PB-210 373
THE PHYSICAL DESULFURIZATION OF COAL-
MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS OF S02 EMISSION
CONTROL
L. Hoffman, et al
Mitre Corporation
McLean, Virginia
-------
,/ './ i .,'.
. / -'
} ,. ".)
MTR-4151
(i:tlt[
THE PHYSICAL
DESULFURIZATION OF COAL
MAJOR COt~SIDERATIONS FOR S02
EMISSION CONTROL " D 0
o J?~ ~
J' ,972
. . .
I w; ;;~
r I
! f ~ I
, A
ApprOVed for .PMJb.ac reL.~- .
Di RtU5e,
L- slnh:r:i'''In Uniirnited
- ... .. --..-....... .
.
, '
NO"Elv\BER 1970
THE MITRE CORPORATION IY
.\ I
...""" t "II -.
-------
THE PHYSICAL
DESULFURIZA TION OF COAL
MAJOR CONSIDERA nONS FOR S02
EMISSION CONTROL
l. HOFFMAN
K. E. YEAGER
NOVEMBER 1970
Contract No. .
F 19628-68-C 0365
Sponsor
National Air Pollution
Control Administration
Task No..
839C
r""-",~~~,.oi"'~~'" \IIi...._!Ik..& -. If.
'-.--........-.40M'II'-~'';' ':t). ~~~~~.
,
1-
MTR-4151
THE
1\1 ITRI~
~r.rl.h~~~Y~~l~
-------
Department and
Project Approval:
~/~-
-------
ABSTRACT
This Technical Report examin~~ the majur ~conomic factors which
will affect the application of coal physically cleaned to l% total
sulfur content as an 802 emissIon control method for stationary power
sources.
The individual cost factors associated with pruducing physically
desulfurized coal and the economic benefit factors a~sociated with th~
"j
utilization of this coal are defined and quantified. Thirty potential
physically desulfurized coal source/user combinations are analyzed to
indicate the range of economic system variability to be expected.
-------
:: 1Il{ EWO.l{l)
l'hlS documt'nt rL'pr('~H!nl<.) the resulu. 01" a ~,Ludy performed for
the Division ot Prnlcss Control Engin(~er'jng, National Air Pollution
Control Adminibtration (NAPCA)I Ueparlmenl of Health, Education, and
Welfare. This study l~f[orl \old::> cnnductc.d during lhe period Qf ApriL
through October 1970 in support of planning activities for development
of sulfur oxide emission ~onlro' process~s.
Special ackl1owledgPD1£'l1l is given for the contr lbution to thi:JI
effort by Dr. J(1nU:'S llurtoll uf N1TH.E. Dr. Hurlon contribuled heavily
to the organizatioll ot the tCl~I( dnd lIw gathering anu analYbis of
l.nformatiun contained 111 lltt::. report.
The authors' a('kllOwl(.d~~l'" I he aSSiSlal1(;e at thC' fullowing NAPCA
and MlTRE pt.'rsol11ll~l 1n th~. 3n-llll::.i tion and preparation of lhe, matcrlal
presented herein:
Mr. LHWrellCC Cramer (NAPCA)
Mrs. Linda DUW":dl1 (MITl{E)
Mr. Jack Golden (M1TRE)
Mr. T. Kelly Jan0s (NAPCA)
Mr. Gerald Morr is (~nTRE)
Dr. Robert Ouellette (MITRE)
Mr. Dale Slaught~r (NAPCA)
The cooperation of personnel at lh~ Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines and Offic~ of Coal Ruscarch; Tennes~e~ Va]l~y Authurity;
Illinois Geological Surv~y; Hituminous Coal Research, Loc.; and the
electric utility industry who wi]] ingly gave their tilne to assist the
study team is also appn?Lj,ltoU.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
LIST OF TABLES
GLOSSARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
] . 1 Ob jec ti ve
1.2 Background
1.3 Approach
1.4 Description
and Content
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Cleanable Coal Sources
2.2 Coal Cleaning Costs
2.3 Assessable Benefits
2.4 Cost Benefit Analysis
2.5 Potential Clean Coal Application
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Conclusions
3.2 Recommendations
4.0 'CLEANABLE COAL SOURCES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Scope of the Cleanable Coal Source Evaluation
4.3 Identification of Potentially Cleanable Coal Sources
4.4 Cleanable Coal Production
4.5 Reserves of Potentially Cleanable Coal
. ,
5.0 EVALUATION OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COAL CLEANING
PROCESS
5.1 Cleaning Cost Factors
5.2 Cleaning Plant Amortization Costs
5.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs'
5.4 Value of Raw Coal Required per Ton of Cleaned Coal
5.5 State and Local Taxes Allocated Against Each Ton
of Cleaned Coal
5.6 Precipitator Economjcs
Page
vii
viii
x
1
1
1
4
5
7
7
9
12
15
19
21
21
23
25
25
26
26
32
39
41
42
42
48
54
56
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
6.0 EVALUATION OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
USE OF CLEANED COAL
6.1 Economic Benefit Factors
6.2 Increased Heat Content
6.3 Savings in Coa] Transport Costs
6.4 Savings in Ash Disposal Costs
6.5 Savings in Coal Grinding Costs
6.6 Savings in Payment to Welfare Fund
6.7 Maintenance Savings
7.0 COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
7~1 Introduction
7.2 Case Example
7.3 The Effect of Cleaning P~ant Utillzation
Economics of Physically Cleaned Coal
7.4 Differential Cost Summaries
on th e
REFERENCES
APPENDIX I
SULFUR CONTENT RELATIONSHIPS
APPENDIX II
POTENTIAL CLEAN COAL APPLICATION
APPENDIX III
AMORTIZATION PAYMENT DATA
APPENDIX IV
CLEANING PLANT UTILIZATION AND AMORTIZATION
FUNCTIONS
APPENDIX V
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX VI
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS CASE STUDY
COST/BE~~FIT ANALYSIS MODEL
APPENDIX VII
PISTRIBUTION LIST
vi
Pa~e
61
61
62
63
74
77
77
79
85
85
93
97
98
121
124
148
163
177
198
211
312
-------
Figure Number
2-1
2-2
4-1
5-1
" ~ ~
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6,
6-7
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Title
Differential Cleaning Co~ts Less Benefits -
C~BTU (Single Ca~ Shipping Rates)
Differential Cleaning Costs Less Benefits -
Q/MBTU (Unit Train Shipping R~tes)
Es~imated 1968 Commercial Production of Coal
Cleanable to one perc~nt total sulfur
Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payments per
Ton Plant Input Capacity. Costs Based on
Plant Cost of $1,000 per ton Input Capacity
and Equal Monthly Payments
Cleaning Plant Utilization
, .
. '
Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal for Plant
Cost - $8,000 per Ton Hour Input Capacity;
Interest Rate - 8% Lo.an Period 10 Years
Operation and Maintenance Cost
Value of Raw Coal Required to Produce a Ton
of Cleaned Coal
Tax Burden/Ton of Cleaned Coal for Plant Cost ~
$8,000 per Ton Hour Input Capacity and Tax
Rate of 2%
Added Coal Value Due to Increase in Heat Content
Effective Savings in Transport Cost due to
Increase in Heat Content (Equals Shipping
Cost X K)
Estimated 1970 Barge Tawing Cost - Ohio River
and Tributaries
Estimated 1910 Haulage Costs - Public Highway
Trucking
Coal Transportation Costs - General Trend,
Mode vs Distance' .
Ash Disposal Savings per Ton of Coar Burned
Grinding Cost Saving
vii
Page
17
18
37
47
49
50
55
57
~9
64
65
71
72
75
76
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Ft2ure Number Title Pa2e.
6-8 Welfare Fund Saving 80
7-1 Source/Destination Points 89
7-2 Source/Destinatlon Points 90
7-3 Source/Destination Points 91
7-4 Source/Destination Points 92
7-5 Differential Cleaning Costs Less Benefi ts - $ /Ton
(Single Car Shipping Rates) 117
7-6 Differential Cleaning Costs Less Bene fi ts .. $ /Ton
(Unit Train Shipping Rates) 118
7-7 Differential Cleaning Costs Less Benefi ts -c/MB'lU
(Single Car Shipping Rates) 119
7-8 Differential Cleaning Costs Less Benefi ts -c/MBm
(Unit Train Shipping Rates) 1~0
LIST OF TABLES
Table Number
Title
Page
1-1
Estimated Fuel Requirements
2
2..1
Estimated Production of Bituminous Coal Clean-
able to 1% Sulfur Content.. by state (1968)
8
2-2
Estimated Production and R~serves of Coal
Cleanable to 1% Sulfur Content- By Region (1968) 8
2-3
Economic Range of Each Cost and Benefit
Factor per Ton of Physically Desulfurized
Coal
16
4-1
Coal Sources IndicBting Potential for
Cleanabi1ity t~ 1% Total Su1fu~
28
4-2
Estimated 1968 Production of Coal Cleanable to
1% Total Sulfur, by County
34
4-3
Estimated Coal Reserves C1e~nab1e to 1%
Total Sulfur
40
-------
Table Number
6-1
6..2
6-3
6-4
6-5
7-1
LIST OF TABLES (Continues)
Title
Unit Train Case Studies
Modes of Coal Transportation (1967)
~
69
73
Average Proximate Analysis of As Burned Coals
Utilized in TWo Identical Steam-Electric Plants 81
Comparison of Maintenance Costs When Burning
Different Ash and Sulfur Content Coals in
Identical Power Plants
Assumed Maintenance Savings as a Function of
Ash and Sulfur Reduction
Source/Destination Pairs with Related
Informat~on
ix
81
83
-------
Amortize
Benefication
Cleaned Coal
Depreciation
F.O.B. Raw Coal Price
MBTU
Physical Desulfurization
of Coal
Raw Coal Value
Run-of-Mine (ROM)
Tariff
Yield
GLOSSARY
to p,rovJi.d.e for the gradual extinquishment
of (as a mortgage) usually by contrfb~ting
to a sinking fund at the time of e'ach
perio.dic interest payme'll1!t
the aet or process (as applied to a raw
material)' SO as to improve *ts. ptt,y.sical
and chemical "roperties.
coal be~e fiefa ted by a phys,tcal ~le8niftg proce.ss
los.s. of value
raw c,o.a! s,eliJ:mg p.1!'ice without ehaJ'ge for
deliv.e1!'y. to. and placfn~ on board a
c'arrier' at a specif:ied pOlint
million B~ltisb Thermal Units
the separation of sttlfur-bearing substance
from coal by ut*li~lng d~ifferences. in
the phy,sical propertie.s of tbe materials
the operator's. break-even price for p,rovidtng
a specified amo,unt of waw, coal (1 .e.., the
expenses to p.ro~uee a t0n. oof raw. coal
incluqing royaltie8~ labor and equipment.
insurance, taxes, and mine development
eosts.,' ete)
the raw coal (or ore), as it is delivered
by the mine cars, skips~ or conveyors
and prior to treatment o.f any sort
a s,chedule of rates or cbarges of: a business
or public utility
the ratio of output: o.ver input ~exp'J'e'ssible'
as a decimal or percentage)'
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
Evaluate the economic factors involved in the production,
transportation, and utilization of coal cleaned to 1% or
less sulfur content.
1.2 . Back~round
The recent introduction of r~gulations res~rictlng the sulfur
content of ~ossil fuel~ consumed in stationary operations have a
fundamental impact on fuel supplies.
~tationa~y f08s1l fuel burn;~~
operations, primarily electric utility and industrial, currently emit
more than 25 million tons of 802 annually into the atwosphere. Of
this total, more than 80% is contributed by coal burning oper$tions
concentrated in the urbanized areas east of the Mississippi River.
The environmental threat posed by these concentrated S02 ~mi8sions
has led to a trend 'in local regulations, interpreted from NAPCA a;r
quality criteria, which either limit the sulfur content of fuel or
restrict 802 emissions.
Prior to the introduction "of these 802 emtssion regulations,
ut~11ty and industrial conS4mers selected fuel based on the lowest
cost per ~1it of heat. As a result the lower cost, higher sulfur coa!
sou~ces, n~t -useable by the metallurgical industry, have supplied
about 70%.0£ the fuel demands of stqtionary operations in the coal
competitiv~ markets of the Eastern United States. Since these coal
supplies aveTage about 2~5 percent sulfur content, th~ use of 1.0
percent sulfur content fuel could potentially produce a 60% r~duction
in ~he quantity of 802 emitted.
-------
A+though it,is clear that S02 emi~sion control will increase the
cost of combustion oper?tions, this may be the less~r of two conaerns.
The greater difficulty in implementing S02 emission control regulations
appears to be the identification of low sulfur fuel sources which can
produce sufficient quantities to meet stationary power source coal
demands in the Eastern United States. This fuel supply pToblem is
summarized in Table 1-1.
TABLE 1-1
ESTIMATED FUEL REQUIREMENTS
1970 coal demand of stationary operations
in the Eastern United
380 million tons
I
Estimated 1970 production of 1% sulfur
content coal used by stationary opera-
tions in the Eastern United States
60 million tons
Remaining 1970 fuel.demand for which
sulfur emission control is desired
320 million coal
equivalent tons
In addition ,the continued growth of the utility industry, forecast
at a rate of 5% to 10% per year, can be expected to rely primarily on
fossi~ fuels until at l~ast 1990.[1,2]
-------
The search for methods of rapidly meeting 802 emission control
regp1ations without impa~tlng on th~ productivity of existing coal
burning utility and industrial opera~ions has !ed ~o the exami~~ion
of a number of potential emission cont~ol alternatives. Th~ alter-
natives being examined include the following:
(1) Physical Desul~ri~ation of Fuel
Coal
Oi1 .
(2) Combustion and Post-Combustion S02 Removal Processes
,
(3) Conversion of Coal to Liquid or Gaseous Fue1
(4) Natural Low Sulfur Fuel
Coal
Oil
Natural Gas
The importance of physi~al cleaning to achieve a low sulfur
,
content coal through reduction of the pyritic sulfur content is
enhanced by a number of considerations ~urrounqing these potential
802 emission control alternatives.
These considerations) described
as follo~s, also indicate that no single solution will be
.'
= /
"
technically or economically satisfactory for all stationary poweT
source situations.
1. The cost factors affecting stationary power sources in
conversion from coal to other foss!! fuel forms.
2. The research or prototype development stat~s of combustion,
, .
stack gas, and coal conversion processes. this limits their wide-
sp~ead commercial application until at least 1975.
-------
3. The limitations in the supplies and existing distribution
capability of natural gas and low sulfur 011 for additional utility
and industrial application.
4. The low potential for a five-fold expa~sion of natural low
sulfur coal production to meet the current demands of stationary power
operations in the Eastern United States.
