.~R
Table Products lnn ()
Analysis of 0.72 18.6 3.52
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
RU1l Date:
-------
TABLE B-47
B-115.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-20-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-7-70)
BCR Sample No. 2579
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 66.7 4.s 2.74
Zone B 11.9 _7.1 2.8~
Zone C
Float at 1.60 1.5 71.0 )1.1 ~.l~
Sink at 1.60 0.6 29.0 0.1 7.~0
Composite 2.1 100.0 )6.6 4.~4
Zone D
Float at 2.95 lS.O GS.S ;s.~ 6.76
Sink at 2.95 0.7 4.1) :'0.1 ~G.8
Composite 15.7 100.0 ;1).1) 8.2S
Zone E
Float at 2.95 2.4 66.7 7S .8 G.8s
Sink at 2.QS 1 2 ~~ ~ ~(LG 40_0
Composite ~.6 100.0 70.8 19.Q
Composite of 80.7 2.79
Zones A. B. C 5.2
Composite of 1.60 80.1 ~5.0 2.76
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 1.9 50.6 39.9
Sink Fractions
Composite of ~~.5 4.27
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of D3.6 4.28
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis
-------
B-116.
TABLE B-48
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-20-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2579
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 11.9 0.33 63.8 17.6
Zone B 13.8 0.42 63.8 16.2
Zone C 4.3 0.47 63.4 16.0
Zone D 62.9 0.35 75.6 16.4 8.5
Zone E 7.1 0.24 64.7 42.8 5.3
Composite of 18.4
Table Products 100.0 71.3
Analysis of 0.43 70.8 18.0
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-117.
TABLE B-49
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-6-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2579
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 40.5 0.60 76.8 11.0
Zone B 36.5 0.60 77.4 11.2
Zone C 9.7 0.62 77.4 9.47
Zone D 9.0 0.52 80.4 11.4 7.0
Zone E 4.3 0.30 73.4 31.6 3.3
Composite of 100.0 77.3 11.8
Table Products
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.50 77.0 12.2
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-118.
TABLE B-50
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
BCR Sample No. 2579
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 7-20-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 23.6 4.28
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 3.1 72.2 17.3
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 8-6-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zo e E, ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-20-70) Crushed to ~O Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight ~ Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 70.8 18.0
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 7.1 64.7 42.8
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 9-8-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-6-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analvsis of Feed to Taole 100.0 77.0 12.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 4.3 73.4 31.6
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.30
67.0
-------
B-119.
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/B-inch x 0
TABLE B-5l
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
86.8
Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
BCR Sample No. 2579
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
13.6
28.8
~6
£hQ
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
10.8
No. 15-5 Table
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
~
6.06
High Grade
Pyrite
1.23
1.32
0.41
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
2.28
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
Q.J1.
1.64
1.51
-------
B-120.
TABLE B-52
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Frank1in L. B. SAAm, C'dI'r'rP.+'+' Con)"l+'y, Maryland
BCR Sample No. 2579
Fraction
Ash
Chemical Anal„sis, Dry Basis
e' ht e
Total Sulfur
Weight Percent
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
46.3
33.5
.
7.8
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
1.
0.22
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
24.5
Analysis of Feed
Coal
2 .6
4.2
-------
B-121.
TABLE B- 53
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
Raw Run-ot-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2579
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei«ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Reducing Atmosphere Oxidizing Atmosphere. Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ ltbisture Ash Sulfur Sulfur SUlfur Sulfur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT SiQa ~0:3 FeaOa MgO Cao TiCa NaaO Ke0
ZOne A 46.3 0.6J. 15.6 3.12 0.03 2.27 0.82 3~018 2110 2240 2500 25~5 2580 2725 51.5 21.2 20.'5 0.65 D.37 1.05 0.2CJ 3.6
ZOne B 33.5 0.54 J.6.8 3.44 0.04 2.58 0.82 L2~825 2080 2210 2470 2530 2575 2720 51.5 20.7 20.0 b.61 D.37 1.07 0.33 3.9
Zone C 0.~6 :47.2 1;.87 0 04 I; 2Q 0,,1)4 7.l'5n4 2160 2~80 26QQ 21;21; ~~,c:; ~7lJ.J:; J:;A 0 ,A J:; , lJ. (:. h I;A n.~~ 1.08 0_1 1;1
1.60 Float 2.0 21.2 0.52 8.2 3.88 0.01 3.( 0.80 2.1 6 2040 2175 2550 2520 2560 27' !'5 12. '5 1Q.7 1.0 0.46 .40 1.05 0.2 .1
1.bO by 1.90 i:!.j 2£1..£1. 0.64 .4 6.~4 0.01 1 . E 0.62 8.1 2060 2210 2480 2'500 2'580 2 710 15.0 1Q.0 .8.0 0.58 .~4 1.01 0.1 1. tS
1.90 Sink 5.0 54.4 0.62 .0 6.16 0.01 1 . 0.32 4. 2180 2420 2660 2'520 2640 2 710 j Q.O 21.0 2.~ 0.58 .38 1.02 0.1 L.3
Composite ~.j 100.0 .0 5.72 O.oJ 1 .1 0.50 7. f'
ZOne D 0.40 70.8 7.TI 0.08 7.~C:; O..~) ~.622 2170 2~QO 2TIO 2'540 26~0 ~7J:;O- I;A.o :::>0.1 1~L8 ~O 4Q O. 8 1.04 O.lC 4.7
1.90 Float 2.2 28.4 O.J ~ t7.J 6.86 0.0'5 6.17 O.t: Q.122 :::>0:::>0 :::>,~ 1:::>I;An :::>1:i11; :::>I;~ ~f.70 c:;4.0 '0.0 ~o.o 10. '52 b. oaR 0.2C 4.6
1.90 by 2.95 5.1 65.2 0.1 .7 74.( 6.47 0.04 6.2C:; 0.1 2.848 2~OO 24'5'5 127'50 21;40 2671; :::>71;0-1 ~_o :::>1.1; h,. ~ 10. '52 hi 0 ' nn O.lC 4 6
2.95 Sink 0.5 6.4 o. 2 ;Q.( ~Q.,I; 0.26 ~8.7 0.'51 ~.'5Q2 2421) 24~o 1:::>lJ.~c:; ~7C:;0+ ~7r:;0+ ~7C:;O-l o{:.r '* ~ ",,,..1 1D~ "* 10.28 b.,~. 2 0.11 <0. O~ .a:>.1
CaIrposi te C(.~ 100.0 6~.~ 8.6Q 0.06 8.~0 o.~~ 4.677
ZOne E 0.2Q 171. '5 17.8 0.16 17 2 044 2.874 lQ60 19B'5 1~~70 ~J:;nn ~c:;~ ~c:;an lJ.70 , I; 0 I~~o 10.~7 10 4Q 0.77 0 1~ 2.2
2.95 Float 2.3 TI.~ 0.1;4 176.4 0.~8 0.08 0." 0.1Q :::>.4~4 :::>140 :::>~:::>o 1:::>f.f,1; :::>1;1 I; :::>f.oo :::>7'>0-1 c:;~.o n8 h'A.o 10.64 10.1;:::> , .1:::> O.H 4.4
2.95 Sink 0.8 26.7 0.36 60.6 3Q.0 0.28 ~8.0 0.71 ~.'588 2420 2440 244'5 27'50+ 27'50+ 27'50-1 Q.2( '* '5. ~O! 8~.0* 0 .'~o 0 26 0.'50 0.0:: 0.1
Composite 3.1 100.0 172.2 i7.~ 0.1~ 16.8 0.~2 2.742
Composite of
Table
Products 100.0 b4. '5 4. ~4 0.04 ~.'57 O.TI tL1.41'57
Analysis of
Feed to
Table 0.47 t2~.6 4-28 0-'4 ~.~7 0.77 11..1 .1;8~ ~070 :::>:::>01; :::>41;1; ~I;OJ:; ~c:;f.c:; 2f,hc:; c:;40 2n1L ~n.n n.~l n hI; In.Q8 0..21 ~.1
Run Date: 7-20-70
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
FT
Initial Detormation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-123.
TABLE B-54
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2630
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 1/4 in. 7.9 7.9
1/4 in. x 6 M 25.3 33.2
6Mx12M 21.2 54.4
minus 12 M 45.6 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, Band C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-12-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 5.5 5.5
30 M x 50 M 34.1 39.6
50 M x 100 M 26.4 66.0
minus 100 M 34.0 100.0
-------
r uR" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
II(
Sieve opening In mm
:.
tJj
I
.....