In the face of ,all these considerations, the physical or "deep"-
clean~ng process which uses existing coal preparation techniques ~o
reduce pyritic sulfur content is an S02 emission control possibility
worthy of detailed technical and economic evaluation.
This report presents the results of a task established to evaluate
the economic considerations in the production, transportation, and
utilization of coal physically cleaned to a total sulfur content of
less than one percent. The results provide an evaluation tool to
NAPCA for determining the role of physically cleaned coal in ~atisfying
both sulfur oxide emission control regulations and the fuel demands of
stationary power source coal consumers in the Eastern Unit~d States.
1.3 Approach
The task effort is directed toward quantifying the economic factors
which 'will affect "the' role of pl1.ysically cleaned coal in meeting 502
emission control regulations)and its resulting relationship to other S02
I .
emission control alternatives.
~,
-------
The essential variability of the economic factors surrounding
clean coal require each coal source/user combination to be eva1uatep
individually. Therefore, cost analyses are performed on thirty
individual source/user cases to evaluate the net economic effect of
the production, transportation, and utilization of physically cleaned
coal. The analysis procedure is converted into a computerized cost
analysis model for rapid ev~luation of the net economic effect of any
combination of source/user variables including the F.O.B. raw coal price.
1.4 Description and Content
The detailed resu1t~ of this task are presented in total in this
document. This document is organized 8$ fol~ows:
Section 2.0 presents a summary of the task results.
Section 3.0 presents the primary conclusions and recommendations
drawn from the study.
Section 4.0 dev~lops an estimate of the location. production,
and reserves of coal sources potentially cleanable to a 1%
tota] sulfur content.
Section 5.0 deecribes and quantifies the primary cost factors
associated with the pro~uction of clean coal.
Section 6.0 describes and quantifies tqe assessable economic
benefits associated with the transportation and utilization
of clean coal.
Section 7.0 summarizeB the cost/benefit analysis for physically
cleaned coal in terms of 30 potential source/user combination~.
Appendices I through VII present supporting information and
detailed portions of the task study effort.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Cleanable Coal Sources
Background data on the location, production, and reserves of poten-
tially cleanable coal sources serving the Eastern United States are dev~-
loped. These data provide perspective on the application of physically
cleaned coal relative to alternative 802 emission control procedures.
Efforts to estimate the locatioQ, current production, reserves, and
composition of coal sources potentially cleanable to 1% total sulfur
content must consider the fundamental variability in size and concentfa-
tion of the pyritic sulfur and ash forming impurities in coal. As a
result, th~ several thousand quantitative coal analyses available in th~
literfiture are used in this study to develop coal composition probability
distributions as a function of cleanability conditions. Based on this
di5~ribution, local trends in cleanability potential are defined on a
state, county, and coal seam basis.
Estimates on the production and reserves of coal cleanable to 1%
total sulfur are "dependent on the cle~ning conditions used. For th~
purpose of this study, estimat~s were based on a 3/8 Lncn crush.iLLg top
size.
This size may be considered as the minimum for practical trans-
portation by open train, bafge, or truck. A heavy media separatIon
with ......90% BTU recovery was considered, based on ava~lable laboratory
scale quantitative cleanability ~nalyses. The result of the e6timatio~
process for non-captive bituminous co~l production in states east of
the Mississippi is indicated in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2. Cleaning con-
ditions tailored to the specific characteristics of each cleanable coal
source may be expected to increase the values indicated in Table 2-1
and Table 2-2 by as much as 50%.
Preceding page blank
-------
TABLE 2-1
ESTIMATED PIWDUCTION OF BITUMINOUS COAL CLEANAtiLE
TO 1% SULFUR CONTENT - BY STATE (1968)*
(Dt'velopt:!d ill Section 4.0 and Appl'nd1x 1)
STATE
TI1'1'Al
TONS
19,000,000
9,800,000
4,300,000
} , 500 , 000
2,500,000
2,100,000
1,900,000
1 , 300 , 000
1,200,000
400.000
46,000,000
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRC;lNTA
ILLINOIS
VIRGINIA
ALABAW\
1(ENTUCJs. The> l'leaning concH tions cQnsidered dre 3/8 inch
t0p SlZe ('ru~hing anu separati.on ..It 1.60 specifJc. gravity.
'lABLI' 2-2
EST iMATI:.D I'!WDUCTlUN ANI! RMiERVES OF COAL CLEANAHl.t
TO l% SULFUR CONTENT-BY REGION (1968)*
(DeveJop~d In Seclion 4.0)
Recove rab 1('
Product Lon MInE' Re8E'rVelii Reserve!'!
(106 Ton.:;) (L06 Tons)* (106 Tons)*
REGlON 3/8 111('11 3/8 inch 3/8 inch
J.60 SpecJfit. 1 . GO Specif1 C 1 .60 Sp~dfic
Grc:1vity Grav1ty Gravity
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN 25 510 12,000
SOUTHERN APPALACHlAN 13 260 8,000
MIDWESTERN 8 150 3,000
- - ..---
TOTAL 46 920 23 ,000
*
MinE.> reserves indicate the E.>stimated future production of
operat1.ng mines currently pruducing cleandble coal.
RE'coverable reserves lndJcatt" th~ e5t1mdted deppsit& ot
cleanable coal whj eh coul d be recovered by current mini ng,
technolo~y (i.e., a recovery factor of 50~).
-------
2.2 Coal Cleaning Costs
This task effort inve&tigatea tbe economic facto~s associated
with physically process1ng raw run-of-mine' coal to produce a product
with sulfur content less than 1%. t'h.e cost of .p.roYLding a ton of thi,
'aeep!!.c1eaned coal, at. the cl.eanJ.~g .plant -site.. is "the awn of the
following variable factors=
The cost Qf the raw coal that 1s ~equired to pToduce a
ton of clean coal.
The share of clean~ng plant amortization cost chargeable
against each ton of -cleaned coal.
, .
The cleaning plant operat~Qn and maintenance (0 ~ M) cos~
attributable (l.e .., appo-rt i0.ned) against ~8'ch tOR of cleaned
coal.
The share of the cleaning plant property tax that is
apportioned against each ton of cleaned coal.
In physical cleaning, a .coal separation or selection process
takes place. Some of the raw coal input 'to a cleaning plant ends
up as a reject material. There£o~e to obtain a ton of cl~aned coa~,
more than a ton of raw 'coal'must be used. The amount,. in tons, of
raw coal that is required to produce a ton of cleaned coal is equal
to 'the reciprocal of the cl~aning plant yield: In practice, coals
considered for phY$ica1 cleaning to 1% -sulfur content, togetner
with the characteristics 'of c~ea~ing plants, re~ult in a range of Yteles
-------
from 95% to 70%. Since coal prices are also subj~ct to considerable
fluctuation, a range of coal prices are considered by this analysis.
Depending on makeup,. cleaning plant cost can vary from $3300 to
$15,000 per ton hour input capac1ty for plants with mlnimum input
capacities of 500 tons per hour. Practicing engineers, engaged in
the design of coal processing plants, have estimated that a plant
specifically designed to physi.cally desulfurize the more readily
,
cleanable coals to a 1% total sulfur content will cost on the order
of $8,000 per ton hour input capacity. This value is for plants
with input capacities of 500 tons per hour and above. For this report,
it was assumed that the cleaning plant will be financed by a lO-year
~qual payment self-liquidating loan. This 16 in agreement with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allowable lO-year write-off period, There-
fore, the portion of amortization cost' attributable to a ton of cleaned
coal is simply the yearly principa! and interest payment divided by the
number of tons of cleaned coal produced in ~ year. For example, a plant
costing $8,000 per ton hour input capacity, financed by an equal payment
lO-year 8% loan (interest on unpaid balance) and operated at 38.5% utiliza-
. I
tion will result in an amortization cost varying from $0.35 to $0.50 per
ton ou~put at pl~nt yields of 95% to 70% respectlyely.
Cleaning plant operation and ulaintenance (O&M) ' costs were determined by
examining historical O&M costs for plants of the general type and complexity
as believed required to achieve a 1% sulfur content product from the' more
readily cleanable coals. These historical O&M cost data were analyzed to
-------
obtain cost as a funct10n of plant yield. The resulting data were
then modified by information obtained f~om the U. S. Bureau of Labpr
Statistics in order to reflect ~urrent values. The resulting data
indicate an average expected O&M cost per ton of cleaned coal rangi~8
from $0.40 for a 95% cleanit11 plant yield to approx1mat,ely $0..65 fpr
a 70% cleaning plant yiel~.
State and local communities usually assess a property tax on
fixed industrial assets. A stat~ ~nd local tax of 2% of the inltia+
cleaning plant cost is assume.d for this study. The tax burden allocated
against each ton of clean coal is ~tmply the yearly tax on the cleaning
plant divided by the number of t,Qns of clean c.oal ~rlodu~ed. For il
plant costing $8000 per ton hour ipput capacity and operating at 38.5%
utilization, the property tax burden per ton of clean cQal is estimated
to vary between 5.0C and 6.8~ per ton of clean coal for cleaning p~4nt
yields of 95'% and 70% respectively.
The total add! tional (or cleaning) cost in providing a tlon of
'&eep~cleaned coal is therefore the sum of the above cost factors less
the.value'of a ton of unproces$ed coal.
The quantificat~on process must consider a wide range of poss~ble
coal source and cleaning plant conditions. Therefore the results of
the evaluation of each economic factor are presented in graphical form
in Section 5.0. The results indicate that any generalization of cte~ning
costs can be misleading and that each case must be considered indivually.
-------
2.3 Assessable Benefits
The economic benefits associated with the use of clean coal are
derived primarily from the reduction of ash content. These benefit
factors may be summarized as follows:
Increased coal dollar value as a result of higher heat
content.
Reduced transportation costs per heat content of coal
shipped.
Reduced ash handling and disposal costs to the coal user.
Reduced coal grinding cost to the coal user.
Reduced welfare costs based on amount of coal shipped.
Reduced power plant maintenance costs.
The increase in heat content of coal after physical cleaning is
due principally to a reduction in ash content. The monetary benefit
(per cleaned ton) resulting from the increase in heat content is
equivalent ,to the value of that fraction of a ton that corresponds to
the increase in heat content. This benefit equals the F.O.B. price
of ,unprepare4.coal ~imes a multiplier factor K.
x
~ = where x 1s the decimal increase in heat content
1 + x
after cleaning.
-------
Since less clean coal need bi;! ship,p.ed ':£.or a given heat 'content
value, a transportation saving will be obtained. This -savings on a
per ton basis is equal to the shipping cost .pex ton of coal times ~
factor. This factor is eq\la1.' to that fraction of a cle.aned ton that
contains a heat value equal to the increase in ,heat value on cleaning.
Rail transportation costs were obtained from probable carriers for
the source/destination case 'studies addressed im this 'report.
Clean coal contains less ash' and has a' 'higher neat content
value than the coal from which it was prepar~d. The e1fectlve ash
disposal saving per ton of coal burned is equal to the effective
saving from lower ash content times an addition fact~r (greater than f) .
to account for the fact th~t fewer tons of coal need be burned to
supply a given heat content value. The effec'tive 'ash disposal saving
per ton of "de8pl..c~eaned coal burned amounts to:
t .
The cost of disposing of. a tan of ash. times x(l + x),
where. x is the fractIonal increase -in coal heat content
resulting from cleaning.
~e ~avin8 in grinding cost is principally due to the fact that
for a given heat content, less "deep"-cleaned coal need be ground. the
effective saving in grinding cost .per ton of IIdee.p"-cleaned co~l ~rM<1
is the per ton grinding cos't times the mul tiplier factor K, which is
equal to the fractional reduction in coal burned. This study ind~cates
-------
that th;e ~ost to grind a ton of coa] is about $0.25. Thus, for example,
the saving amounts to about 2.3~ if the h~at value of coal increases
10% after physical cleaning.
Welfare contributions by the mine operatur are b~sed on coal
shipped. from the mine. This effective saving results from the need
to ship less of the higher heat content IIde~p"-cleaned coal to satisfy
a given heat content .value. The effective saving per ton is $0.40
times the multiplier factor K representing that fraction of a ton of
c:oa1 corresponding to, the tncrease in coal heat conte.nt (via physical
cleaning). This amounts to about 3.6c for d 10% incfease in heat
content.
Power plant maintenanc~ cost saving estimates were derived from
TVA supplied data. Maintenane~ cost data covering two identical ~team
power plants, each of which burned coals of different ash and sulfur
contents, wer~ examined. The data covered the consumption of approxi-
mately 74 million tons 0f coal. Coal-associated maintenance costs
(fur all examined itemsr wlt.'re higher for the plant burning the higher
ash and higher sulfur content coal. For the two plants, the average
difference in ash content was 2.5% and 1.7% in sulfur content. The
average difference in maintenanc~ cost amounts to $0.116 per ton of
coal burned.
The quantification of all the above benefit factors are also
presented in graphical or table form in Section 6.0 because of the range
of possible variables which n1Ust be considered.
-------
2.4 Cost/Benefit Anal~sis
The essential variability of coal cleaning cos~s and benefits
requires that economic evaluations be performed on an lndividual
coal source/user case basis. Table 2-3 summa,rizes the economic
range associated with each asses'sable ,cost and benefit factor defipeCi
by this study. The ranges a~e ,based on evaluation of thirty poten-
tial physically desulfuriz~d coal source/user combinations in the
Eastern United States. For Ithe purpose of the~e ,evaluation$t the
economic factors may te combined into a cost-analysis model which
consists of three basic elements~
The cost of producing clean coal fTom.8 'caal source of
defined composition; i.-e., s~lf,u'1" and ash con:ten't.
The variation in t-raps'portation cost involved in shipping
clean coal from a def~ned s~urce location to a defined user
location.
The savings accrued from utilization of clean coal.