~
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
1.0
10
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
.
.
.
Figure
96
30
U.S. standard sieve S8r18S
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, INC. 607 2 G 1 0
B-6. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8 Inch X 0
Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper Freeport Seam,
-------
B-125.
TABLE B-55
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County. West Virginia
Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2630
Table Products
Product
Weight Float and Sink
Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Wei ht Percent
Total Ultimate
Sulfur Carbon
Composite of
Zones ABC
54.4
0.82
Zone A
Zone B
23.3
0.48
Zone D
Float at 1. 90
1.90 by 2.95
Sink at 2.95
Composite
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
2.5
60.1 42.0
Composite of
Table Products
100.0
20.7
2.82
Analysis of
Feed to Tab le
1.36
18.4
2.32
-------
B-126.
TABLE B-56
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification ~per Freeport Seam1 Preston Count v, West Virginia
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-12-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2630
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weiaht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 77.9 0.41 7.87 1.01.
Zone B 14.2 0.50 9.58 1.06
Zone C
Float at 1.60 0.7 8q.2 0.45 4.'i 1.'i6
Sink at 1.60 0.1 10.8 0.54 53.6 5.09
Composite 0.8 100.0 8.5 1.76
Zone D
Float at 1.60 2 0 ~o-s 0.64 ~s.8 1.80
1.60 by 2.95 4.4 68.0 0.64 64.6 'i. go
Sink at 2.95 0.1 1.'5 0.70 b1.3 37.8
Conroosite h_"\ 1('\('\ ('\ 1.1"\ Q ~_77
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 01 h n _"\8 ~!.Lh O() h
Sink at 2.Q'5 0.'5 -78=4 O-~O LO 4~.4
Conroosite 0.6 100.0 1.7 ~8.'5
Composite of 92.9 8.2~
Zones A. B. C 1.02
Composite of 1. 60 94.8 8.55 1.04
Float Fract ions
Composite of 2.95 0.6 51.1 42.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of 100.0 ....1.0 1.43
Table Products
Analysis of 0.68 1.50
Feed to Table 1.0
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
TABLE B-57
B-127.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-12-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-21-70)
BCR Sample No. 2630
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 65.4 7B'i 1.m
Zone B 11 .Q a c;P 1 ()r:..
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 0.6 8q.2 1L4.~ 1.~6
Sink at 1.60 0.1 10.8 f:;~6 I:).()Q
Composite 0.7 100.0 8.1) L76
Zone D
Float at 2.95 14.4 aR..h ~L..h ~hR
Sink at 2.95 0.2 1.4 ")Q..7 ':<.7..7
Composite 14.6 100.0 f14..1:) 4..]h
Zone E
Float at 2.95 L..h h?? 77..1 7_??
Sink at 2.95 ?R ~7_R ~('\ ':I },~"
Composite 7.4 1 ()().() 7() 7 ?() .1:)
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 7R.() A ~Q 1 ()o;::>
Composite of 1.60 77.9 8.18 1.02
Float Fract ions
Composite of 2.95 )o.~ 42.1
Sink Fractions 3.0
Composite of 100.0 21.1 2.92
Table Products
Analysis of 1.36 8.4 2.32
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis
-------
B-128.
TABLE B-58
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-12-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2630
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 11.4 0.53 63.6 15.6
Zone B 12.5 0.46 63.6 14.7
Zone C 4.1 0.58 65.6 1l.6
Zone D 62.7 0.23 76.2 17.0 7.5
Zone E 9.3 0.15 63.3 46.4 5.5
Composite of 100.0 71.6 19.1
Table Products
Analys is of 0.72 71.4 18.9
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
B-129.
TABLE B-59
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-2-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2630
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 16.7 0.82 75.7 14.8
Zone B .31.4 0.74 76.1 13.0
Zone C 14.1 0.95 76.0 10.4
Zone D 24.2 0.84 79.6 11.8 6.~
Zone E 13.6 0.20 65.0 45.~ ~.1
Composite of 75.4
Table Products 100.0 17.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.70 76.0 17.9
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
9-18-'70
-------
B-130.
TABLE B-60
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2630
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 8-12-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ~/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weig}1t % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 18.4 2.32
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 6.9 71.3 19.3
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test / Run D~te 9-2-70
Feed to Concentrating Table:~one ~, 3 8 Inch x 0 Run ~8-12-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Producti Chemical Analysis Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 71.4 18.9
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 9.3 63.3 46.4
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date
Feed to Concentrating Table:~one D 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-2-70
Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 76.0 17.9
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 13.6 65.0 45.3
Two stage Pyrite Product
1.2
64.2
-------
B-131.
TABLE B-61
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
56.4
Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, W. Va.
BCR Sample No. 2630
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulf'ur jTon of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
~
11.8
4.6
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
26.6
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
14.9
High Grade
Pyrite
~
~
0.7
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
11.4
14.9
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
~
2.1
3.6
-------
B-132.
TABLE B-62
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2630
Fraction
Weight Percent
Dry Basis
Ash
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
54.4
9.2
Table No.. l5-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No. 15-8
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
14.8
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
20.7
2.80
Ana~sis of Feed
Coal
18.4
-------
B-133.
TABLE B-63
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic SUlfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Uwer Freeport Seam. Preston County. West Vir~inia
Raw Run-of -Mine Coal Crushed to ~ /8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2630
Chemical Analysis, Dr,y Basis,
Product Wei«ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic Reducing: Atmos'Dhere Oxidizing Atmosphere. Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ MoiSture Ash Sulfur SUlfur SUlf'ur SUlf'ur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT SiOa Ala O:! rea 0:5 MgO Cao TiO:a NaaO KgO
Zone A 54.4 0.82 7.69 1.09 0.06 0.50 0.53 14.275 2510 2680 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 49.0 ~1.0 U.3 0.75 2.18 1.20 0.31 3.5
Zone B 23.3 0.48 9.20 1.20 0.06 0.61 0.53 14,036 2620 2725 2750+ 2745 2750+ ::>750+ 51.5 30.5 110.9 o. 78 ~1.. 77 1.25 0.28 2~8
Zone C 044 ~Q.r; ~.40 0.00 ~.04 o. ~4 8,A49 ~hoo 2hQO 27&:;0+ 2710 ~'7&:;0+ ::>7&:;0+ &:;4.0 2h" r". 7 10. 78 0, '2A , '-7 o. 26 4 &:;
1.60 Float .1.0 25.3 0.56 19.8 '2.24 0.02 1.68 O. 4 12.15 2645 2 20 2750+ 2' 50+ 2 50+ 2 50+ li~.O 2"'.6 2.2 0.60 0.66 1.12 0.23 3.7
1.bO by 1.90 .lJ. 54.3 0.32 4-3.2 3.24 0.02 2.l,~ O. 9 '., 0 2620 2 '50 2750+ 2 '50+ 2 '50+ ::>'50+ 15.0 2.6 0.2 0.77 0.30 1.20 0.2£f. lJ..3
1.90 Sink .J.2 20.4 0.50 58.8 7.00 0.06 6./,4 O. 0 '. 1 21~0 2 10 2710 2160 280 2' '50+ 12.0 21.5 ,6.5 0.67 0.~2 1.07 0.22 3.3
Composite L2 100.0 4-0.5 ~.75 0.6~ ~. 1 0.' 1 (" its
Zone D 0.54 .3 ~.48 0.02 ~.~4 0.12 2.7Q2 2600 2740 27150+ 2750+ 2750+ 27&:;0+ 62.0 24 7 6.80 0.67 O. ~1 1.25 0.19 2.
1.90 Float 0.8 8.5 0.56 .0 .26 0.0 2.87 0 ..~6 8068 2600 274c; 1~7"0+ 27150+ 27150+ 2 7'50+ '5~ .0 27.8 Q.'50 O.QQ O.~~ 1.20 0.~1 6.
1.90 by 2.95 8.~ 90.8 1.11 .6 J.OO 0.0 ~.80 0.17 2.070 2660 27&:;0~ 27&:;0'+ 2750+ 27&:;0+ 27&:;0+ 61.0 26 0 6. &:;0 0.91 O. 'F 1.17 0.22 ~.