The net effect of these eiemen'ts defines the economics of clean coal
utilization for a specific case. The ~hirty case studies examined
indicate a net coal cost change to the clean' ~0~1 user ranging from
a $O.44/ton saving to 8 $2.63/ton cost increase based .on an F.O.B. raw
coal cost range of $5.00 to .$7.00 ,per ton. This e.eonomic effect .translates
on a heat content basis, into a 'range from a lC/MBTU saving ~o a 9~I~TU
increase. Figures 2-1 and 2-.2 .re,p~esen.t .tbe economic dis tributions of
-------
TABLE 2-3
ECONOM1C RANGE OF EACH COST AND BENEFIT FACTOR
PER TON OF PHYSICALLY DESULFURIZED COAL
(Developed in Se~tions 5.0 and 6.0)
ITEM
COST FACTORS:
Amortization contribution
o & M charg~
Raw coal value lost
Tax contribution
Total Cost
BENE}'!T fACTORS:
I
Value of addj tional coal haat conte~1t
Transportatiun saving
Welfare saving
Ash disposal saving
9rinding cost saving
< P 1ant mainLenance saving
Total Benefit
16
RANGE
(dollars/ton)
0.37 to 0.57
0.40 to 0.73
0.13 to 3.84
0.05 to 0.08
$ 0.94 to $5.22
0.06 to 1.34
o to 1.06
0.0] to 0.08
0.01 to 0.58
o to 0.05
0.05 to 0.20
-------
50
45
40
~ 35
z
1-4
~ 30
~
tI)
~
tI) 25
&(
u
f:.,
0
~ 20
;z
(zJ
u
~
(&J 15
~
::;
10
5
D ~ Coa] Value $4.00/ton; F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $5.00/ton
:mm Raw Coal Value $5.00/ton; F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $6.OO/ton
. ..
tZJ -
Raw Coal Value $5.00/ton; F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $7.00/ton
-1 to 0
1 to 2
2 to 3
3 td ~
5 to 6
6 to 7
4 to 5
o to 1
D1fferenc1s1 Cost Range in ~ents per Million B1Us
FIGURE 2 -I
DIFFERENTIAL CLEANING COSTS .LESS BENEFITS - t IMBTU
-------
50
45
40
c
(:r.:I
z
..... 35
~
~
rr. 30
rL
V.
<
U
~ 25
o
t
rz: 20
u
~
(:;:
Q..
15
CD
10
5
o Raw Coal Value $4.00lton; F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $5.00/to~
Iii Raw Coal Value $5.00/ton; F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $6.00 /ton
.......e.
(2:J Raw Coal Value $5.00/ton; F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $7.00/ton
o to 1
2 to 3
4 to 5
5 to 6
6 to 7
3 to 4
7 to 8
1 to 2
8 to 9
Differential Cost Range in Cents per Million BTUs
FIGURE 2-2
DIFFERENTIAL CLEANING COSTS LESS BENEFITS -
(UNIT TRAIN SHIPPI~G RATES)
-------
the case studies based on c1e&ning economics and the heat content of
the physically cleaned coals considered. It is evident from Figures 2-1
and 2-2 (i.e. for single car and unit train shipping rates respective~y)
that in over 75% of the cases examined, the additional CQst of using
clean coal amounts tl" less than 5~ per MBTU. Data supporting these
figures are developed in Section 7.0.
As a result of these evaluations, a computer program is developed
to simplify the valuation process. This program is designed to accept
- .
variations in the economic factors which ,contribute to each element
of the cost analysis model. This program will qu~ntify the net economic
result for any specified cleanable coal composition and cost transported
from a defined source location to a defiqed user location.
2.5 Potent.ia] Cleaned Coal A~plicatio~
The approximately 46 million tons of current annual coal production
which is estimated as cleanable to 1% total sulfur content under the
conditions considered could satisfy about 15% of the low sulfur fue+
needs indicated in Table 1-1. This would produce about an 8% red~ction
in the current atmospheric 802 burden in the Eastern United States.
Although large reserves of coal pot~ntia1ly cleanable to 1% total su!fur
can be identified, these require extensive new mine and mechanical cleaning
facilities before production can satisfy the demands of the Eastern United
States.
First order perspective on the utilization potential of physically
cleaned coal can be achieved through estimation of its production anq
-------
.. ~I
transportation cost relationships to the other indicated 502 emission
control alternatives. These relationships may be combined with the
production potential for coal cleanable to 1% total sulfur content to
determine its impact on the coal market (See Appendix II). As a result,
the region of greatest application is estimated as encompassing heavily
industrialized and urban Eastern Ohio, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New
York State. This considers the NortheTn Appalachian Coal Region as the
coal source with the highest cleanable coal production potential. In
this area, the current production of coal estimated as pot~ntial1y
cleanable to 1% sulfur content could provide up to 30% of the present
stationary power source coal demand.
-------
3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 Conclusions
1. Cost-benefit analyses of thirty potential clean coal source/
user combinations indicate that ecoD0mlc generalizations are impractlcal~
The range of combinations considered by this study indicates that the
production, transportation. and utill.~.ation IOf physi.cally cleaned coal
of 1% sul fur content 'can produce a net C'ost ,change to the coal user
ranging from a l~/MBTU saving to ~ 9~/MBTU increase. This rang8 is pased
I
on a raw coal value of $4.00 t.o $6.00 per ton and an F.O.B. raw coal
price of $5.00 to $7.00 per ton. Thus each case must be evaluated indi-
vidua11y to determine the current economic relati.onshlp of physi'Cally
cleaned coal-to the fuel now being used. The task results are stru~t~red
to provide this flexibility.
2 ~ Over 75% of the caS8a and conditj.ol~ studied indicate a net fu~l
cost increase of less than 5~/MBTU through the use of physically desql-
furized coal. These case ,studies are -considered representative of the
range of economic conditions ~urrounding the production, transportation,
and utilization of physically desulfurized coal in the Eastern United
States.
3. The examination of economic cost and benefit factors associated
with physically desulfuri~ed coal indicates that individually the most
. ,
significant: factors are planf amortization. operating and maintenance
costs, coal recovery after cleaning. and the increased heat content of
the cleaned coal.
-------
4. The estimated fuel cost change associated with the use of
physically desulfurized coal indicates that this is an economically
attracti~e 802 emission control alternative for stationary power plants
under favorable supply/demand relationships. Physically desulfurized
coal therefore, becomes especially attractive, relative to combustion
and post-combustion processe~, in older plants whose generating
units were installed prior to 1950. The coal tonnage demand of
these older power plants in the Eastern'United States is approximately
equal to the estimated potential supply of bituminous steam coal
physically desulfurized to a 1% sulfur content.
-5. The costs of producing physically cleaned coal is highly dependent
on tailoring cleauing conditions to match local coal composition and
production factors. The limtted current production capability of many
potentially cleanable coal sources indicates that in the near term
centralizing cleaning plants serving a series of mines may be the most
practical solution. It is suggested that the results of this study
may be used to plan specific cleaning plant locations and input capacity
for potential future implementation.
6. The location, production, and reserves of coal deposits physically
cleanable to a 1% total sulfur content can be estimated from published
, .
quant~tative coal analyses. 'Ibis ~stimate is most reliable in the
Northern Appalac~ian Region and is particularly useful in relating the
availability and cost of physically cleaned coal to other 502 emission
control alternatives.
-------
7.
The current production of Eastern bituminous coal estimated
as cleanable by physical methods to a 1% total sulfur content could
potentially satisfy 15% to 20% of the current coal requirements of
stationary power sources in the Eastern United States.
This applica-
tion would produce an 8% to 10% reduction in S02 emission in the
Eastern United States.
8. The application of physically desulfurized coal is primarily
limited by coal production and the cost' considerations in modifying
some stationary power facilities to accept modified fuel character-
istics.
3.2 Recommendations
1. The scope of the economic analysis provided by this study
should be expanded to reflect the total ecqnomic system within which
specific industrial and eleGtric utility coal users will judge the
acceptability of physically cleaned coal relative to other S02 emission
control alternatives. Factors to be considered include:
The impact on the market price of cleaned coal resulting from
the limited supply, together with the demands of consumer categories
other than stationary power sources.
The relative costs of alternative 802 emission control options
to achieve equivalent sulfur dioxide emission levels.
The compatibility of individual physically cleaned coal
sources with individua! us~r facility design, operating life,
and fuel contract conditions.
-------
The effect of local coal production capability on cleaning
plant size and location.
2. This study has shown that physically cleaned coal is an
economically attractive 802 emission control alternative. It is
recommended, however, that future efforts consider the physical de-
sulfurization of each bituminous steam c9al source to the lowest
practical sulfur content rather than only 1%. Such an approach might
examine several potential advantages as a function of cleaned coal
sulfur content. Factors to be considered might include:
The location and increased production of physically
cleanable coal.
The potential impact on reducing 502 emission by location.
The increase in both supply of, and long term demand for,
physically desulfurized cQal and its relationship to combustion
--...
and post-combustion emission control processes. Such indications
would tend to encourage investment !n coal cleaning plants.
Optimization of the NAPCA desulfurized coal and pyrite refuse
"Total Utilization Concept."
3. The NAPCA approach of developing the physical desulfurization
of coal as one alternative in a system Qf potential 802 emission con-
trol processes appears to be the most effective method of achieving
air quality criteri~. To enhance the achievement of these criteria,
it is recommended that local regulations be uniformly based on 502
emission. Regulations based only on 802 emission provide stationary
power sources the latitude to implement the optimum emission control
alternative consistent with tijelr specific situation.
-------
4.0 CLEANABLE COAL SOURCES
4.1 Introduction
Two coal source factors a~e analyzed to provide perspective and
background information for this evaluation of the economdc environment
surrounding the use of phy~ically cleaned coal in the utility and
industrial fuel market.
The location of coal source-s 'potent;ially cleanable to 1%
total sulfur content. Th:is large+y defines the transpor'tatio,p'-
portion of the total delivered cost of cleaned coal to a
def-tned user. For :the purpose of thi:s s'tudy, a coal source
will be defined .by region., .coal producing district, state,
county, and coal ,seam. The identif~cation of coal sources by
individual mine is not d.efinab'le by .the published data base
because of the proprtetary 'nature of 'the information.
The quantity af .c1eanable coal produced by each cleanable
coal source. Potential clean coal .production, when related to
utility and industrial fuel aemands will place an upper bound
on the extent to which coal cleaned to less than 1% total su1f~r
can meet the fuel requirements ot these user categories. Thi~
upper bound can be further moqiiied by comparing the econami~
analysis presented in thi~ paper with the delivered costs of the
other 502 emission control ,options 8¥ailable to the user. In
this manner, perspective on ~the practicality of the clean coal
-------
S02 emission control alternative for a given locality may be
achieved both in terms of supply and cost. The production of
each source will also define the practical size of cleaning
plant which should be constructed and the type and frequency
of transportation service which can be supported.
4.2 Scope of the Cleanable Coal Source Evaluation
This study will direct l.ts evaluation of the Midwestern, Northern
Appalachian. and Southern Appalachian bituminous coal regions which
satisfy the utility and industrial coal markets of the Eastern United
States. These coal regions are described in Appendix I.
Although large reserves of coal exist in the Western Region. these
are considered outside the scope of this study for two reasons:
The coal sources generally have a total sulfur content
less than 1%.
The coal sources are generally of lower rank with a heat
content per unit mass only 50% to 75% that of Eastern bituminous
coal. This factor, coupled with transportation distances. currently
limit the economic competitiveness of Western coal sources in
Eastern fuel markets.
4.3 Identification of Potentially Cleanabl e Coal ,Sources
If physical coal cleaning methods are to be used to achieve a sulfur
content limit. then this implies that the raw ROM coal source must cont~in
less organic sulfur than that limit. Thus, for considera~ion in this
study. the organic sulfur content of a raw ROM coal source must be less
-------
than 1%. In addition, the candidate sources, of course, must have a
total sulfur content greater than 1%.
An examination of the data base indicates that at one time or
another the majority of the coal producing counti~s, particularly in
the Northern Appalachian and Southern Appalachian Regions, have pro-
duced coal analyses me~ting the~ basic cleanability criteria.[5,7,9,lQ)
Therefore, the question is one of determining the degree to which
samples which meet the basic cleanability criteria are typical
of the coal sources from which they were taken.
Table 4-1 lists the coal sources in the Midwestern, Northern
Appalachian and Southern Appalachian Regions which indicate possible
potential as sources of coal cleanable to 1% total sulfur content,
based on the analyses availqble in the data base. This potential is
indicated by the degree to which'analyses meeting the basic clean-
ability criteria are representative of the source. Representativeness
is indicated in Table 4-1 in terms of the following three categories:
. A - Percent of coal analyses meeting the cleanability
criteria (i.e., less than 1% organic sulfur and greater
than 1% t~tal sulfur).
. B - Percent of coal analy.ses having an organic sulfur
content greater than 1%.
. C - Percent of coal analyses having a total sulfur content
less than 1%.
-------
COAL SOURCES INDICA'flNI; POTENTlAL FOR CLEANABILITY TO 1% TOTAL SULFUR
TABLE 4-1
SEAM
A*
% ORGANIC
SULFUR CONTENT
C* (90% of OBSERVATIONS
in A)
STATE DISTRICT COUNTY
B*
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION1
COAL S J::Al1S OF THE PENN. 1 and 1
ALLEGHENY GROUP*.
MIL J
W. VA. 1
3
PTTTSBURGH P ~~NN. 2
REDSTONE
W. VA.
ALL PI!:NN.
COUNT! ES LN
DISTRICTS
1 and ~
ALLEGANY
GAR~ETT
GRANT
truCKER
MINERAI.
BARBOt.:R
P RESTOt,
RANDOLPH
80%
0.4 - 0.7
5% t5%
~.LEGHENY 50% 2S% 25%
FAYETTE
GREENE
WASHINGTON
SOMERSET
WESTMORELANJ
BARBOUR 30% 70%
GILMER
HARRISON
LEWIS
MARION
MASON
MONONGALIA
TAYLOR
UPSHUR
0.7 - 1.0
0.7-1.0
u
*
A . PERCENTAGE Ot' ANALYSES WHICH HAVE ORGANIC SULFUR CONTENT LESS THAN 1% AND TOTAL
SULFUR CONTENT GREATER THAN 1%
8 - PERCENTAGE OF ANALYSES WHICH HAVE ORGAN 1 C SULFUR CONTENT GR1~TE}{ THAN 1%
C . PERCENTAGE OF ANALYSES WHICH HAVE TOTAL SULFUR CONTENT LESS THAN 1%
*.