2.95 Sink 0.1 0.7 0.58 .1 ~'7.6 O.~ ~6.7 0.52 4.212 2~r;o 24~0 2440 27150+ 27150+ 27150+ 11.0 15.6'5 80.0 0.2~ 0.6~ 0.16 O.OQ 1.J
CcDposite 9.2 100.0 75.5 .17 0.0 ~.95 0.19 2.595
Zone E O. 8 72.0 1.4 0.1~ 17.0 0.26 ~044 1q85 20'50 2~80 2'52'5 2575 26~'5 44.0 18.8 I ~1. '5 0.4q 0.~1 0.89 0.16 2.0
2.95 Float q.1f 64.8 O. '7 77.4 .Q2 0.10 6.615 0.17 2.~~2 2440 2,80 27">0+ 26q5 27150+ 27150+ 157.0 24.6 l~.r; 0.60 o. 0 1.16 O.lQ 2. c;
2.95 Sink 2.4 35.2 o. 0 160.2 4.2 0.46 41.2 0.50 3.690 2410 2440 24'50 2750+ 27'50+ 27,0+ 8.4i ~.1* 815.0 0.25 O. 10 ::0.1 0.02 <0.1
Composite 6.9 100.0 171.3 1 .3 0.2~ 18.8 0.29 2.810
Composite of
Table
Products 100.0 20.7 2.82 0.07 2.28 0.47 12.003
Analysis of
Feed to
Table ~7?" 2660 2740 1~7"0+ "'.0 2h.&:; 1c;,7 0, '71;; 1 021.22 0.22
1. 36 18.4
2.~2
0.08
1.77
0.47 12.4Q7 ~~Ao ~""n
~.CJ
Run Date: 8-12-70
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-135.
TABLE B-64
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Illinois No.6 Seam, Franklin County, Illinois
BCR Sample No.
2651
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 1/4 in. 14.9 14.9
1/4 in. x 6 M 29.6 44.5
6 M x 12 M 20.4 64.9
minus 12 M 35.1 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, Band C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-3-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 6.9 6.9
30 M x 50 M 36.8 43.7
50 M x 100 M 24.7 68.4
minus 100 M 31.6 100.0
-------
Figure
t:Jj
1
r "R" ovenlze percentage < Sieve opening in mm . t;
0'\
by weight 0.1 1.0 10 .
1
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
e
50
60
.
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
30 18 16 14
u. S. .tandard .ieve .erie.
.
/
BITUMINOUS COAl RESEARCH. IN(.
6072Gll
B-7 Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8
Concentrating Table Feeds for Illinois No.6 Seam,
Franklin County, Illinois, BCR Sample No. 2651
-------
B-137.
TABLE B-65
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seam. Franklin County, Illinois
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2651
Product
Weight Float and Sink
Table Products Pe~cent Weight Percent Moisture Ash
Chemical Analys is, Dry Bas is ,
Wei ht Percent
Total Ultimate
Sulfur Carbon
Zone A
Zone B
Zone D
Float at 1.90
1.90 by 2.95
Sink at 2. 5
Composite
Composite of
Zones ABC
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products
100 0
Analysis of
Feed to Table
Run Date:
-------
B-138.
TABLE B-66
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seam. Franklin County. Illinois
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-3-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2651
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weip;ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 81.1 0.76 7.72 2.28
Zone B 14.5 1.07 8.50 2.29
Zone C
Float at 1.60 1.0 93.9 1.28 1.8 2.40
Sink at 1.60 0.1 6.1 1.31 49.0 11.4
Composite 1.1 100.0 14.1 2.95
Zone D
Float at 1.60 1.65 56.8 1.08 22.t) 3.18
1.60 by 2.95 1.22 42.3 O.gl 47.9 7.0g
Sink at 2.95 0.03 0.9 0.45 64.2 37.4
Composite 2.9 100.0 33.8 5.14
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.25 62.8 0.5d 64.0 12.g
Sink at 2.g5 0.15 37.2 0.32 16~.4 42.d
Composite 0.4 100.0 63.8
Composite of 96.7
Zones A. B. C 7.91 2.2g
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 98.25 8..13 2.30
Composite of 2.95 0.18 63.5 41.9
Sink Fractions
Composite of 8.88 2.46
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 2.44
Feed to Table 1.20 8.98
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
TABLE B-67
B-139.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seam. Franklin County, Illinois
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-3-70) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-11-70)
BCR Sample No.
?h5'
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 7'3.4 7.7'C. 2.28
Zone B 1~., 81:)0 2 2Q
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 0.9 93.9 Ll.8 2.40
Sink at 1.60 0.1 6.1 4-9.0 11.4
Comoosite 1.0 100.0 L4.1 2.95
Zone D
Float at 2.Q,) h.c:;R a? 7 ~o _iL 7h7
Sink at 2.95 0.,2 7_~ ~~ 2 ~Q.I:)
Comoosite 7..1 100.0 Fil - ~ Q.QQ
Zone E
Float at 2. QS 1.Q,) 61:).0 70.6 9.69
Sink at 2. ql) 1 .01:) ~-c:;:() -:;~.h 42.0
Composite ~.O 100-0 582 21.0
Composite of 89.9 7.9.. 2.29
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 89.8 7.8e 2.28
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 63.5 41.2
Sink Fractions 1.57
Composite of ...2.8 3.40
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 1.20 ...3.4 3.45
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis
-------
B-140.
2.'ABLE B-68
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seam, Franklin County, Illinois
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-3-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2651
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.2 1.64 55.1 12.7
Zone B 7.1 1.60 55.6 12.4
Zone C 11.5 1.21 49.0 10.6
Zone D 61.2 0.66 71.2 17.0 10.9
Zone E 17.0 0.22 65.8 45.2 4.0
Composite of 100.0 66.1 20.6
Table Products
Analysis of 0.51 66.7 20.6
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-141.
TABLE B-69
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrati~g Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Illinois No.6 Seam,
Franklin County, illinois
Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-18-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2651
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 18.4 1.04 70.6 11.4
Zone B 32.2 1.04 69.8 12.2
Zone C 12.3 1.52 70.8 10.6
Zone D 26.9 0.68 71.2 18.9 7.0
Zone E 10.2 0.25 65.2 47.7 2.9
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 70.0 17.3
Analysis of 70.8 16.8
Feed to Table 1.02
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-142.
TABLE B-70
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seaxn. Franklin County, Illinois
BCR Sample No.
26'51
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 9-3-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 13.4 3.45
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.6 68.7 21.1
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test
Feed to Concentrating Table: ~one E
Run Date
8 Inch x 0 Run
I~oduct, Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 66.7 20.6
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 17.0 65.8 45.2
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run D~te 9-22-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: ~one D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run t9-18-70) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 70.8 17.3
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 10.2 65.2 47.7
Two stage Pyrite Product
0.60
65.6
-------
68.0
TABLE B-71
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Illinois No.6 Seam, Franklin County,
BCR Sample No. 2651
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
11.2
~
12.6
~4
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
10.7
No. 15-5 Table
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
3.....29.
~
High Grade
Pyrite
0.22
0.46
0.63
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
5.51
5.40
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
1.59
0.66
0.40
1.23
B-143.
-------
B-144,
TABLE B-72
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seam, Franklin County, Illinois
BCR Sample No.
2651
Fraction
Weight Percent
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' t e
Total Sulfur
Ash
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
2.
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
1.
Table No. 15-5
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
o 2
O. 1
0.20
0.4
0.1
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
1 .2
.40
Analysis of Feed
Coal
1 4
-------
B-145.