THIS GROUP OF SEAMS INCLUDES THE UPPER AND LOWER FREEPORTt' UPPER, TLHOWEE RBI..ANEnDSTKOWNIDDLE
KITTANNING; AND BlWOKVILLE SEAMS, IN MARYLAND AND WEST V RGINIA, AI. ~
SEAM IS ALSO INCLUDED,
-------
'l'ABLE 4-1 Continued
COAL SOURCES INDICATING POTEN'flAL FOR t:LEANAIHLITY TO 1% TOTAL SULFUR
% ORGANIC
SULFUR CONTENT
SEAM STATE DISTlUC'f COUNTY A* B* C* (90% of OBSERVATIONS
in A)
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGIONI
"BLACK CREEK ALA. D BIBB 40% 0 60% 0.5 - 0.8
MARY LEE RLOUNT
PRATT ClILMAN
DEKALB '
, El'OWAH
FAYETTE
, J,ACKSON
JEIo'FERSON
I Ml\RlON
MORGAN
TUSCALOOSA
WALKER
WINSTON
CRI<:ECH IMASON KY. 8 BELL 30% 0 70% 0.6 - 0.9
HARLAN
,
STRAIGHT CREEK KY. 8 BELL 10% 0 70% 0.6 - 0.9
KNOX
PRINCESS KY. 8 Bo.YD 30% 0 70% 0.6 - 0.9
CARTER
HAZARD NO, 9 KY. 8 MAGOFFIN 60% 40% 0 0.6 - 0.9
PERRY
; KNOTT
BELL
HAZARD NO.4 KY. 8 C1.AY 20% 0 80% 0.6 - 0.9
. KNOTT
BIG MARY TENN. 8 ANDERSON 20% 60% 20% 0.7-1.0
CAMPBELL
MORGAN
COAL CREEK TENN. 8 MIDERSON 20% 40% 40% 0.6 - 0.9
CAMP B'ELL
!JELLICO TENN. 8 CAMPBELL 20% 40% 40% 0.6 - 0.9
'" CLAIBORNE
MORGAN
\ . SCOTT
SEWANEE TENN. LJ GRUNDY 20% 10% 70% 0.5 - 0.8
HAMILTON
MARION
RHEA
SEWATCHE~
VAN BUREN
-------
TABL~ q-l Cuntinued
COAL SOURCES INDICATING POTENTIAL FOR CLEANAHILI'l'Y TO 1% TOTAL SULFUR
% ORGANIC
Sfo:AM STATE DISTRICT COUNTY A* B* C* SULFUR CONTENT
(90% of OBSERVATIONS
in A)
CLINTWOOD VA. 7 and 8 BlICHANAN 40% 0 60%
DICKENSON
RtJSSEL~
WISE
KY. H PIKE 20% 0 80% 0.6 - 0.9
LOWER BANNER VA. 7 and 8 BUCHANAN 40% 0 60% 0.7 - 0.9
SPLASH DAM DICKENSON
RUSSELL
WISE
ALMA W. VA. 8 BOONE 80% 0 20%
LOGAN
KY. 8 PIKE 20% 0 80% 0.6 - 0.9
CEDAR GROVE W. VA. 8 BOONE 40% 0 60% 0.8 - 1.0
KENAWHA
LOGAN
MINGO
EAGLE W. VA. 8 FAYETTE 20% 0 80% 0.6 - 0.9
Me DOWELl
n RE CREEK w. VA. H FAYETTE 60% 0 40% 0.6 - 0.9
GREENBRIAR
McDOWELL
HERNSHAW W. VA. 8 BOONE 60% U 40% 0.6 - 0.9
KENAWHA
LOWER KITTANNING W. VA. 8 CLAY 70% 0 30% 0.4 - 0.7
(No.5 BLOCK) KENAWHA
NO.2 GAS W. VA. 8 FAYETTE 20% 0 80% 0.6 - 0.9
KENAWHA
LOGAN
MINGO
RALEIGH j
SEWELL W. VA. 8 FAYETTE 60% 0 40% 0.6 - 0.9
GREENBRl'AR
McDOWELL
RALEIGH
-------
TABLE 4-1 Concluded
COAL SOURCES INDICAI1NG POTi'.NTlAL lo'OR c.;U':ANAHlLITY 1'0 1% TOTAL SULFUR
% ORGANIC
B* C* SULFUR CONTENT
SEAM STATE DISTlUCT COUNTY A* (90% of OBSERVATIONS
in A) '
MIDWESTERN REGION I
HERRIN (No.6) ILL. 10 FRANKLiN 40% 25% 3~% 0.6 - 0.9
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
PERRY
WILLI AMSON ,
(NO.5) ILL. 10 FRANKLIN 70% 30% 0 0.7-1.0
HAMILTON
SALINE
WILLIAMSON
IV IND. 1) CLAY 70% 30% 0 .0.6 - 0.9
VI GREENE
SULLIVAN
Vleo
. , I
BLOCK IND. J1 CLAY 40% 0 60% 0.7-1.0
PARK~
VICO
NO.6 KV: I 9 BUTLF':H 30% 70% 0 0.7-1.0
CHRISTIAN
HOPKINS
MUHLENBURC
NO.6 OHIO. 4 ATHENS 60% 20% 20% 0.4 - 0.7
(UItDLE KITTAUNINC) CARROLL
COLUMBIANA
HOCKING
JACKSON
MAHONING
PERRY
NO.7 OHIO 4 CO~UMBIANA 20% 0 80% 0.4 - 0.7
(UPPER FREEPORT) GUER.~SEY
HARRISON
JEFFERSON
NO. SA OHIO 4 HARRISON 20~ 0 80% 0.7 - 1.0
(REDSTONE) MEIGS
PITTSBURGH W. VA. 6 BROOKE 20% 0 80% 0.7-1.0
-------
Only those sources for which 20% or more of the analyses are in
Category A are included in Table 4-1, based on at least ten analyses
per source. Also included is an indication of the organic sulfur
content of each source in terms of the percentage range which would
encompass 80% of the source analyses. The potential for cleanability
of the coal sources indicated in Table 4-1 varies considerably from
region to region and from District to District. These trends will
be discussed in the following paragraphs.
4.4 Cleanable Coal Production
The fact that the sources described in Table 4-1 meet the basic
cleanability criteria does not assure their physical cleanability to
a 1% total sulfur content. For given cleaning conditions applied to
a epecific coal source, there is some maximum sulfur content for the
raw ~un-of-mine coal above which cleanability to 1% cannot be practi-
cally achieved. This upper bound can be affected by two primary
variables in the physical desulfurization pro~ess:
Coal crushing size
. Conditions of separation
-------
An estimation of cleanable coal production and exploitable reserves
under defined cleaning conditions requires that a relationship be developed
indicating the percentage of raw run-of-mine coal, at a given total sulfur
content, from a given source, which is cleanable to 1% total sulfur.
Appendix I describes this relationship as derived from published coal
~leaning analyses for the 3/8 inch crushing top
. [6 9 12]
separat10n at 1.60 specific gravity. ' t
The est~mated production of coal cleanable
size and a heavy media
to 1% tota~ sulfur, from
the sources identified in Table 4-l,at cleaning conditions of 3/8 inch
crushing top size and 1.60 separation specific gravity,may then be derived
by ~pplying the sulfur removal relationships in Appendix I to coal prod~c-
tioA as published in References 3 and 1 and distributed by sulfur content
according to Reference 4. The results are tabulated in Table 4-2. The
results indicate that approximately 46 million tons of coal cleanable to 1%
sulfur content were produced in the Eastern United States in 1968 under the
chosen cleaning conditions. The estimated error range on this result
is ~ l5%rbased on the boundary conditions for the sulfur removal relation-
ships described in Appendix I. The general results of Table 4-2 are
indicated pictorally in Figure 4-1.
Table 4-2 indicate. the following coal production data by county:
(1) Total 1968 coal production
(2) Production which is captive to the metallurgical industry
(3) Net production (i.e., the total 1968 production
minus captive production)
-------
TABLE 4-2
~!JTl~IMI 1'}I)a PRODUt.IJON uJ LIlA I C!.~:ANABLJ. 10 1% I'OTAL :>ULFUR. 8Y COUNTY
(JIB DICit CRIISHIN(:, l.bO WASH !JPltJfJI GRAVITy)!),4,/]
ESTIMATED
TOTAL CAPTI VI~ ESTIMATED ESTlMAnD
COUNTY PRODUCTION ES1'lMATED NET PRODUCTION
COAl CN SEAMS NET PRODUCTION CLEANABLE
STATE COUNTY DJ S'/lO I. r PRODUCT J ON OF INTERE~l l'RODUCT ION > 1% SULFUk TO 1% SULFUR
( J 0 3 TONS) (103 TONS) '(103 'IONS) (103 TONS) (103 TONI»
NORTHERN APPAI.ACHIAN REr-JON
PENN ARMSTRONG I And 2 ",b5] 0 6,653 6,653 2,900
ALLEGHENY 2 S,lOO. 1,600 ),500 3,500 1,000
REAVl.R I. '>00. 0 500 500 250
8~:f)FORD I Hh 0 136 Hf! 50
tUTLER '1 1,94" ~OO I ,~50 1,550 450
CAMBRIA I 7, 77t. ! ,600' '1,176 'i, 176 J,500
CENTRE 1 70t. 0 ]06 706 300
CLEARFlt:Ll> 1 h,I"O 0 h ,L60 6,1bO 3,200
ELK I J59 () 150 1')0 70
FAYETl ~. I And l "00 'iOO 100 100 20
GRF.F.NE 2 L I ,h/HI L j ,1188 0 0 0
INDIANA I dnd 2 h,b4M 0 h,648 h,h48 2,900
JEFFF.RSON 1 I, ,)7" u 1,5 If> I, ')76 250
LAWRENCI-. 2 1 ,() 1.. 0 1,012 L ,OL2 200
SOMERSET I and 'I I. ,100 0 4 ,LOO 4,100 1.,400
VENANGO 2 445 () 41,5 44') LtJO
WMH INGTON 2 Ij,50C'l JO, lno \,200 1,200 '100
WESTMORELANl> I "Inu l. 1,000 WO 2,300 2,300 58!)
PENNSYLVANIA TOTAL /1 ,/1'11) 27,7814 43,861 4],H6'! L9,070
MD. ALLEGANY I .150 0 350 250 L50
GARRETT I J,LOO U 1,100 1.070 JOO
MARYLAND TOTAL 1,450 0 1,450 I, ]20 450
-
W.VA. BARBOUR I 3.51 H 400 J, J 18 3.11H flOO
GILMER } lOO. 0 100 100 20
GRANT I J ,294 lJ 1,294 1.294 700
HARRtSON 3 9.0UO 0 9,000 9.000 ')0
MARION J 13 ,'>'30 .I,~OO LO ,030 10.030 2,900
MASON \ }48 0 ]48 348 ')0
MONONGAJ ,IA J IO,22!( 0 10,228 LO,22!! 350
PRESTON 3 2,24~ 0 'J,245 2,245 1,100
RANDOLPH j 510 0 510 400 110
UPSHUR J 556 0 '>50 556 70
-
W. VIRGINIA TOTAL 41 .329 J,900 37,429 37,319 '>,9'50
NORTHERN API'ALACH JAN IH.LlON TOTAL 2'> ,4 70
-
*
ESl'THATI:.D FROM MOST KEr.EN'l PUBl J!>HED ..KOUtiCT tON QUANT1T H.~
-------
TABU. 4-2 Continued
ESTIMATED 1968 PRODUCTION OF COAL CL~ANABLE TO 1% TOTAL SULFUR. BY CO~~TY
('/8 INCH CRUSHING. 1.60 WASH SPECIFIC GRAVITY) [3.4.7)
f;STlMATED ,
TOTAL CAPTIVE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED
COUNTY PRODUCTION ESTlHATED NET PRODUCTION
COAL IN SEAMS NET PRODUCTION CLEANABLE
STATE COUNTY DISTRiCT PRODUCTION OF INTEREST PRODUCTION >1% SULFUR TO 1% SULFUR
(103 TONS) (103 TONS) (103 TONS) (103 TONS) (103 TONS)
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION
ALA. FAYETTE 13 190 0 190 150 70
JACKSON 13 519 0 519 519 250
JEFFERSON 13 8,359 Ii . 1400 2.559 1,800 1.000
HARION n U8 0 118 118 50
TUSCALOOSA 13 b75 0, 675 675 400
WALKER 13 4,321 2.205 2,.116 2.000 700
WINSTON 13 170 0 170 170 100
ALABAMA TOTAL 14,352 8.005 6.347 5.432 2 .570
E.KY. BELL 8 3.244 0 ).244 300 150
CLAY 8 2,000* 0 2,000 1.300 750
KNOTT 8 2,297 0 2.297 600 100
KNOX 8 153 0 153 70 30
PERRY 8 4,316 0 4,316 800 150
PIKE 8 J9,619 l,122 L 7,497 1 .500 800
E. KENTUCKY TOTAL 3J ,629 2,122 29,509 4.570 1,980
TENN. J ANDERSON 8 l,104 0 l,104 2.104 600
I CAMPBELL 14 1,583 0 L.583 275 150
CLAIBORNE 8 400* 0 400 250 .150
HORGAN 8 373 fJ )73 373 50
SCOTT 8 600* 0 600 bOO 150
SEWATCHEE 13 70 0 70 70 30
VANBUREN 13 l88 0 288 288 150
TENNESSEE T01AL ,>,418 0 5,418 3.960 1,280
VA. I BUCHANAN 7 and 8 15.804 0 15,80.. 4,900 2,500
DICKENSON 8 9,062 0 9.062 1,400 700
WISE 8 8,554 0 8,554 575 300
VIRGINIA TOTAL 33,420 0 33,420 6,875 3,500
W.VA BOONE 8 10,290 ~,215 9,075 900 500
CLAY 8 80* 0 80 80 40
KANAWHA 8 11 ,682 3,100 8,582 2,700 1,400
LOGAN 8 15,492 2,701 12,791 3,000 1,600
McDOWELL 8 16,97') 8,000 9,000 300 150
W. VIRGINIA TorAL 54, 'j19 15,016 )9,528 6,980 3,690 .
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION TOTAL 13,020
*
ESTIMATED FROM MOST RECENT rUBLISHED PRODUCTION QUANTITIES
-------
TAILF. 4-l Concluded
F.STIMATED J9MI I'RODU( I ION ill-' COAL ('LI:,ANABLI:. ro 1% TOtAL !tULFUR, IV IOUNTY
n/H IN('H CRU~HIH(', 1."0 WASH SPt.CIFlC GRAVITY) [3,4,7]
ESTIMATED
IOTAL CAPTlVE ESTlMATED ESTIMATED
COUNTY PRODUCT ION E!oTlMATED NET PRODUCTION
COAL IN SEAMS NET PRODUCTION CLEANABLE
STATE COUNTY 0 I S1'IU C1' PRODUC'! ION OF IN'rEREST PRODUCTION '1% SULFUR TO 1% SULFUJ
(IC,l 1'O:~S) (103 TONS) (J03 TONS) (103 TONS) (l03 TONS)
MIDWESTERN RF.GION
-
ILL. FRANKLIN 10 ~,60(l* 0 '1,600 5,600 700
PERIn 10 10,411 0 IO,4lJ 10,411 1,000
WILLIAMSON 10 t, ,11) 7 0 4,857 4,857 600
ILLINOIS TOTAl 20,86H 0 20,868 20,868 4,300
IND GREENE J I 1,500* 0 l,jOO 1,500 700
SULLlVAN/V [/;0 11 4,400* 0 4,400 4,400 1,200
INDIANA TOTAl 5,900 0 ~,900 5,900 1,900
W.KY. BUTLER q 200* 0 lOa 200 100
W. KEN1UCKY TO'I'A!. lOO 0 200 200 100
OHIO ATHENS 4 250* 0 250 250 50
CARROLL 4 100* 0 300 300 20
COLUMBIANA " ) ,J 3J 0 1 ,I 'J3 1,133 250
HARRISON 4 J 0,532 u 10,512 10,532 100
HOCKING 4 131 0 131 131 50
JACKSON 4 9111 0 910 910 250
JEFFERC;ON I, '1.000* 250 4 , 7 50 4,150 30
HAHONJNC I, 778 0 778 778 2'10
I)HIO rOTAI. 19,OJ4 150 18,784 18,784 1,200
W.VA. BROOK~: h 806 -~-- 806 806 100
W. V£R(HNIA TOTAL 806 0 &06 806 100
MIDWESURN REGION TOTAl. 7,600
COMBINED REGIONAL TOTAl. 4#),090
*
F.STIMATED FROM MOST RECENT PIIBL1SHt-:D PRODUC11ON ~UAN'I l'!IF~
-------
11
.........