TABLE. B-73
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Ill.inois No.6 Seam, FrankJ.in County, Ill.inois
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2651
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei«ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic Reducing Atmosphere Oxidizing AtmosDhere. Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight" Moisture Ash SUlfur SUlfur SUlfur SUlfur Btu/lb IDT ST,S ST,H FT 1DT ST,S ST,H FT SiQa A:La~ FeaOa MgO Cao T10a NaaO KgO
Zone A 29.9 0.92 8.0 2.30 0.00 1.39 0.91 13,206 2050 2360 2640 2395 2495 2660 53.0 23.3 J.4.2 0.84 3.3~ 1.12 0.86 3.1
Zone B 28.4 J..07 7.9 2.24 0.02 1.29 0.93 J.3,242 2115 2395 2720 2480 2575 2740 55.5 21.5 11.7 0.79 J..70 J..2; 1.00 2.0
Zone C 1.~4 11.0 2.70 O.m 1 81 0,88 12.7'14 2020 2160 26~15 2~6o 2400 2~4o 401'\ ?o.o 14_:; 0.75 ~ .O~ 1 ,04 o,B':t 2 8
J..6o Float ~2.0 Q2.J. 1.q 8.( 2.42 O.OJ. 1.'6 0.86 J.3.098 2085 2305 2675 24qo 2'60 26 ) 'i~.O 21.7 J.5. ") 0.86 2.( 1.~4 0.68 ~.O
1.bO by J..9O 1.9 5.5 2.2 ~7. 15.00 0.06 4.1 -2 0.52 8.461 2030 2J.6o 2600 2~20 2 8'5 21)1 ) '1.0 20.0 J.5. 7 0.75 5. O./j/j 0.20 1.9
J..9O Sink 0.8 2.4 0.7 5q. 12.C 0.J.4 11.E 0.28 4.262 1<:)20 20~0 2260 228'5 2 t40 24 ) 2.0 J.'5.0 26.0 0.58 .'5. 0.60 0.16 0.7
Composite 34.7 100.0 11. 2.7Q O.OJ. 1.< 6 0.82 12.631
Zone D O.Q:) 6~.4 1?_0 0.]8 ]2.4 o.~o 4 H 1 e;B lOC:;O 1 07e; ?~e; ?'.:t?e; ~40n ~C:;hn lL ':I c:; , n ~~c:; o.6Q ,0( 0, ~4 O. 1,.7 2.2
J..9O Float 0_8 10 4 1 . AJ ~ n.h h.oR o_,'?' .~.~ O.f:) A c:~L. 1Q70 ~n':ln ~ lLno ~':I~n ~':I7C:; ~i:;M lLc:;.O 1 n ~~ ~ O_~c: / .0( 0 ~2 O. 1,.2 2~
J..9O by 2.95 ~.1 6Q.6 LQI ~ ,0.0 10 0_16 0Qf\ o.~ '.:t .11 c:; 1QQO ?110 2 l!.M 2~1C:; ~':I7C:; ~c:;on !L7 n , ':I ,8 c:; 0,7<:: / . ~( 0 th 0 '-':I 2.1
2.95 Sink 0.15 11.0 1.01 ~ ;~.2 ':10.. n 4':1 ':IA 8 o.~ ~. 122 2'.:t40 2~OO ? lLno ~7c:;n+ ~7C:;0+ ?7c:;n+ ,,~* I." II-A" I'\.!j O':l~ 1 .2~ 0.2"1 0_0"1 0"
Composite 4.4 J.OO.O 62.J. 12.q 0.18 12.4 0.32 4.J. 7~
Zone E O.C:;Q 6Q.6 20.7 0.24 20.2 0.22 2.600 J.880 J.QOO 21 7e; 2':140 2460 21)00 27,e; 10.8 ~4.1) 0.4E 0.7 0, '5~ 0.24 O.Q
2.95 Float 1.7 6~. 7 1.J.8 71.6 Q.22 0.17 8.q~ 0.12 1.Q82 20~O 2160 244'5 2220 22M 2480 40.0 ,4c:; 14.B 0.6~ 4.4 o. Ii, O.':tll 1.6
2.95 Sink O.g ~6.~ 0:64 6~.6 41.Q 0:~6 41.2 0.38 2.q48 24~5 2440 2445 2750+ 271)0+ 27liO+ J.O. Oil ~.6c; 8~.0~ O.':U 1.0 O.H 0.04 0.2
Composite 2.6 J.OO.O 68.1 21. J. 0 . 2ij:' 20.6 0.21 2.~~~
Composite of
TabJ.e
Products J.00.0 13.2 ~.4o 0.02 2.54 0.84 12. 'n7
Analysis of
Feed to
TabJ.e J. J.6 1~ 4 ':I4c:; nn4 ? c:;~ o.Be; 1::> . ~B4 'OM ?040 ?48o ?':I':IO ?4?0 ~c:;An L.An 10 7 ~, n 0.7(1 1i.0' o.q] 0,,6<:: 27
Run Date: 9-3-70
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-147.
TABLE B-74
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum. COtUlty, Ohio
BCR Sample No.
2694
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumu.lative
plus 1/4 in. 8.6 8.6
1/4 in. x 6 M 30.0 38.6
6Mx12M 23.8 62.4
minus 12 M 37.6 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, Band C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-18-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 7.5 7.5
30 M x 50 M 23.3 30.8
50 M x 100 M 21.1 51.9
minus 100 M 48.1 100.0
-------
r "Rn oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
11(
Sieve opening in mm
.
1.0
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
/
.
96
40
30
Figure 8-8.
140
100
18 16 14
U. S. standard sieve serle.
10
tD
,
~
()')
.
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH. INC. 607 2 G 1 3
Inch X 0
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8
Concentrating Table Feeds for Ohio No.5 Seam,
-------
B-149.
TABLE B-75
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x '0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre cleaning
Coal Identification
'Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, 'Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to q/8 Inch x '0
.
BCR Sample No.
2694
Product Weie:ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab Ie Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A q7.2 1 '06 8.64 q.qq
Zone B q9.7 1.27 7.51i q.q2
Zone C
Float at 1.6'0 " ~ hO.R 1.36 ., () . ~ 4 7h
1.6'0 by 1.9'0 2.'0 12.4 1.1£ 25.'0 12.6
Sink at 1.9'0 2.9 17.8 'O.~ 48.9 26.2
Composite 16.2 1'0'0.'0 19.'0 9.55
Zone D
Float at 1.9'0 '0.2 5.2 1.14 22.5 B.8
1.9'0 by 2.95 2.'0 46 2 1 46 ,;4 6 22.9
Sink at 2.95 2.1 48.6 '0.7'0 6'04 4~.';
Composite 4.q 1'0'0.'0 ';';.7 q2.4
Zone E
Float at 2.95 'O.q 12.8 '0.';2 0.'0 18..8
Sink at 2.95 2 q 87..2 '0.22 ~..'O 41:).4
Composite 2.6 1'0'0..'0 ~..9 42..'0
Composite of 4 4,
Zones A. B. C o~, 0 of
Composite of 1.6'0
Float Fractions RR? R~i= ~ &:;'1
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 4.,; 61.8 44.';
Composite of
Table Products 1'0'0.'0 13.3 6.59
Ana4rsis of
Feed to Table 2.67 14.'0 6.88
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
-------
B-150.
TABLE B-76
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam" MIlskingum County, Ohio
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-18-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2694
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 76.0 0.66 7 .1~ 3.23
Zone B 15.5 0 47 8, ~~ ~.40
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 0.7 85.8 1.09 .5.6 5.47
Sink at 1.60 0.1 14.2 0.78 lt7.8 24.7
Composite 0.8 100.0 :>0.2 8.20
Zone D
Float at 1.60 1.0 15.4 0.Q1 ~1.0 7.72
1.60 bv 2.Q5 1.7 58.0 0.62 117.9 17.4
Sink at 2.95 0.2 6.6 0.22 61.0 46.2
Composite 2.9 100.0 1~~.6 15.9
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.6 1q.0 0.66 60.6 19.6
Sink at 2.95 4 ::> A7.() () -, ~ Ih~.Q 40.::>
Comoosite 4.8 100.0 6~.') ~7.5
Composite of 92.~ 7.41 1.qO
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 7.51
Float Fractions 9~.2 q,qq
Composite of 2.95 4.4 63.9 40.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 tJ..0.9 ').~1
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.86 9.0~ 4.~0
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
TABLE B-77
B-151.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests-- Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, Ohio
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-18-70) and
30 Mesh x 0 Run
BCR Sample No. 2694
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Wei&!:ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 70 8 7 .1~ ~.?~
Zone B 14.4 8. ~-:: ~.40
Zone C
Float at 1.60 0.6 85.8 5.6 5.47
Sink at 1.60 0.1 14.2 4-7.8 24.7
Composite 0.7 100.0 '0.2 8.20
Zone D
Float at 2.qc; 4.7 67.1' ~.7 17h
Sink at 2.95 2.~ ~2.q ~0.6 4~7
COJIIPosite . 7.0 100.0 ~7.? ?h.?