",
"(.118'''''' 0\. ri ~ - t ..... f ..J
. "". ' " :_"
I J' 'f. " ~~
J -". - . -" I...,...., 4'
'o, ~.
"P*lS wW''''..' "'-t, J~ \ I
,,----- - ~ , ~...,
'\ C.,....' ~ I .-,.-' .,.
Ii,..."" Ie..," 61.--1) U ~ 'N'~ .1'
.. - ~ -r- #"
,- 7 ~
I'V Jl
.. ..:J
'.. .~
'. \
r~.... ~
8. u08ft ...--.
L
1't\'I.~1
. J.
"'--......,'1
-------
!
...t
.' 'iO"
um..'" ..MIo .....
'.""-
,(I..fIt'" ,... .,.avfII.
LEGEND
(' ...-"I:'t
~..., ~ ...vOW';-...
. ''*'..... ....."p~.. ru... ~I"
.. ...0.' '''''0.
COUNTY COMMERCIAL COAL
PRODUCTION CLEANABLE
TO 1% TOTAL SULFUR CONTENT
GREATER THAN
2,000,000 TONS
1,001,000 . 2,000,000 TO~
j)'"
"
.'
~.....I'"
J'"
501,000 . 1,000,000 TONS
..,.."""
~
~
251,000 . 500,000 TONS
I:,.
o
101,000 - 250,000 TONS
CJ,
,
1,1!i', ,I
Ii!',1 "
50,000 - 100,000 TONS
/2
~.,
....,1
FIGURE 4-1
ESTIMATED 1968 COMMERCIAL PRO-
DUCTION OF COAL CLEANABLE TO
ONE PERCENT TOTAL SULFUR
-------
(4)
The portion of the net production which is estimated
as having a sulfur content greater than 1%
(5) The portion of the net production which i~ estimated
as cleanable to 1% total sulfur content or less.
This estimated cleanable production quantity takes into account the
suggestion in Reference 4 that the distribution of production according
to sulfur content may be biased bacause of the inclusion of data from
processed rather than raw run-of-mine coal. The reference indicates
that the percent of sulfur in raw run-af-mine coal may be about 0.2%
to 0.5% higher than indicated in the total sulfur content range which
is considered reducible to 1% by physical coal desulfurization.
4.5 Reserves of Potentially Cleanable Coal
The reserves of potentially cleanable coal are considered in two
categories. The first category is called mine reserves, which repre-
sent the probable remaining production of the working mines in the
cleanable coal sources indicated by this study. The second category
is the total recoverable reserves of cleanable coal which might be
exploited through development of new mines.
Mine reserves are estimated by multiplying the current production
of cleanable coal as ind'icated in Table 4-2 by the average remaining
operating life of the coal mines in ea~h cleanable coal source in
each region. This remaining operating life is indicated in Reference
7 and averages about 20 years for the sources examined.
Preceding page blank
-------
I
:. ~
10tal recoverab~ reserves are the estimated quantity of remaining
mineable coal reserves represented by the coal sources indicated in
Table 4-2. This estimate is derived by app1ying the sulfur removal
relationships in Appendix I to the published estimates of geological
reserves and multiplying by a 50% coal recovery factoro [4,8J
The estimates of both mine reserves and total recoverable re-
serves are indicated in Table 4-3 for coal sources potentially clean-
able to 1% total sulfur content.
TABLE 4-3
ESTIMATED COAL RESERVES CLEANABLE TO 1% TOTAL SULFUR.
(3/8" Top Size Crushing; 1.60 Wash Specific Gravity)
Region
Mine Reserves
( lOb tons)
Recoverab~e Reserves
( 10 tons)
Northern Appalachian
510
12,000
Southern Appalachian
260
8,000
Midwestern
150
3,000
Total
920
23,000
*
Mine reserves indicate the estimated future production of operating
mines currently producing cleanable coal.
Recoverable reserves indicate the estimated deposits of cleanable
coal which could be recovered by current mining technology (i.e.,
8 recovery factor of 50%).
-------
5.0 EVALUATION OF COSTS ASSOCiATED WITH THE COAL CLEANING PROCESS
Physical cleaning involves th~ separation of coal from waste
products such as shale, pyrite, and roof-slat~ by utilizing dif-
ferences in the physical prup~rties of the materials. The practice
of physically cleaning coal has existed for many years; however, until
the current concern with 802 emission, the purpose has been to remove
the so-called ash-forming shale which produces the major coal impurity.
This material is removed to reduce transportation charges, the oper-
ating problems and associated expenses which this ash-forming
material causes in practically all ~ajor uses of coal. Thus in 1968,
340 million tons, or about 65% of the total United States coal pro-
duction, was physically clean~d to some degree. This percentage has
remained relatively constant over the past ten years.
The physical removal of pyritic sulfur involves, first, crushing
the coal to release the pyrite and, secondly, the physical separation
of the pyrite from the. coal. As the particle sizes become smaller,
pyrite removal becomes more difficult and costly.
In addition to
greater coal-crushing costs, finer coal particles tend to retain
more moi.sture and require additional thermal drying prior to shipping.
-------
5.1 Cleaning Cost Factors
The costs associated with providing a ton of physically cleaned
coal at the cleaning plant site (assumed located at mine) is the sum
of the following:
The cleaning plant amortization costs associated with each
ton of deep-cleaned coal.
The cleaning plant operating and maintenance costs associated
with each ton of deep-cleaned coal. Operating costs include the
disposal of the waste associated with the cleaning operations.
The value of raw coal that is utilized in providing one
ton of deep-cleaned coal.
The share of state and local taxes (on cleaning plant)
allocated againRt each ton of deep-cleaned coal.
5.2 Cleaning Plant Amortization Costs
General
Mechanical cleaning of coal is possible because of the differences
between the physical properties of coal and those of its impurities.
For the cleaning process to provide attractive pyrite removal benefitst
it i8 necessary to select coals which possess characteristics amenable
to pyrite removal and to have an appropriately designed cleaning plant.
42
-------
The cost of a coal-cle.aning plant call vary over a wide range.
Plant cost basically depends on plant c.1pcH.:lty and equipment composi-
tion assuming no undue site preparation charges. In general, for a
given cleaning plant capacity, the high~r the percent of coal fines
and the finer the fines, the greater the cl~aning plant costs. The
.,
increase in plant costs required Lo clean fine coal is due to both
the greater capital equipment ('ost for: cleaning tht:! finer grinds of
coal and the higher operating cost associated with drying the finer
grinds of coal.
Data Considerations
Even though some cost data on several existing coal preparation
plants is available, the val ue ,)f such dc:1td is 'lues tionable. This
cautious attitude concerning the utilization of past cost information
is due to a number of redsons which include the following:
Existing plants may not be repres~ntative of required
deep-cleaning plant(s).
The age of existing plants is not well defined.
The questjonabl~ ability to extrapolate or project current
plant costs from plants of different total makeup that were
constructed in past ye.:1rs and undt:!r different economic conditions.
The intricate details of existing plants are not well known
(effectiveness and utilization restrictions).
-------
These factors must be considered when using past plant/cost data
to judge the reasonableness of newly acquired plant/cost estimates.
Capital Equipment Costs
Rather than depend on historical data of questionable value, the
following coal-cleaning plant and cost information was obtained from
engineers currently engaged in the design and construction of coal
preparation plants.
A well-designed, properly maintained cleaning plant will
have a life expectancy of greater than 20 years.
The current turn-key range of costs for a IIdeep"-cleaning
.. coal plant are:
A. Minimum Plant
1. Input Capacity - 500 tons per hour and over.
2. Type of Plant - Minimal plant, top size crushing,
one type mechanical sorting (e.g., Deister Table)
3. Cost - $2000 per ton hour capacity plus $1500-$2200
per ton hour drying capacity. In practice, one
would only dry 50 to 60 percent of cleaned coal.
Therefore, for minimum plant, the total costs
(60% drying capacity) is $3320 per ton hour input
coal capacity for plants with a minimum input
capacity of 500 tons per hour.
Maximum Plant
B.
1. Input Capacity - Figures derived for plant with 1400
tons per hour input capacity. The figures are
believed fairly accurate for plants of 500 tons
per hour input capacity and over.
-------
2.
Type of Plant - Very high quality cleaning plant.
Plant performs crushing, screening (for various
fractions), coarse washing, fine and coarse
separation, froth flotation, recycling fractions,
drying, and mixing.
3. Cost - $14,000 per ton hour input capacity. For plants
of 500 tons per hour input capacity, the cost is
estimated to be $15,000 per ton hour input capacity.
c. Medium Plant - This plant is believed to be in the class range
required to cl~an those coals which are considered more
readily cleanable.
1. Input Capacity - 500 tons per hour and over.
2. Type of Plant - Medium-high quality cleaning plant.
Such a plant could include a combination of tables,
cyclone separators, froth flotation units, filters,
heat dryers, and a range of screen sizes.
3.
Cost - For plants with input capacities of 500 tons per
hour and over, plant costs will be essentially
proportioned to capacity. The cost of such a
plant with an input capacity of 500 tons per hour
is estimated to be four million dollars complete.
This is equivalent to $8,000 per ton hour input
capacity.
Therefore, for plants with input capacities of 500 tons per hour
and over, the estimated turn-key plant cost, including the cost of water
treatment facilities, can rang~ from $3320 to $15,000 per ton hour input
capacity. This represents a cost ratio of essentially 4 1/2 to 1.
Capital Equipment Amortization
This study con8id~rs a range of possible plant costs. In addition,
the variation in coal benefication costs due to different amortization
periods and interest rates are aleo addressed.
-------
Industrial quality coa]-cl~anlng plants, when properly maintained,
will undoubtedly have a life expectancy of greater than 20 years. Even
so, the write-off or ~ortization period 18 usually based strictly on
company fiscal policy as constrained or guided by Internal Revenue
Service policies and regulations. Reference 16 contains guidelines
for depreciable assets used by business in general.
Under the
category of Mining, defined to include the, mining and quarrying of
metallic and non-metallic materials plus the milling, benefication
and other preparation of such materials, Reference 16 indicates a
10-year depreciation period.
It is believed that regardless of tax depreciation considerations,
a mine operator would probably finance and amortize a coal preparation
plant by means of an equal payment, self-liquidation loan or its equiv-
alent. If the loan is payable with equal monthly installments, the
total yearly amount per $1000 of loan for various amortization periods
and interest rates is given in Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-1 may be used to obtain the cl~aning plant yearly mortgage
payment per ton coal input capacity for any type of cleaning plant.
This is done simply by multiplying the amount indicated in Figure 5-1
by the new plant cost (i.e., per ton hour input capacity) divided by
1000. Thus the yearly mortgage payment for a plant costing $5000 per
ton hour input capacity is five times the value indicated in Figure 5-1.
Amortization tables and curves for plants of various costs are pro-
vided in Appendix III.
-------
$180 9~%
9%
170 8%
7%
160 6%
150 --- . -
140
I
~ 130 - t'
~ 120 - -- - --
~ .
8 I I I
L- -~ - I
L _1 I-
I ~I ; I
-- ~ - - t -- . J
-- I - - -- J
I
I
t
I
o
8
9
14
10
12
13
11
15
16
LOAN PERIOD LN YEARS
~ ~-
---~-- - .1--- -~
I
-- - - ~ -- -.-
17
18
19
20
FIGURE 5-1
SELF - LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
PER TON HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED ON
PLANT COST OF S 1,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
The yearly amortization costs for various amortization periods
and interest rates (on the unpaid balance) have been provided in terms
of plant cost per ton hour input capacity. The share of amortization
cost attributable against each plant input ton of coal is merely the
per ton hour input capacity yearly amortization costs divided by the
yearly operating hours. The amortization cost per ton of deep-cleaned
coal is simply the cost per plant ton input divided by the recovery
(i.e., yield) expressed as a decimal.
The yearly operating hours of a c1ean~ng plant as a function of
plant utilization is indicated in Figure 5-2.
The per ton cleaned coal amortization values are given in
Figure 5-3. These values are provided for a range of plant yields
and utilization factors and are based on:
a plant costing $8,000 per ton hor input capacity
the IRS accepted lO-year amortization period
an 8% interest (on unpaid balance)
Curves showing the relationships between amortization costs per ton
of clean coal for various plant costs, interest rates, plant utili-
zation figures, and recovery (yield) values are given in Appendix III.
For all curves, the IRS accepted lO-year amortization period is
employed.
5.3 Operation and Maintenance Costs
Operations and maintenance (0 & M) costs are a function of:
Coal Yield (i.e., weight percent of plant input coal that
becomes clean coal)
Cleaning plant labor requirements and rates
-------
100
90
80
:zoo
0
1-4 70
~
<
N
....
~
..... 60
E-'
::J
~
~ 50
...J
0-
C
~ Z
H
CD ~ 40
~
,..J
t,;I
E-' 30
z
~
u
g] 20
~
10
o
300 DAYS!YR @ 20 HRS!DAY
260 DAYS!YR @ 20 HRS!DAY
I I
240 DAYS!YR @ 20 HRS!DAY
220 DAYS/YR @ 20 HRS/DAY
300 DAYS!YR @ 13 HRS/DAY
,
260 DAYS/Y~ @ 13 HRS/DAY
1000
2000
5000
6000
7000
9000
8000
3000
4000
PLANT OPERATING HOURS PER YEAR
FIGURE 5-2
-------
2.40
"
3 2.00
..:I
g
~
u 1. 60
~
..:I
U
p..
o
~
~ 1. 20
......