Zone E
Float at 2.95 O.q 12.7 ~ . Q.~
Sink at 2.q, 6 2 P.7.? ~ ~ J.? 1
COJIIPosite 7.1 100.0 ~. ~ J.() . ()
Composite of 85.9 7.4~ ~.~o
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 7 ~F
Float Fractions 8,.8 ~?7
Composite of 2.95 8.5 s2.8 42.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of 4.2
Table Products 100.0 7.,1
Analysis of
Feed to Table 4.0 6.88
Chemical Analysis
-------
B-152.
TABLE B-78
EvaJ.uation of CoaJ. Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - PYrite Beneficiation
CoaJ. Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Mlskingum. County, Ohio
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (11-18-70) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2694
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight TotaJ. Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 1.2 0.60 52.3 29.9
Zone B 8.5 0.60 4Q.4 27.4
Zone C 41.2 0.20 6,., ~7.0
Zone D ~8.4 0.10 6,.1 41.2
Zone E 10.7 0.08 6,,0 4n 7
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 63.8 38.1
AnaJ.ysis of
Feed to Table 0.23 63.9 41.3
ChemicaJ. AnaJ.ysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
-------
B-153.
TABLE B-79
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Ohio NO.5 Seam, MlskinfWn county, Ohio
BCR Sample No.
2694
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 11-18- 0
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 14.0 6.88
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.6 6~.q 42.0
Pyrite Cleaning
Product, Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis. Weight %
Weight ~ Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 63.9 41.3
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 10.7 65.0 40.7
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date Process Deferred
Feed to Concentrating Table:~one D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (11-24-70) Crushed to
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
-------
B-154.
TABLE B-80
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
131. 8
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2694
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur ITons of
Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
27.8
24.8
26.4
31.0
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
~
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
High Grade
Pyrite
0.2
1.2
~
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
~
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
-------
B-155.
TABLE B-81
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Mnskingum County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2694
Fraction
Weight Percent
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' tee
Total Sulfur
Ash
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Composite of
Fractions
13.3
6.59
Analys is of Feed
Coal
14.0
-------
B-156.
TABLE B-82
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskinp:um County, Ohio
BCR Sample No.
2694
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 11-18-70
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ':{/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 14.0 6.88
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.6 6q.q 42.0
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test
Feed to Concentrating Table:
Run Date
Process Deferred
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight ~ Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test
Feed to Concentrating Table:
Run Date
Process Deferred
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
-------
B-157.
TABLE B-83
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
131. 8
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2694
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of ROM Coal
27.8
24.8
26.4
31.0
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
Process Deferred
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
21.8
Process Deferred
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
-------
B-158,
TABLE B-84
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, Ohio
BCR Sample No. 2694
We'/Zht Percent
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 37.2 8.64 ,."
Zone B ,9.7 7.. 1)1) ,.,2
Zone C 16.2 lQ.O Q 1)1)
Zone D 4.~ 55.7 ,2.4
Zone E 2.6 6~.Q 42.0
Table No. 15-8
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A Process Deferred
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A Process Deferred
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 13.3 6.59
Analysis of Feed
Coal 14.0 6.88
-------
B-159.
TABLE B-85
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Ohio No.5 Seam, Muskingum County, Ohio
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2694
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Weill:ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Reducing AtmoSJ>here Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight 10 Moisture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sul:t'ur Btu/lb IDT ST,S ST,H Fr IDT ST,S ST,H FT SiO,a ~D:3 F'&c!0:3 MgO Cao TiOoa N&a0 KgO
Zone A ~7.2 1.06 8.6~ 3.33 0.04 2.77 0.52 13.114 1900 1960 24Q'5 2525 2'5'5'5 2580 37.0 21.3 38.0 0.41 1.34 0.80 0.20 1.3
Zone B 39.7 1.27 7.5c 3.32 0.04 2.74 0.54 13.264 1925 1980 2&:;~O 2520 2560 2585 30.5 22.3 43.5 0.3 1.40 0.80 0.11 0.7
Zone C oRo 1R.7 Q_44 0.06 A A' O. "i7 1'1 .~4~ ~mo ~Oho ")')nc: ?&:;4&:; ?7r:;O+ ~7r:;O+ -::>, (\ , ':I ':I 62 ("\* .0 ~ 0.c;6 0.41 0 06 0.'5
1.60 Float 11.~ 6g.8 1.~6 10.~ 4.76 0.64 4.2"5 0.47 12.6 4 1970 2010 2570 2520 2560 2&:;Qc; 28.0 20.5 48. 0* o. 1.15 0.66 0.06 0.9
1.00 by 1.90 2.0 12.4 1.14 2' .0 12.6 0.12 '2.1 O. ~6 g.8tj.L 2070 2080 2180 2620 27'50'" 27'5rf 20.0 12.8 6~.0* O. 0.49 0.40 0.03 0.9
1.90 Sink 2.9 17.8 0.82 4E .Q 26.2 O.lQ 2'5.6 O. 0 5. 5're 20'55 2070 2160 2600 26"i"i 27"i0 F~.2 7.50 6g.0* O. 0.41 0.25 0.06 0.5
Composite 16.2 100.0 1e .0 g.55 0.08 9.02 O.L n 10.~2
Zone D 0.~8 "i6.7 ~2.7 0.17 ~2.0 0.56 4.721 2070 20R("\ 22~0 26~0 ~660 27"irt' 1'5.0 "i.'50 77.0* o.~ 0.41 0.16 0.02 O.~
1.90 Float 0 2 '5.2 1.14 22.'5 1':1.8 0.10 ,~. ~ 0.4~ 10.'526 2080 220p 2'560 -::>hltrl -::> 71:,rt" -::>71:,ft 1 ~ . 2* 8.Qo 7"i.0* O.i 0.4q 0.25 0.04 1.6
1.90 by 2.95 2.0 46.2 1.46 I c;4. 6 22.Q O. ~o b2.4 0.22 5.148 20lc; 20~0 2140 2hoO 261"i 2620 c;7.0 4.6c; 1~6.0 o.~ 0.46 0.24 0.08 0.8
2.95 Sink 2.1 48.6 0.70 60.4 4~.'5 0.17 4i.1 0.27 3.1154 2411) 24~0 2440 271)0+ 271:,0+ 271:,("\" 10.0* ':1.20 8c;.0* O.~ O.~O 0.05 0.02 0.1
Composite 4.i 100.0 155.7 ~2.4 0.2~ 1~2.0 0.26 4.459
Zone E 0.22 64.2 41. 7 0.14 40.Q 0.62 ~.0~4 2i1S 2~~0 2i60 26415 27c;(/ 27"50+ 11. 15* i.Oc; 84.0* o. o. 1 0 .07~ 0.02 0.1
2.95 Float o.~ 12.8 0.152 170.0 18.8 0.14 8.J 0.22 3.370 1Q80 2000 2&:;&:;c; 2600 2680 27~ ~1:r=5 11.2 '54.0* O. o. rc; 0.38 0.14 1.2
2.95 Sink 2.3 87.2 0.22 6i.6 4'5.4 0.12 ~.( 0.42 2.802 2440 244'5 24&:;0 27150'" 27&:;0+ 27&:;0+ 4'5.'5 22.1 :?g.5 0.' 2 0.' 6 0.85 0.02 0.1
Composite 2.6 1~0.0 63.9 42.0 0.12 In. 0.39 2.875
Composite of
Table
Products 100.0 l~.i 6.'5g 0.06 6.0i 0.50 12.083
Analysis of
Feed to
Table 2.67 14.0 6.88 0.24 6.04 0.60 12 146 2010 20~'5 2240 2&:;ho 264"i -::>7(\0 2"i.&:; , I:, L. &:;&:;.0* 0.i2 o.gE 0.54 0.14 1.5
Run Date: 11-18-70
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
Fr
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
-------
B-161.
TABLE B-86
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2713
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 1/4 in. 9.1 9.1
1/4 in. x 6 M 27.8 36.9
6Mx12M 22.5 59.4
minus 12 M 40.6 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, Band C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-6-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
plus 30 M 10.7 10.7
30 M x 50 M 35.9 46.6
50 M x 100 M 23.2 69.8
minus 100 M 30.2 100.0
-------
Figure
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
1(
b::J
I
~
I\)
.
Sieve opening in mm
:.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
30
400 325 270
140
100
60 50
40
u. S. standard sieve series
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, INC. 607 2 G 12
8-9. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh X 0 and 3/8 Inch X 0
Concentrating Table Feeds for Upper Freeport Seam,
-------
B-163.
TABLE B-87
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ?;/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
271~
Product WeiQ:ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab Ie Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A "i':t."i 0.53 9.4~ 1.06
Zone B 21.7 0.45 12.5 1.09
Zone C 0.66 46.6 1.80
Float at 1. 60 2.6 24.4 O. 20.0 1.40
1.60 by 1.90 4.1 ~q.~ O. ~ 45.8 1.76
Sink at 1.90 3.8 36.3 o. ) 66.8 2.27
Composite 10.5 100.0 147.1 1.88
Zone D 0.88 17':t.8 ~. ~l
Float at 1. 90 1.1 10.1 0.69 44.1\ La?
1.90 by 2.95 0.4 87.9 0.78 78.1 2 ~a
Sink at 2.95 0.2 2 0 0.24 60.1 ':to,?;
Composite 10.7u 100.0 74.3 ~.oa
Zone E 0.52 75.6 13.8
Float at 2.95 2.b 72.9 0.54 81.0 4.11
Sink at 2.95 1.0 27.1 0.1f:S 60.6 42.1
Composite ~.6 100.0 75.5 14.4
Composite of 85.7
Zones A. B. C 14.8 1.17
Composite of 1.60 77.8
Float Fractions 10.6 1.08
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 1.2 ~0.5 41.7
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 :>3.4 1.85
Ana:l„sis' of
Feed to Table 0.71 ~3.1 1.86
Chemical Ana:l„sis, Dry Basis,
-------
B-164.
TABLE B-88
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-6-71) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2713
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 78.2 0.58 0.2 1.00
Zone B 11.8 0.1)2 -1).0 1 .06
Zone C
Float at 1.60 0.8 62.7 0.60 ~~.8 1.18
Sink at 1.60 0.5 37.3 0.64 4-8.0 1.86
Composite 1.3 100.0 32.8 1.43
Zone D
Float at 1.60 o. 5~ 7.5 0.61 1.2 1. 76
1.60 by 2.95 7.1 92.0 0.96 8.1 1.61
Sink at 2.95 0.0 0.5 0.25 3.6 37.4
Composite 7.eO 100.0 56.1 1.80
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.4 4q.6 0.71) r~.6 q 1)1
Sink at 2 A ql) 0.5 50.4 0.16 1.6 43.2
COIDDosite 0.9 100.0 )7.6 26.5
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 91.3 1.1 1.01
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 91.38 1.1 1.01
Composite of 2.95 0.54 42.8
Sink Fractions :'1. 7
Composite of tL5.2
Table Products 100.0 1.30
Analysis of
Feed to Table () r::,7 h4? 1?4
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
TABLE B-89
B-165.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Up:per Freeport Seam. ArmstroM: County, Pennsylvania
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-6-71) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (1-14-71)
BCR Sample No.
2713
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 67.0 10.2 1.00
Zone B 10.1 15.C 1.06
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 0.7 62.7 2~.P. 1.18
Sink at 1.60 0.4 ~7.~ 48.c 1 86
Comoosite 1.1 100.0 ~2.e 1.4~
Zone D
Float at 2.ql) 17.16 q8 6 67.~ 2.07
Sink at 2.95 0.24 1.4 60./ ~q 2
Comoosite 17.4 100.0 67.1 2.10
Zone E
Float at 2.95 2.q6 67.~ 80.J 4.77
Sink at 2.QC:; 1.44 ~2.7 60.~ 42.4
Comoosite 4.4 100.0 7~.E 17.1
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 78 2 11.1 1.01
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 77.8 11.C 1.01
Composite of 2.95 1.64 60.9 41.9
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 2~.'i 1.Q1
Analysis of
Feed to Table 23.1 1.86
-------
B-166.
TABLE B-90
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-6-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2713
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 2.0 0.66 0.8 8.66
Zone B 26.1
Zone C 12. 0.60 4
Zone D 48.
Zone E
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 16.1 14.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 14.2
Run Date:
-------
B-167.
TABLE B-9l
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (1-19-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2713
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 6.4 0.58 7 .4 10.8
Zone B 4. 6
Zone C 24.1 0.44 8 4 4
Zone D 21.4
Zone E 4
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 79.0 14.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.4 .0 14.4
Run Date:
-------
B-168.
TABLE B-92
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, ArmstroIU!: County. Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2713
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 1-6-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of'-Mine Coal C~]Rhp.d +'0 3/A Tn('h x ()
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 100.0 23.1 1.86
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 3.6 75.5 14.4
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 1-19-71
Feed to Concentrating Table:-Z~E, ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-6-71) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis. Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of' Feed to Table 100.0 76.0 14.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 10.1 6~.1 46.8
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 1-26-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D~ 30 Mesh x 0 Run (1-19-71) Crushed to
60 Mes x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of' Feed to Table 100.0 7g.0 14.0
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) n.4 66.2 44.2
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.60
64.8
-------
Raw ROM Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
37.0
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
~
J!:JL
~
No. 15-5 Table
0.12
B-169.
TABLE B-93
Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County,
Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2713
~
Basis:
Pounds of Total Sulfur jTon of
Run-of-Mine Coal
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
Pyrite Concentrate 30 mesh x 0
3..3Q
5.15
0.57
0.76
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
5.43
4.92
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
0.25
1.23
-------
B-170.
TABLE B-94
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests, Phase IV
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Am.strong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2713
Fraction
Weight Percent
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
e' ht e t
Total Sulfur
Ash
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
.6
Table No. 15-8
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
.02
8.30
.8
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
0.11
0.61
0.42
0.38
o
.4
.6
80.4
84.2
Composite of
Fractions
100.0
2 .4
1.8
Analys is of Feed
-------
B-171.
TABLE B-95
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic SUlfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam. Armstrong CO\Ulty. Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
271~
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei«1lt Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic ReducilU!: Atmos'Dhere Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ Moisture Ash SUlfur SUlfur SUlfur SUlfur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT 1DT ST,S ST,H FT SiQa ~0:3 FeaOs MgO Cao TiCa Baa 0 Ka0
ZOne A 53.5 0.53 9.4 1.06 -- 0.52 0.54 13,881 2740 275<1 275<1 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ '14.0 32.0 6.20 0.72 1.35 1.25 0.26 2.0
ZOne B 21.7 0.45 12.5 1.09 -- 0.53 9.56 13,332 2750+ 275& 275<1 2750+ 275<1 2750+ 56.0 31.6 8.00 0.71 1.05 1.42 O.~O 2.9
ZOne C 0.6(; 46(; 1.Ro .1"11 1 47 0.12 7.'114 '.)7r::.n+ 271:,cf 271:,n+ 27'1(+ 271:)0+ 271:)0+ 54.0 31.6 7.10 1.26 0.56 1.25 0 "~9 5.1
1.60 Float 2.6 24.4 0.64 20.0 1.4< -- 0.9 0.59 12.050 ::>71:,(+ 2750+ 2750+ 275C'" 275<1 2750+ 54.0 31.5 8.50 0.80 0.66 1.45 0.35 1.2
1.00 by 1.90 4.1 39.3 0.69 L .8 1.7E -- 1.4 0.36 7.664 271:)('''' 2750'" 275d" 275C 2750'" 2750 56.0 '.:\0.-i5 6.00 1.0~ 0.'10 1 20 0.~4 ~O
1.90 Sink ~.8 ~6.~ 0.86 E .8 2.2 -- 2.0 0.22 4.077 '.)71:,('''' 2750" 2750" 275C 2750'" 2750'" 53.0 '.:\0.5 6.80 1.42 0.'50 1 2'1 0.42 4.7
Composite 10.5 100.0 L .1 1.8~ -- 1.51 0.37 7.432
ZOne D 0.88 73.8 ~. 1 .01 ~.14 0.16 2.890 2560 275<1 27'1(f 275 -- 1. '14 0.38 7.892 27'50+ 27'5C 271')( 27'5cf 271io+ 27'50+ 52.0 30.5 I .50 1.00 0.Ei6 1.15 0.'.:\6 4.9
1.90 by 2.95 9.4 87.9 0.78 ' 8.1 2. 9 -- 2.26 0.1~ 2.106 26~'5 27'5('" 27'5C 2750'9' 271 cf 2 .0 30.5 .95 1.30 O. 1.25 0.42 5.1
2.95 Sink 0.2 2.0 0.24 60.1 ~9.6 .10 ~q.2 0.28 ~.920 2400 24~t 24~t 271)d" 271 0+ 27'10+ 14.0* ~.~o* 8< .0* 0.3 O. 0.10 0.02 0.1
Composite 10.7 100.0 74.3 3.09 --( .002 2.93 0.16 2.727
ZOne E 0.52 75.6 13.8 .O~ 11.6 0.16 2.~~4 2075 2160 2650 2540 21)75 2680 46.1) 21').0 26.5 0.93 0.50 0.94 0.~4 4.2
2.95 Float 2:b 72.9 0.54 81.0 4.11 .02 1.97 0.12 1 600 2525 2720 27i5fF 275cf 2750+ 271:)0+ 54.0 2an 9.30 1.30 0.3 1.19 0.36 4.7
2.95 Sink 1.0 27.1 0.18 60.6 42.1 .06 10..8 0.28 3.624 2445 2450 2460 275
-------
C-173 .