(JI
o
E-
tI.I
o
U
z
8
!< 0.80
N
.....
t
~
0.40
o
CURVE A - 100% YIELD I
B p 90% YIELD I
C - 80% YIELD ;
D - 70% YIELD i
E - 60% YI~
I
i
I
I-
I
J
I
I
I
I
i
I
r--
I
10
20
40 50 60
PERCENT UTILIZATION OF CLEANING PlA'lT
70
80
90
FIGURE 5-3
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST - $ 8,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 8 %. lOAN PERIOD - 10 YEARS
-------
Maintenance costs
Cost of operating supplies
Power costs
Refuse handling and disposal costs
For a given plant, the through-put time required to produce a
ton of "clean" coal depends on yield (i.e., the percentage of run-of-
mine coal that ends up as cleaned coal). As an example, if a cleaning
plant operating at input capacity takes X hours with a given yield to
process or provide a ton of clean coal, then the same plant when oper-
ating at half the previous yield will take essentially 2X hours to
provide a tort of clean coal. Therefore, the cleaning plant operating
costs attributable to a ton of cleaned coal are (essentially) inversely
proportioned to cleaning plant yield. In a like mannert maintenancet
supply, and power costs will also
be inversely proportional to
yield. Refuse handling and disposal costs, however, do not follow this
same relationship. This is evident from the fact that for 100% yield,
refuse will not exist, and therefore refuse costs will be zero.
Operations and maintenance costs can therefore be considered to
be composed of the sum of two cost categor1ies.
One cost category
(i.e., sum of plant labor, maintenance, supplies, and power costs)
being inversely proportional to yield and the other cost category
(refuse handling and disposal costs) being directly proportional
to the percent of refuse.
-------
Operation and Maintenace Cost Data Considerations
Information on operations and maintenance (0 & M) costs are
available from various sources. [11,17,18] The basic problem is cor-
relating or projecting past data to reflect current economic conditions.
Difficulty in assessing the data is due to various degrees of uncer-
tainty in the following:
Year of initial data collection,
Plant type, total composition, and capacity
Year(s) of cleaning plant construction and date of
initial operations
Special operating considerations (I.e., duty, maintenance,
etc.)
Management efficiency of operating company
Total cost inclusions covered by available cost
information
The most detailed information available on 0 & M costs is con-
tained in Reference 11. Operations and maintenance cost information
from the following sources were also examined and evaluated in
arriving at anticipated present-day 0 & M cost values.
Reference 17 contains preparation costs (i.e., operating cost
of coal-washing plant) for a 1500 tons/hour capacity plant, designed
to produce both metallurgical coal and coal for utilities. The
article defined 0 & M costs to be $0.253/ton of coal processed.
According to the u.S. Bureau of Labor statistics the average hourly
earnings for the first two months of 1970 for the bituminous coal
-------
industry are 143 percent of the average 1961 hourly earnings. Further-
more, the average hourly earnings for the bituminous coal industry were
constant for 1959 through 1962. Therefore the 1961 0 & M costs (i.e.,
$0.253/ton) corrected for 1970 becomes $0.362/ton of coal.
Table 5-1 on page 5-15 of Reference 18 contains operating costs
obtained from extended record~ of a plant processing over one million
tons of coal a year at 500 tons per hour with a plant reject of about
15 percent. Total labor, supplies, and power amounts to $0.30/ton.
Since the information was published in 1968, it is assumed that the
provided information was for the 1968 or at worst the 1967 time frame.
Depreciation is listed and the sum of the previously mentioned $0.30/ton
figure plus the depreciation associated with each tone is defined as the
total cleaning costs. It is therefore assumed that preparation plant
maintenance cost is included in the $O.30/ton figure. Correcting the
$0.30/ton figure by the ratio of 1970 to 1967 average hourly earnings
in the bituminous coal industry provides a 1970 0 & M cost of $0.36/ton
of plant processed coal. Thus, both References 17 and 18 result 1n the
same adjusted 1970 0 & M cost.
As previously indicated, Reference 11 contains information on a
number of coal-cleaning plants. The provided data, associated with
studies of six different cleaning plants, have been examined as a
basis for developing current cleaning plant 0 & M costs per ton of
processed coal. These case studies, updated to 1970 (February) con-
ditions, are provided in Appendix IV.
-------
The development of updated (to February 1970) 0 & U costs indicates
that for examined coal-cleaning plants of the general type, class, and
costs indicated by practicing engineers, the spread of 0 & M costs are
small. Fi.gure 5-4 indicates the 0 & M associated with plants addressed
in Cases I, V, and VI of Appendix IV. These three plants are believed
representative of the expected composition and costs of plants that
will be requi.red to clean "readily cleanable II ('oals. In addition, an
average curve of the two extreme cases (i.e., Cases V and VI) is pro-
vided. As indicated, the 0 & M costs for all three cases differ from
the average curve (of th~ extreme cases) by not more than 7~ for a 90%
yield, by not more than 10~ for an 80% yield, and not more than 12~
for a 70% yield. TI1is spread is not unreasonable and could well be
attributed to differences in plant conditions, plant composition, and
management philosophy.
For this effort, the values associated with the average curve will
be used. The deviations of 7,10, and 12 cents will be considered to be
the uncertainty or maximum possible variation in 0 & M costs (i.e., for
the associated yields).
5.4 Value of Raw Coal Required Per Ton of Cleaned Coal
Raw coal value is defined as the operator's break-even cost for
providing a ton of raw coal input to the deep-cleaning plant. Such cost
would include all appropriate expenses (e.g., royalties, labor and equip-
ment, fair share of insurance, taxes, and mine development costs).
-------
j
~
8
-
~
~
ra..
o
~
CIIG
Iz:I
c..
f-4
tI)
8
::c
.e
o
a
~
0.90
---- --
0.80
0.70
-------- -
--...---..-
0.60
-------- -- ~-----
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20 -- --------
_.. .-.....
- - ..... - - . --.... - -----
--..-..
0.10
- - M__"_-
100
90
CLEAN PLANT Y U:LD - PI!.RCENT
80
70
,,'1-
Q.
"
---.---
---- ---.. - -"-
.. -..... ... -- ---
FIGURE 5-4
OPE RAT ION AND MAl NTENANCE COST
-------
Since coal is lost ill the cleaning process, it takes more than
one ton of raw coa] to provide a ton of cleaned coal. The value of
raw coal that is used to produce a ton of cleaned coal is simply
equal to the per ton raw coal value divided by the cleaning plant
yield expressed as a decimal. Curves indicating the value of raw
coal required to produce a ton of clean coal are given in Figure 5-5.
The "additional" raw coal value to provide one ton of cleaned coal
is the value of the raw coal lost during the cleaning process and
is equal to the raw coal value required to produce a ton of cleaned
coal less the per ton raw coal value.
5.5 State and Local Taxes Allocated Against Each Ton of Cleaned Coal
Each ton of cleaned coal must support its share of cleaning plant
state and local taxes. For this effort, a tax level of 2% of the
initial cleaning plant value 18 employed. The tax load attributable
against each ton of deep-cleaned coal (assuming cleaning plant operates
at capacity) is:
Cleaning plant cost p~r ton hour input
capacity x 0.02
Tax/ton clean coaJ -
Operating hours per year x yield (decimal
val ue)
Cleaning plant cost per ton hour input
- capacity x 0.02
- 8760 x utilization (decimal value) x yield
(decimal value)
-------
6.00
-
en
3
g
811
~ 5,00
~
~
tJ
~
:i 4.00
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
---T----
I
I
I
L
I"
I
I
90%
80%
70%
65%
CT.EANINr; PLANT YIELD
FIGURE 5~5
VALUE OF RAW COAL REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A T0N nF CLEANED COAL
-------
Thus, the tax allocated against each ton of cleaned coal from
a cleaning plant costing $8000 per ton hour input capacity is:
$160
Tax/ton clean coal =
8760 x utilization (decimal value) x yield
(decimal. value)
,
Figure 5-6 indicates the tax burden/ton of clean coal for a plant
costing $8,000 per ton hour input capacity. The tax (Figure 5-6) ia
a function plant utilization and plant yield.
5.6 Precipitator Economics
For a 200 Mw steam generating plant that burns 2% sulfur, 12% ash,
12,000 BTU/pound fuel, precipitator costs have been estimated to be
$3250 Mw capacity. [24] For a 1% sulfur content fuel, precipitator
costs have been estimated to be $4240 per Mw capacity. [25]
With a precipitator 70% utilization factor coupled with a require-
~
ment of 0.45 tons of coal to produce one MWHr of energy, the differ-
ence in amortization cost amounts to 3.5C per ton of coal burned for
a 20 year, 8% write-off, and 5.07C per ton of coal burned for a 10
year, 8% write-off.
This is a second order economic factor and is
not included in this general economic evaluation of physically desul-
furized coal.
-------
0.14
D
0.12
C
0.10 B
,...
en
~
g 0.08
~
~
u
a
3 0.06
,..J
u
(II 50<
0
CD z
~
~ 0.04
&!
;:;)
IQ
~
0.02
o
CURVE A - 100% YIELD
B - 90% YIELD
c - 801 YIELD
D - 70% YIELD
E - 60% YlELD
10
30 40 50 60
PEJIICEJfr UTILIZATION OF CLEAlfIlIG PLART
70
100
90
80
20
FIGURE 5-6
TAX BURDEN/TON O~ CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST - $ 8,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
-------
6.0 ~~VALUATION OF ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF
..'tLEANED COAL
'f:
6.1 Economic Benefit Factors
The readily identifiable monetary benefits attributable to a
power plant burning cleaned coal are as follows:
Cleaned coal has a higher heat content per ton than the raw
coal from which it is produced. Therefore, less cleaned coal
will be required to provide a given heat content value.
Less cleaned (higher heat conten~) coal need be shipped for
a given overall heat content value. Therefore, the cost of
shipping will be less.
Cleaning reduces the ash content of coal. The ash requiring
disposal by the utility will be less due both to the lower ash
content per ton burned and to the fact that fewer tons of coal
will be burned (i.e., for a given heat content value).
Cleaning often reduces the hardness of the coal. The ~e-
duction in hardness is difficult to quantify. Even so, since
less coal need be ground for a given heat content value, the
grinding costs will decrease.
Mine operators pay 40 cents to a welfare fund for each ton
of coal shipped from the mine. Cleaning, by raising the heat
content of coal, will cause a decrease in the number of tons
shipped (for a given heat content). Thereby a saving equal
to 40 cents times the reduction in shipped tonnage will be
attained.
PrecadiDg page blank
-------
There is evidence that savings in power plant maintenance
costs will be obtained by using coal with reduced sulfur and
ash content. Thus, since "deep"-cleaning reduces the ash and
sulfur content of coal, lower power plant maintenance cost may
result. In addition, for a given heat content value less tons
of "deep"-cleaned coal need be handled by the power plant. There
fore, power plant units which are tonnage (utilization) limited
will have an increased operational life.
6.2 Increased Heat Content
,
An economic benefit readily identifiable to the purchaser of
cleaned coal is equivalent to the F.O.B. raw coal price (i.e. price
of unprepared coal) times the fractional increase in heat value of the
cleaned coal over that of the raw coal. This is the equivalent F.O.B.
raw coal price associated with the amount of coal that provides the
equivalent heat increase.
If raw coal has an initial heat content of ~ per ton and if upon
deep-cleaning the heat content decimal increase is ~ then the deep-
cleaned coal will have a heat content of A (1 + x) per ton. The in-
crease over the initial value is A (1 + x)-A or Ax per ton. The
fractional amount of cleaned coal that need not be shipped (i.e., the
amount that offsets the heat content increase) is Ax/A (1 + x) or 1 ~ x .
For the purposes of this study the factor 1 ~ x shall be termed the
multiplier factor K. Therefore the per cleaned ton benefit gained, a
function of the raw coal F.O.B. price and the increase in heat content,
is equal to the F.O.B. raw coal cost (per ton) times 1 ~ x .
-------
Whereas the raw coal value (i.e., the cost to the operator) is
assumed to run between $3.00 and $6.00 a ton, the raw coal F.O.B. price
(i.e., the selling price) is assumed to run between $4.00 and $8.00
per ton. These values are based on conditions existing during the first
six months of 1970.
Figure 6-1 indicates the benefit gained as a
function of the raw coal F.O.B. price and the increase (up to 28%) in
heat content over the initial value.
6.3 Savings in Coal Transport Costs
Since cleaning increases the heat content of coal, less cleaned
coal need be shipped to supply a given heat value. The amount of
transport savings attainable by cleaning is a function of the increase
in the coal heat content and the coal shipping costs.
The effective transport saving per ton cleaned coal is equal to
T.C. x K
where:
T.C. - Transportation Cost per ton of coal
K
=
x
the ~ultiplier factor 1 + x
Figure 6-2 indicates the multiplier factor K as a function of heat
content increase.
Coal is currently shipped by train, waterway carrier, and truck.
The transport mode or combination. of modes employed in a given situ-
ation is usually determined by overall economic considerations. Con-
siderations have been given to shipping costs associated with the
following:
-------
1.20
;
-
=
;1 1.00
:>
fi
I .80
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
.60
.40
.20
o
20
4
8
16
24
28
12
PEIlCENT BTU INCREASE (OVER ORIGINAL VALUE)
FIGURE 6-1
ADDED COAL VALUE DUE TO I NCREASE IN HEAT CONTENT
-------
u
i5
~
rn
~
1-4
a 0.12
ill!
o
I
2 0.10
a
~
PC
~ 0 . 08
~
~
1-4
E-4
i
~ 0.06
4
t 0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.04
0.02
o
4
8 U H W
PERCENT BTU !NCREASE OVER INITIAL VALUE
28
24
FIGURE 6-2
EFFECTIVE SAVINGS IN TRANSPORT COST DUE TO INCREASE
IN COAL HEAT CONTENT (EQUALS SHIPPING COST XK)
-------
Railroad bulk coal shipping tariffs
Unit train costs
Truck costs
Barge costs
Railroad Bulk Tariffs
Railroad bulk tariff rates apply to volume shipments usually
with restrictions on the number of sources and the number of destina-
tion points. For this effort we have considered bulk tariff rates
applicable to the locations and carriers considered. These have
been designated "single car," rate A, rate B, rate C, and other
individually defined bulk rates (when applicable). Rates A, B, and
C may be defined as follows:
Rate A - 7000 ton train, all coal originating from not
more than two origins using same assembly
point
Rate B
7000 ton train, coal originating from three or
more origins using same assembly point
Rate C
Smaller train, 4500 tons from one or more
origins using same assembly point
-------
Unit Trains
The unit train is a management technique that permits efficient
planning through long-range contractual commitment of producer and
consumer and dedication of the equipment. Specifically, a unit train
consists of a dedicated set of haulage equipment loaded at one origin,
unloaded at one destination each trip, and moving in both directions
on a pre-determined schedule. Although the origin and destination
are not necessarily the same for each trip, the shipment is never
split for any trip.[l9]
In terms of the tariff, or freight rate, a unit train is not a
unit train until 80 designated by the carrier. Thus, the success of
a unit train depends on cooperation between shipper, carrier, and
consumer.