Appendix C
-------
TABLE C-1.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Lot No.
2546
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.6 5.99 0.92 14,478
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.3 6.53 1.06 14,366
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 7.4 13.1 2.30 13,222
Composite of Fractions 79.3 6.88 loll 14,314 93.5 90.0
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 41.2 4.56 8,395
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.2 66.3 5.04 4,146
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.0 36.9 4.98 9,132
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.0 38.9 4,137
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.1 62.1 41.7 3,742
Composite of Fractions 8.8 50.4 10.9 6,644 4.8 10.0
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 10.4 81.8 3.64 1,781
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 82.6 5.54 1,648 (')
I
composite of Fractions 11.9 81.9 3.88 1,764 1.7 ~
\Jl
.
-------
TABLE C-2. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL 1WO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
o
I
I-'
-:J
0'\
.
BCR Lot No. 2546
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
-
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.6 5.99 0.92 14,478
Zone B ( assumed 1. 60 F1.) 33.3 6.53 1.06 14,366
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 7.4 13.1 2.30 13,222
Composi te of Fractions 79.3 6.88 loll 14, 314 93.5 90.0
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 41.2 4.56 8,395
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.2 66.3 5.04 4,146
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.0 36.9 4.98 9,132
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.0 38.9 4,137
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.1 62.1 41.7 3,742
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 10.4 81.8 3.64 1,781
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 82.6 5.54 1,648
Composi te of Fractions 20.7 68.5 6.86 3,838 6.5 10.0
-------
TABLE C - 3. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING IIUNCONVENTIONALII THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Lot No.
2546
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.6 5.99 0.92 14,478
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.3 6.53 1.06 14,366
Composite of Fractions 7l.9 6.24 0.98 14,426 85.4 81.6
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 7.4 13.1 2.30 13,222
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 41.2 4.56 8,395
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.2 66.3 5.04 4,146
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.0 36.9 4.98 9,132
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.0 38.9 4,137
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.1 62.1 41.7 3,742
Composite of Fractions 16.2 33.4 6.97 9,650 12.9 18.4
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 10.4 81.8 3.64 1,781
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 82.6 5.54 1,648 (')
I
Composite of Fractions 11.9 81.9 3.88 1,764 1.7 ~
-:J
.
-------
TABLE c-4.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
(")
I
I-'
-.J
C:>
.
BCR Lot No.
2555
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
-
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 51.8 6.04 1.84 14,274
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.8 6.52 2.06 14,158
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 2.2 18.4 3.54 12,242
Composite of Fractions 92..8 6.54 1.97 14,177 97.8 96.5
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.4 38.6 3.94 8,702
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 0.6 57.0 7.74 4,126
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.6 36.0 3.50 9,224
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.3 70.4 34.3 2,094
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 69.7 36.8 2,114
Composite of Fractions 3.4 48.8 12.0 6,437 1.6 3.5
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 2.8 73.2 5.34 2,384
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.0 78.6 4.76 961
COmposite of Fractions 3.8 74.6 5.19 2,010 0.6
-------
TABLE c-5.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL 'lWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Pittsburgh Seam, Monongalia County, West Virginia
BCR Lot No.
2555
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 51.8 6.04 1.84 14,274
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 38.8 6.52 2.06 14,158
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 2.2 18.4 3.54 12,242
Composite of Fractions 92.8 6.54 1.97 14,177 97.8 96.5
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.4 38.6 3.94 8,702
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 0.6 57.0 7.74 4,126
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.6 36.0 3.50 9,224
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.3 70.4 34.3 2,094
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 69.7 36.8 2,114
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 2.8 73.2 5.34 2,384
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.0 78.6 4.76 961
Composite of Fractions 7.2 62.4 8.42 4,100 2.2 3.5
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 10.6 2.43 13,451
0
I
.':J
\0
-------
TABLE c-6. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identif'ication Ohio N0.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
Q
I
b;
o
BCR Lot No. 2556
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorif'ic Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorif'ic Total Usable
Low Sulf'ur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulf'ur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.1 11.2 2.18 12,898
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 25.1 11.1 2.09 12,966
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 29.1 11.7 2.30 12,801
Composite of' Fractions 87.3 11.3 2.19 12,885 91.8 90.6
High Sulf'Ur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 2.7 43.2 3.77 7,648
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.2 61.8 6.31 4,563
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 4.0 18.4 2.63 11,740
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.4 43.4 2,964
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.8 60.8 44.6 2,964
Composite of' Fractions 9.1 37.1 8.94 8,419 6.3 9.4
Ref'use
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 1.4 65.3 7.30 4,011
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 2.2 38.9 5.41 8,360
Composite of' Fractions 3.6 49.2 6.15 6,668 1.9
-------
TABLE c-7. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Ohio N0.9 Seam, Harrison County, Ohio
BCR Lot No.
2556
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low SUlfur Combustor FeedstoCk Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.1 11.2 2.18 12,898
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 25.1 11.1 2.09 12,966
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 29.1 11.7 2.30 12,801
Composite of Fractions 87.3 11.3 2.19 12,885 91.8 87.3
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 2.7 43.2 3.77 7,648
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.2 61.8 6.31 4,563
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 4.0 18.4 2.63 11,740
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 60.4 43.4 2,964
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.8 60.8 44.6 2,964
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 1.4 65.3 7.30 4, Oll
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 2.2 38.9 5.41 8,360
Composite of Fractions 12.7 40.5 8.16 7,922 8.2 12.7
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 15.0 2.95 12,255
a
I
b;
I--'
-------
TABLE c-8. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
(')
I
b;
f\)
2574
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low SulfUr Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash SulfUr Btu/1b Value, Percent Product, Percent
-
zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 40.9 6.90 2.66 13,686
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 41.2 6.50 2.74 13,756
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 8.8 8.52 3.54 13,396
Composite of Fractions 90.9 6.88 2.78 13,689 97.1 95.0
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.6 34.3 8.80 8,943
Zone C, 1. 90 Sk. 0.6 57.9 14.1 4,875
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.5 33.2 8.58 9,172
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 59.4 44.0 2,784
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.7 60.6 44.4 2,868
Composite of Fractions 4.8 48.6 25.0 5,790 2.2 5.0
RefUse
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 2.8 73.7 7.33 2,646
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 80.4 6.58 1,560
Composi te of Fractions 4.3 76.0 7.07 2,267 0.7
-------
TABLE C-9.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Ohio No.8 Seam, Jefferson County, Ohio
BCR Lot No. 2574
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 40.9 6.90 2.66 13,686
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 41.2 6.50 2.74 13,756
Zone C, 1.60 Fl. 8.8 8.52 3.54 13,396
Composite of Fractions 90.9 6.88 2.78 13,689 97.1 95.0
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.6 34.3 8.80 8,943
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 0.6 57.9 14.1 4,875
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.5 33.2 8.58 9,172
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.4 59.4 44.0 2,784
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.7 60.6 44.4 2,868
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 2.8 73.7 7.33 2,646
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.5 80.4 6.58 1,560
Composite of Fractions 9.1 61.5 16.5 4,129 2.9 5.0
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 11.8 4.03 12,819
Q
I
5;
W
-------
TABLE C-10.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
o
I
~
~
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
BCR Lot No.
2579
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 F1.) 46.3 15.6 3.12 13,018
Zone 13 (assumed 1.60 F1.) 33.5 16.8 3.44 12,825
Zone C, 1. 60 Fl. 2.0 18.2 3.88 12,586
Composite of Fractions 81.8 16.2 3.27 12,929 92.3 88.3
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1. 90 2.3 40.4 6.34 8,578
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 5.0 63.0 6.16 4,757
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 2.2 37.4 6.86 9,122
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 59.9 39.5 3,592
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.8 60.6 39.0 3,588
Composi te of Fractions 10.8 52.6 10.3 6,321 6.0 11.7
Refuse
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 5.1 74.9 6.47 2,848
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 2.3 76.4 9.38 2,434
Composite of Fractions 7.4 75.4 7.38 . 2,719 1.7
-------
TABLE C-l1. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Franklin L. B. Seam, Garrett County, Maryland
BCR Lot No. 2579
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 46.3 15.6 3.12 13,018
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 33.5 16.8 3.44 12,825
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 2.0 18.2 3.88 12,586
Composite of Fractions 81.8 16.2 3.27 12,929 92.3 88.3
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 2.3 40.4 6.34 8,578
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 5.0 63.0 6.16 4,757
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 2.2 37.4 6.86 9,122
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 59.9 39.5 3,592
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.8 60.6 39.0 3,588
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 5.1 74.9 6.47 2,848
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 2.3 76.4 9.38 2,434
Composite of Fractions 18.2 61.9 9.11 4,855 7.7 11.7
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 24.5 4.34 11,457
Q
I
!);
VI
-------
TABLE C-12.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
(")
I
EX,
0\
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
2630
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional Or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 F1.) 54.4 7.69 1.09 14,275
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 23.3 9.20 1.20 14,036
Zone C, 1.60 Fl. 1.6 19.8 2.24 12,159
Composite of Fractions 79.3 8.38 1.15 14,162 93.5 90.9
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 3.4 43.2 3.24 8,208
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.2 58.8 7.00 5,318
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.8 44.0 3.26 8,068
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.1 59.1 37.6 4,212
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.4 60.2 42.2 3,690
Composite of Fractions 7.9 51.0 16.1 6,329 4.2 9.1
Refuse
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 8.3 78.6 4.00 2,070
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 4.5 77.4 6.92 2,332
Composite of Fractions 12.8 78.2 5.03 2,162 2.3
-------
TABLE C-13.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Preston County, West Virginia
2630
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 54.4 7.69 1.09 14,275
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 23.3 9.20 1.20 14,036
Zone C, 1. 60 FL 1.6 19.8 2.24 12,159
Composite of Fractions 79.3 8.38 1.15 14,162 93.5 90.9
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 3.4 43.2 3.24 8,208
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.2 58.8 7.00 5,318
Zone D, 1. 90 FL 0.8 44.0 3.26 8,068
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.1 59.1 37.6 4,212
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.4 60.2 42.2 3,690
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.3 78.6 4.00 2,070
Zone E, 2.95 FL 4.5 77.4 6.92 2,332
Composite of Fractions 20.7 67.8 9.25 3,754 6.5 9.1
Composi te of Table Fractions 100.0 20.7 2.82 12,003
()
I
~
~
-------
TABLE c-14. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Illinois No.6 Seam, Franklin County, Illinois
o
I
5;
co
.
2651
BCR Lot No.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
-
zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 29.9 8.03 2.30 13,206
Zone B (as swned 1. 60 F1.) 28.4 7.96 2.24 13,242
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 32.0 8.94 2.42 13,098
Composite of Fractions 90.3 8.33 2.32 13,179 96.5 94.9
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.9 37.5 5.00 8,461
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 0.8 59.5 12.0 4,262
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.8 36.6 6.98 8,564
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 63.2 39.6 3,122
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.9 63.6 41.9 2,948
Composite of Fractions 4.9 48.4 16.8 6,234 2.5 5.1
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 3.1 69.0 10.3 3,115
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.7 71.6 9.22 1 ,982
Composite of Fractions 4.8 69.9 9.92 2,714 1.0
-------
TABLE C -15. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL 'lWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification illinois No.6 Seam, Franklin County, Illinois
BCR Lot No. 2651
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Su,lfur Btu/1b Value, Percent Product, Percent
- '
zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 29.9 8.03 2.30 13,206
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 28.4 7.96 2.24 13,242
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 32.0 8.94 2.42 13,098
Composite of Fractions 90.3 8.33 2.32 13,179 96.5 94.9
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.9 37.5 5.00 8,461
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 0.8 59.5 12.0 4,262
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.8 36.6 6.98 8,564
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 63.2 39.6 3,122
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.9 63.6 41.9 2,948
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 3.1 69.0 10.3 3,115
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.7 71.6 9.22 1,982
Composite of Fractions 9.7 59.0 13.4 4,490 3.5 5.1
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 13.2 3.40 12,337
0
I
!:P
\D
-------
TABLE c-16. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Ohio No.5 Seam, MJ.skingum County, Ohio
o
I
~
o
.
BCR Lot No. 2694
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 F1.) 37.2 8.64 3.33 13,114
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 39.7 7.55 3.32 13,264
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 11.3 10.3 4.76 12,634
Composite of Fractions 88.2 8.21 3.51 12 ,931 94.8 90.3
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 2.0 25.0 12.6 9,844
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.9 48.9 26.2 5,579
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.2 22.5 13.8 10,526
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 60.4 43.5 3,154
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.3 63.6 45.4 2,802
Composi te of Fractions 9.5 49.4 31.5 5,375 4.3 9.7
Refuse
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 2.0 54.6 22.9 5,148
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.3 70.0 18.8 3,370
Composite of Fractions 2.3 56.6 22.4 4,917 0.9
-------
TABLE C-17.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL lWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Ohio No.5 Seam, M.1.skingwn County, Ohio
BCR Lot No.
2694
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 37.2 8.64 3.33 13,114
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 39.7 7.55 3.32 13,264
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 11.3 10.3 4.76 12,634
Composi te of Fractions 88.2 8.21 3.51 12,931 94.8 90.3
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 2.0 25.0 12.6 9,844
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.9 48.9 26.2 5,579
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.2 22.5 13.8 10,526
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 60.4 43.5 3,154
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.3 63.6 45.4 2,802
Zone D, 1. 90 x 2.95 2.0 54.6 22.9 5,148
Zone E, 2. 95 F1. 0.3 70.0 18.8 3,370
Composite of Fractions 11.8 50.8 29.8 5,280 5.2 9.7
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 13.2 6.60 12,029
0
I
(0
I-'
-------
TABLE c-18.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification
Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
(')
I
I-'
\D
I\)
.
BCR Lot No. 2713
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Value, Percent Product, Percent
-
zone A (as sumed 1. 60 F1.) 53.5 9.44 1.06 13,881
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 21.7 12.5 1.09 13,332
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 2.6 20.0 1.49 12,050
Composite of Fractions 77.8 10.6 1.08 13,667 92.7 88.4
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 45.8 1.76 7,664
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 3.8 66.8 2.27 4,077
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.1 44.5 1.92 7,892
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.2 60.1 39.6 3,920
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.0 60.6 42.1 3,624
Composite of Fractions 10.2 55.2 6.68 5,883 5.2 11.6
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 9.4 78.1 2.39 2,106
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 2.6 81.0 4.11 1,600
Composite of Fractions 12.0 78.7 2.76 2,003 2.1
-------
TABLE C-19.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM PHASE II COALS-
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification Upper Freeport Seam, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania
BCR Lot No. 2713
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Available
Conventional or Weight Total Value Calorific Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Value, Percent Product, Percent
Zone A (assumed 1.60 F1.) 53.5 9.44 1.06 13,881
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 21.7 12.5 1.09 13,332
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 2.6 20.0 1.49 12,050
Composite of Fractions 77.8 10.6 1.08 13,667 92.7 88.4
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 4.1 45.8 1.76 7,664
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 3.8 66.8 2.27 4,077
Zone D, 1. 90 Fl. 1.1 44.5 1.92 7,892
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.2 60.1 39.6 3,920
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.0 60.6 42.1 3,624
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 9.4 78.1 2.39 2,106
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 2.6 81.0 4.11 1,600
Composi te of Fractions 22.2 67.9 4.54 3,786 7.3 11.6
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.3 1.85 11,473 100.0 100.0
Q
I
""
------- |