-
In fixing tariff rates, the lowest cost usually is real-
ized when a .unit train is limited to a single-line haul. When more
than one carrier is involved, additional capital cost and additional
operating costs are reflected in the tariff rates. The tariff rates
specify the haulage cost to the consumer on a net ton basis. Three
parties, the railroad,..producer, and the consumer, must negotiate
the conditions and the rates (coal and transport) for unit train
service. [l9]
-------
Reference 19, dated 1970 and published by the Bureau of Mines,
contains a number of case studies on unit train transport cost and
conditions. Information in Table 6-1 was obtained from this study.
For shipping in railroad owned or railroad leased cars, the cost
of shipping varied between 0.54~ and 0.78~ per ton mile. Reference
20 confirmed the representativeness of the above-cited values. For
this study a range of unit train haulage values are considered.
Values between 0.5~ and 1.0~
per ton mile should bracket a11 con-
siaered unit train haulage cost. For non-unit train haulage, rates
provided by the railroads are utilized. As previously implied, for
this investigation it 18 assumed that all rolling stock is owned by
~
the railroads. Of course it should be realized that if rolling
stock (cars) are supplied by either the producer or consumer, haulage
rates payable to the railroads will be less. Even so, real haulage
costs must consider the value of the provided rolling stock.
Reference 20 also clearly indicates that the difference in
transportation costs between raw run-of-mine bituminous coal and
cleaned or prepared bi~uminous coal in average revenue per ton mile
for the same territorial movements is less than one percent.
Bar~e Shipment of Coal
Excluding the Great Lakes, the United States has over twenty-
five thousand miles of commercially navigable inland waterways.
Reference 21 indicated that in 1968 almost 114 million tons of
bituminous coal aDd lignite ware transported on the inland waterways
of the United States (exclusive of the Great Lakes).
-------
TABLE 6-1
UNIT TRAIN CASE STUDIESI19]
HAULAGE MINIMUM HAUlAGE COST
MINE DISTANCE OWNERSHIP TONS PER PER TON
LOCATION PREPARATION (ONE WAY/MI) OF CARS SHIPMENT MILE (CENTS)
Illinois Clean 279 Consumer 12,500 0.54
W. Va. Clean 450 IlR 7,000 0.78
Illinois Clean 306 Con8umer 12,600 0.44
Illinois Blended 354 Consumer 10,200 0.52
Penna. Clean 180 Consumer 10,500 0.83
Illinois Raw 130 RR 7,000 0.77
Ky. Raw 333 lUt 7,000 0.54
Tenn. Clean 457 Leaged by 10,000 0 .38
Producer
Ky. Raw 129 Lea&ed by 7,500 0.78
Producer
Ohio R.aw 317 Leased by 8,200 0.52
Producer
-------
Barge towing costs used for this effort are indicated by Figure
6-3 and are based on information in Reference 18 as updated
by information obtained from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Truck Shipment
Reference 22 states that in 1967 over 47 million tons of coal
were shipped by truck on public highways. Some trucks have capacities
over 100 tons, but because of weight limitation on highways and bridges
are used only on mine roads. The trucks that haul coal directly to
the final destination carry 10 to 20 tons, and the trips usually are
short, rarely exceeding 100 miles. The transportation cost for these
short hauls are estimated to be between 3.0 and 7.0 cents per ton/mile,
depending on distance, traffic, load factor, and load/unload conditions.
Average trucking co,st used in this study are indicated by Figure 6~4
and were again obtained from Reference 18 as updated by information
from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The information in Table 6-2 was obtained from Reference 22 and
indicates bituminous.,coa1 quantities shipped by various modes of
transportation during the 1967 calendar year.
-------
800
700
600
500
~I 400
300
200
.100
o
.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
DOLLARS/TON
FIGURE 6-3
ESTI'MATED 1970 BARGE TOWING COSTS-
OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
71
-------
140
120
100
CIJ
~ 80
~
60
40
20
I
I
I
I
o
4.00
5.00
6.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
DOLLARS/TOO
FIGURE 6-4
ESTI..ATED 1'10 HAULAGE COSTS - PUBLIC HIGHWAY TRUCKING
-------
TABLE 6-2
MODES OF COAL TRANSPORTATION
(1967)
MODE
-
Coal loaded for shipment by railroads
(Includes class I, II, and private)
Revenue freight handled by class 1
railroads (originated-net tons)
Unit train handling
Domestic inland water movement
Truck shipment
QUANTITY SHIPPED
404,525,000 tons
376,706,934 tons
102,330,000 tons
98,055,622 tons
47,597,000 tons
-------
Figure 6-5 summarizes the general trends in transportation per I
ton of coal for the various modes and conditions of transportation
discussed.
6.4 Savings in Ash Disposal Costs
Savings in ash disposal costs will be realized when cleaned
coal is used (i.e., as opposed to non-prepared coal). ~his saving
is due to the following two reasons:
Cleaning lowers the ash content of coal
The heat content is raised by the "deep"-cleaning process
Therefore, less coal needs to be burned for a given heat con-
tent value.
The effective saving in ash disposal cost per ton of cleaned
coal burned is equal to the ash disposal saving per ton of coal
burned, resulting from lower ash content, times a multiplier factor
to account for the higher heat content of the cleaned coal. This
multiplier factor is (1 + x) where (x) is the fractional increase in
heat content. Assum~ng that a (x) fractJ.onal increase in heat content
results from a (x) fractional reduction in ash content, then the total
effective ash disposal savings per ton of coal burned (due to cleaning)
is equal to the disposal cost per ton of ash times x(l + x).
Figure 6-6 indicates the ash handling and disposal savings per ton
of coal burned as a function of ash reduction when the ash handling and
disposal cost is $1.50 or $2.00 per ton. These general values are
considered representative of current electric utility experience.
-------
7
6
SINGLE CAR.
5
TYPEC
~
Eo< TYPE B
-
{I)
ex:
:S 4 TYPE A
..:I
8
Eo<
{I)
0
u UNIT TRAIN
-." ~ 3
UI IZ1
~
....
E-o
{I)
IZ1
BARGE
2
1
o
100
200
DISTARCE IN kiLES
FIGlmE 6-5
COAL TRANSPORTATION CO$TS
GENfRAL TREND ~ MO£E YS. DISTANCE
300
-------
-
~ 0.50
6
8
~
>
~ 0.40
I
....
~
= 0.30
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.20
0.10
4
24
8
12
16
20
28
REDUCTION IN PERCEMT ASH CONTENT
FIGURE 6-6
ASH DISPOSAL SAVING PER TON OF COAL BURNED
-------
6.5 Savings in Coal Grinding Costs
Evidence exists that in some cases lower pyrite content coal is
easier to grind. However, this effect does not appear to be universal;
and the effect on grinding cost is not always discernable. Battelle,
TVA, and several utility companies estimate that it costs $0.25 to
grind one ton of coal. This is considered the total ~peration and
maintenance cost.
The identifiable saving associated with cleaning coal results
from the increased heat content of a 'ton of cleaned coal. Therefore,
less coal need be ground to supply a given heat value. The cost
savings relationship (on a per ton basis) is:
Cost Savings - $0.25 times K, where
K = the multiplier factor 1 ~ x
A$ an example, consider that cleaning raises the heat content
of coal by 10%, e.g. from 10,000 to 11,000 BTU's per pound. In this
case, the fractional decrease in the amount of coal that would com-
0.1 0.1
pensate for the increase in heat content is 1 + 0.1 = 1.1 The
saving would be (on an equivalent per ton basis) equal to 0.25 x ~:i
or $0.0227 for each ton of "deep"-cleaned coal burned.
The savings in grinding cost as a function of increase in heat
content is given in Figure 6-7.
6.6 SavinK8 in Payment to Welfare Fund
The mine operator pays forty cents to the welfare fund for each
ton of coal shipped to a consumer. I~ by cleaning,the heat content
-------
e
E-t
Q 5
S
~
...:I
U
~
1111
p.,
en 4
E-t
Z
1111
U
:&::
1-1
~
0 3
u
Q
rz1
~ ~
CD rz1
...:I
U
fzo
0 2
~
E-t
~
rz1
p.,
\,3
z 1
1-1
~
en
E-t
8
0
5
10 15
n.cmrr DlCUASE IN BTU VALUI (0Yn ORIGmAL VALUE)
25
20
FIGURE 6-7
-------
1s raised by a decimal increase of x, then to satisfy a given heat
content demand x less coal need be shipped. The savings attribut-
1 + x
able to each ton of cleaned coal 1s then equal to $0.40 times K. Figure
6-8 indicates this saving as a function of heat content increase.
6.7 Maintenance Savings
~
Only two data sources have been identified in which operating
conditions and collected data are such as to permit a judgement
relating sulfur and ash content in c~al to power plant maintenance
costs. The two sets of data are for identical steam power plants
which burn coals of different ash and sulfur contents.[23] The
available data, however, do not pennit firm assessments of variations
in maintenance saviugs with variations 1n coal ash and sulfur contents.
These data are derived from two TVA generating boiler units each
having 200 Mw generating capacity. These two units, both pulverized
coal fired boilers, were built in the mid 1950's. Information on
the average proximate analysis of coal burned at the two plants and
coal associated maintenance costs for the two plants are given in
Tables 6-3 and 6-4.[23] The data cover approximately 74 million
tons of consumed coal. The available maintenance data with conclusions
indicates:
Maintenance costa for all the items listed in Table 6-4
are greater for the plant burning the higher ash and sulfur
coal.
-------
~ 8
Q
ro:I
3
~
tJ
A:
f;IiI 6
j:I..
C8
E-4
Z
IoJ
tJ
:II!:
~
CI) ~
0 tJ 4
Q
3
~
tJ
~
E-4
.:.:
ra:J 2
j:I..
to:)
z
~
~
en
E-4
en
0
tJ
o
s
10
25
15
20
PUCDT I.CIUII 111 Bm VALUE COVEll DITUL VALUE)
FIGURf 6-8
-------
TABLE 6-3
AVERAGE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF AS BURNED COALS UrgY:ZED
IN TWO IDENTICAL STEAM-ELECTRIC PLANTS ~3J
I PLANT A I PLANT B
Moisture 4.9% 5.1%
Volatile Matter 32.4% 33.8%
Fixed Carbon 52.1% 47.7%
Ash 10.8% 13.4%
Sulfur 1.0% 2.7%
BTU Content (per pound) 12,680 12,053
TABLE 6-4
COMPARISON OF MAINTENANCE COSTS WHEN BURNING
DIFFERENT ASH AND SULFUR CONTENT C~ IN
IDENTICAL POWER PLANTS [23j
ITEMS WITH COAL MAINTENANCE COSTS
ASSOCIATED MAINTENANCE (Cents oer Ton)
COSTS PLANT A I PLANT B
Primary Coal Crushing 0.34 0.76
Coal Conveyers 1.24 1.65
BOlters J.72 6.42
Soot Blowers 0.80 2.55
Pulverizers. 3.45 5.38
Burners 0.80 1.59
Air Preheaters 0.41 0.62
Bottom Ash Hoppers 0.55 1. 73
Fly-Ash Collectors 0.80 1.52
Ash Disposal System 2.70 3.60
Coal Piping 0.80 1.42
Totals 15.61 27.24
(d ifference .. 11. 63 cents per ton)
-------
The difference in maintenance cost amounts to ll.63C per
ton of coal. This difference in maintenance cost for the
two units is almost two to one. This difference is not
accounted for by the ~5% difference in heat content value
between the two coals.
As indicated in Table 6-3, the average difference in ash content
of the coals consumed by the two plants was 2.6% and the average dif-
ference in sulfur content was 1.7%. No information 1s available on
maintenance costs with variations in ash and sulfur content for a
given plant. However, these results suggest that maintenance savings
of up to 20 cents per ton of coal burned may be expected in steam
plants capable of substituting low sulfur and low ash coal for their
current steam coal.
For the purposes of this study, it 1s assumed that the ma1ntenance
savings indicated in T~ble 6-5 will be obtained for the listed reductions
in total ash and sulfur contents. The assumed savings appear reasonable
(i.e., conservative) when compared with available TVA data.
-------
TABLE 6- 5
ASSUMED MAINTENANCE SAVINGS AS A FUNCTION OF ASH
AND SULFUR REDUCTION
Total Additive Reduction
in Ash and Sulfur
Maintenance Savings per
Ton of Coal Burned
15% and over
$0.20
12'0 to 15%
0.18
9'0 to 1270
0.16
7% to 9%
0.14
5% to 7%
0.12
3% to 5'0
0.10
2% to 3'0
0.08
-------
7.0 COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS
7.1 Introduction
As part of this effort, NAPCA supplied twenty-one coal source/
user destination pairs for evaluating the economic impact of '~deep"-
cleaneJ coal on stationary power sources. For each pair, the mine
location, the consuming city, the percent ash and sulfur in the raw
coal; and the yield, percent ash and sulfur in the cleaned coal were
specified by NAPCA. In order to more fully cover the range of poten-
tial clean coal source/user combinations in the Eastern United States,
additional pairs were chosen by MITRE and included in this study.
Table 7-1 describes these thirty source/destination pairs with
the specified raw coal ash and sulfur contents, ash and sulfur contents
after cleaning, and transportation factors. For each source/destination
pair, Table 7-1 lists the anticipated carrier, the distance between coal
source and user, together with the shipping cost(s) for appropriate
mode(s) of transportation. Finally, Table 7-1 indicates the percent
transportation saving (i.e., K expressed as a percentage) for each
source/destination pair, and the effective transportation saving per
ton of clean coal for each considered transportation service.
Figures 7-1 through 7-4 are maps indicating the selected source/
destination pairs along with the probable transportation route for
Preceding page blant
-------
TABLE 7-1
SOURCE/DESTINATION PAIRS WITH RELATED INFORMATION
CD
en
j!;AVING WITH UNIT
SHIPPING COST $/TON SAVING PER TON TRAIN SERVICE
% PER TON
% TRANS RAIL SERVICE 0.5e @a.Se @1.0e
RAW COAL CLEAN COAL APPRDX BTU PORT SINGLE SINGLE PER PER PER
% ASH % T.S. % ASH % T.S CARRIE HI. INCR. SAVG CAR A B C CAR A B C rON-HI ~ON-MI TON-I'll
1a ALLEGANY COL~,
MD. TO BALTIMORE 20.3 1.13 13.1 1.06 Ii. M. 160 7 2% 6.72% 5 17 3.79 4.06 4.48 34.7C 25.4e 27.2c JO.Je 5.4C 8.6e 10.8e
1b ALLEGANY COU'ITY, B r. 0 146
MD. TO WASH. ,D.C. 5.17 3.79 4.06 4.48 34.7C 25.4~ 27.2<: JO.l( 4.9c 7.8e 9.8<:
(ABOVE iJA1.ta:s '.sSUMED
BASED ON TARIFF~ FOR
RELATED CASES)
2 G~RRETT COl'NTY, MD.
TO SALTI~.oRE 12.0 0.96 8.0 0.64 B & 0 215 4.0% 3.85% 5.17 3.79 406 4.48 19.iJc 14.6e 15.6c: 17 3e 4.2<: 6.6c 8.3"
, GARRETT COLNTY, MD.
TO WASH.,D.C. 14.4 1.14 9.6 0.82 B & 0 200 4.8% 4.58% 5.17 3.79 4.06 4.48 23.7c 17.4c 18.6e 20.6( 4.6e 7.4c 9.2<:
4 ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD.
TO BALTIMORE 11.9 113 10.6 1.07 B & 0 160 1.3% 1.28% 5.17 3.79 4.06 4 88 ~.6c 4.8e 5.2e 6.3e l.Oc 1.6c 2.05e
-
5 COLUMBIANA COrNTY,
OHIO TO CLEVEL~~ 10.39 2.34 4.6 0.62 PC 105 5.71% 5.4% 3.96 21.4c 2.86c 4.6c 5.7<:
6 COLUMBIANA COUNTY,
OHIO TO YOUNGSTOWN 9.32 2.39 3.9( 0.99 TRUCK 30 5.42% 5.13% [TRUCK $1.20 TON SAVING 6.2e]
7 HARRISON COlINTY.
OHIO TO DETROIT 10.44 2.30 4.0 1.09 PC 265 6.37% 5.98% 4.84 29.0<: 8.0e 12.1c 5.ge
8 MARONING COUNTY,
OHIO TO YOUNGSTOWN 7.64 2.67 3.1 1.04 TRUCK 4.45% 4.26% frRUCK $1. 20 TON SAVING 5.1e1
9 ARMSTRONG COUNTY ,PA. I
TO INDIANA, PA. 12.99 2.53 6.1( 1.02 TRUCK 30 6.89% 6.46% [TRUCK $1.20 TON SAVIIiG 7.8e)
-------
1',t\JILE 7-1 c BTD PORT !afl,CLf ;, IM;LE 9VG SAVG SAVG PER PER PElt
% ASH % 1.5. % ASH % 1.S CIi.RRlLF MI. fNCR. SAVe. CAR ;.. i3 C UR " B C 1 QS-~.I 10N-Ml TOt.-XI
'" AR.'151 £<("\"1'': '-:)~i\.~Y.PA ~J
. ~
T0 ". J \ 1: ,\(';"TH 21 55 2.22 7 86 O.9~ NO:~E) 0 69~ 12.')6% NO fR.-\r.S?OR1 COSTS]
"!o1 HnUJi rnUIJIT, DA.
~r A:.TABVLA .9 .. - 32 ':J.7 0 98 S & 0 15 0.7% 9.E;~ 1.35 3:!.4c l. . c; c 7.Bc 9.7,
12 ALLEGHE",')' COl"1I:H, P A I
Te' PH'! <,BLRGP 22.70 1.97 B.55 1 00 TRt:CI'l. 2(, !, 15~ 1.2 4~- !TRl.:CK 51 CO 1S~ f\\' ING 12 4.;J
13 I
LA"'kE~CE cCt:XTY. PA. I
TO PITTC,BURG1I :.. 7 2 35 2 5 1.a3 B & 0 :'5 2 2:'< 2 15', 2.14 - 6.; O. ~.( 1.0, 1 . ~c
14 CAME B 1 A cot:"Tt, ?A. I
TO BOST",", ]5.515 2.)7 4 :12 1.(\) PC 'i2C 1 03i' Y 98~ I b ':>" \>0 . 3c 2~.Oc ~_.Oc 52.0c
15 SLMMEI
-------
TABU 7-l Concluded
SOURCE/DESTINATION PAlBS WITH RELATED IlifOIllATION
CD
!CD
SHIPPING COST S/yON SAVlliG PER ION ;AVING WI'l1I UNIT
TRAIN SERVICE
PER TON
% RAIL SERVICE ~ft . 5c @O . 8(: ~I.Oc
% TRANS- ~Ave _AVG PER PER PER
RAW COAL CLEAN COAL APPRO]! PORT S INCU SINGLE SAVe
BTt: B C ON-MI. ON-MI. ~Olli-MI.
c:A1t1lIEi INCR. SAve CAR A B C CAR A
% ASH % ToS. % ASH % T.S HI.
19bPUSTOII couwn, ..VA 5.48 4.10 4.37 4.79 1.1..1c 3O.ge 32.8(: 36.1c 18.9c. ]() .Oe 37.7r;
TO aocuSTEll "IS '0 SOO
20 PIASTON C~~. W.VA. 8.8% 5.17 3.79 !. 06 l...E 45.5c 31.3c 35.7(: 39.5 10.Oe 16.0 19.5c
TO ~H ,I.C. 18 50 2.24 'J.85 0.9Q B' 0 230 9.65%
21 GRAm COUNTY, W. VA. 215 17.03% 14.6% 5.17 3.79 4.06 4 .4~ i5.3c 55.3c 59.3c 65 5 15.8c 25.l)c 31.4<:
TC WASH, D.C. 26.48 3.03 11.45 0.95 B" 0
22 COLtiHB lAla. CO!.:MTY.
0Ii 1(\ 1'0 CH! CA,C;O 7.00 1.50 4.0 0.92 PC 430 3.0% 2.9% 5.S4 16.Ie 6 4 10.0 l2.8c.
23 CLEARFIELD COL~, (7200) 5,000)
PA. TO CHICAC-O 12 l, 2.24 7.4 1.20 PC 555 5.0% 4.751 6.13 TONS@) TONS @) 29.2e 23.8c 24.8c 13.2 21.0 26.4<:
$5.00> .$5.22)
14 BELL COLNTY. KY. TO
CINCINl'A1 I 6.5 1.41 3.0 1.02 L & N 235 3.5% 3.3tSl 3.90 13.2e 4.0e 6.4 8.0<:
2S LOGAN COUNTY, W.VA.
TO COI.IP1JIUS. OR 10 7.5 1 86 5.5 1.15 N & W 235 2.G% 1. 96 t 4.44 8 7c 2.J( J.7 4.6e
26 VIeo COUNTY, IND.
TO INDIANAPOLI S 8 5 1.47 4.4 0 ,;/5 PC 80 to.1% 3.942 2.15 8.Se 1.51 2.5 3.15c.
27 CALDWELL COUNTY, ICY.
TO I1qDIANAPOLIS 10.0 1.42 5.5 1. 05 IC 275 4.5% 4.3% 3.42 14. 7c 5 .9~ 9.6 11 ge
28 CALDWELL COUNTY, 1Y. 2 ,500) l,Ooo~
TO CHICAGO 10.0 1.42 5.5 1.05 IC 395 4.5% 4.3% 4.89 TOIIS@) TOIIS@) 2l.0e 16.5c 18.7c 8.5e 13.6 17.Dc
$3.84) $4.34)
2Q FRANKLIN COUNTY,ILL. 1,250)
TO ST. LOUIS 17.0 1.25 10.0 0.95 IC 95 7.0% 6.552 3.07 TONS~) 20 .1e 17.0e 3.1] 5.0 6.22c
$2.59)
30 F1lANKLIN COUNTY, ILL. 17.0 1.25 10.0 0.95 IC 280 7.0% 6. SS2: 4.10 2,500) U,OOO 26.8e 20.2<: ~3.6e 9.8c: 16 . Dc 19.6c:
TO CHICAGO TOIIS@) (TONS@
-------
CD
CD
J . PRESTON COUNTY W. VA. TO ROCHESTER
K - BELL COUNTY KY. TO CINCIMATI
FIGURE 7-1
-------
U»
o
FIGURE 7-2
-------
CD
FIGURE 7-3
-------
UJ
N
"'~ .... ....
FIGURE 7-4
SOURCE/DESTINATION POINTS
j
.. .....
-------
each selected pair as described in Table 7-1. All costs in Table .7-1
are in terms of dollars per ton unless specifically stated otherwise..
Rail service rates A, B, C, and Single Car (discussed 1n Section 6.0)
listed 1n Table 7-1 are defined as follows:
Rate A - 7000 ton train, all coal originating from not
more than two origins using same assembly
point
Rate B - 7000 ton train, coal originating from three or
more origins using same assembly point
Rate C - Smaller trains, 4500 tons from one or more
origins using same assembly point
Single Car
(Self explanatory)
7.2 Case Example
For Case la, the first listed source/destination pair, the
economic findings are given in detail on the supporting tabulation
sheets. On these sheets, both costs and benefits are itemized,
thereby indicating the economic sensitivity to the individual items
that comprise a cost/benefit analysis. A summary sheet showing the
net cost to benefit differential (in dollars per ton) is 8180 pro-
vided. For the remaining 29 source/destination pairs, only these
differential cos t summary sheets are contained in this seed on. A
detailed economic analysis for each selected source/destination
pair similar to that indicated for case la, is provided in
Appendix VI. Appendix VII develops a cost/benefit analY818 model
and a..ociated computer program for rapid economic analysis of any
potential clean coal source/user combination.
-------
Case Example
CASE IJ la
A.
CASE CONDITIONS
1. Mine Location
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND
2. Consumer Location
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND
3. Raw Coal:
20.3 % Ash
13.1 % Ash
1.13 % Total Sulfur
1.06 % Total Sulfur
4.' Cleaned Coal:
5. :Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11,200 BTUs/pound
6. Cleaning Plant Yield.
81 %
7. Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
8. Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 bra/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
B.
COST FACTORS
1. Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.43 /ton
2. Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.53 /ton
3. "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton~ additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.93 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional coat is . . . . . .$ 1.18 /ton
$6.00/ton. additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.41 /ton
4. Cleaning Plant 7ax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case la Continued
c. TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
. . $ 1.95 / ton
$5.00/ton, differentia] cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.20 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. .$ 2.43 /ton
D. ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
,
1. Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . .
. . $ 0 . 34 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . . . $ 0 . 40 / ton
. . $ 0 .47 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
2. Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.35 /ton
Saving on unit train shIpment @ O.80(:/ton
mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.09 /ton
3. Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost - $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.15 /ton
4. Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02/ton
5. Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.03 /ton
6. Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.14/ton
-------
Case 1a Continued
E. TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
1. Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . . .$ 1.03 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. . . .$
1.09 /ton
1.16 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . .
. . . $
2. Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . II . . .
. . . $
0.77 /ton
0.83 /ton
0.90 /ton
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . . .$
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. . . .$
F . SU~1MARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
1. For single car shipment
~
.-4
nt,-.
> s::
o
,..t ~
nt
o ...
U Q.I
)~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.92 0.86 0.79
$5.00 1.11 1.04
$6.00 --- --- 1.27
2. For unit train shipment
Q.I
::s
r-t
~,-.
> d
o
r-t4J
IS
o ...
c..;, Q.I
p..
)'-"
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.18 1.12 1.05
$5.00 --- 1.37 1.30
$6.00 --- --- 1.53
-------
7.3 The Effect of Cleaning Plant Utilization on the Economics of
Physically Cleaned Coal
Cleaning plant utilization only affects two cost factors associated
with the economics of"deep~cleaned coal. These are the amortization
cost and the tax burden attributable to or associated with each ton of
processed coal.
The change in cleaning cost and resulting change in cleaning costs
over benefits (per ton) due to a change in cleaning plant utilization
is simply the sum of the changes in amortization and tax values. For
a plant costing $8000 per ton hour input capacity, the amortization
and tax burdens are obtainable from Figures 5-3 and 5-6. For such a plant
operated at 38.5% utilization (study assumed value) and providing a
90% yield, the amortization burden is 38.5~ and the tax burden i8 5.4C
per ton of cleaned coal. If the utilization of the cleaning plant is
50%, the amortization burden will be 30e and the tax ~urden 4.lC per
ton of cleaned coal. Therefore, the reduction in cleaning cost (or cost
over benefit value) will be (38.5 - 30 ) + (5.4 - 4.1 ) cents
(i.e., ~lO~) per ton of cleaned coal.
If, when operating at a 90% yield, cleaning plant utilization
changes from 38.5% to 20%, then the increase in cleaning cost would
be (74 - 38.5) + (10 - 5.4) cents (i.e., ~40C) per ton of cleaned
coal. This increase in cost when going to lower cleaning plant utili-
zation i8 evident from the shapes of both the amortization and tax
benefit curves (Figures 5-3 and 5-6).
-------
7.4 Differential Cost Summaries
As previously indicated, a detailed economic analysis for each of
the 30 source/destination pairs is provided in Appendix VI. For each
pair, the analysis conditions and the economic summary are provided in
this section.
Overall distribution summaries for selected raw coal values and
F.O.B. raw coal costs are provided by Figures 7-5 through 7-8. These
overall distribution summaries reflect the economic evaluations result-
ing from case studies on both a per ton of physically cleaned coal basis
and on a per MBTU basis. The per MBTU value 1s based on the approximate
moist, mineral matter-free analysis of each case study coal source. [7,l4]
The BTU value of each coal source after cleaning was calculated from this
moist, mineral matter-free value to reflect the mineral content of the
cleaned coal. In this calculation, moist refers to coal containing only
its natura] inherent moisture.
Figures 7-5 and 7-6 provid~ the economic distribution 8ummaries on a
per ton of cleaned coal basis. These figures indicate that in over 65%
of the cases examined, the differential cost increase through the use of
cleaned coal amounts to less than one dollar a ton.
Figures 7-7 and 7-8 provide the economic distribution based on a
per MBTU basis. These figures indicate that in over 75% of the cases
examined, the differential cost increase through the uee of cleaned coal
translates to 1888 than 5~ per MBTU.
-------
An examination of general coal source/destination case economics
shows that for a given per ton raw coal value, the economics of using
cleaned coal becomes more favorable as F.O.B. raw coal cost, trans-
portation charges, and coal volume dependent costs become greater.
For the examined 30 source/destination pairs, the major benefit
impactors are (1) F.O.B. raw coal cost and (2) transportation charges.
In essence, if F.O.B. raw coal and/or transportation cost(s) increase,
the associated benefit factors a180 increase. If the ndning cost
(raw coal value) remains constant in'the face of these increases,
then the differential cost of using cleaned coal decreases.
-------
CASE lA
Mine Location=
ALLEGANY COUNTY. MARYLAND
Consumer Location: BALTIMORE. MARYLAND
~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 13.1% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Raw Coal:
!.:.!L% Sulfur
!.&L% Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
11.~00 BTUs/pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
Q.I
=='
.-t
lIS
>-
c:
~ B 4.00
o
u ~ $5.00 1.1] 1.04 1. 37 1. 30
:. ~
~ - 6 .00 1. 27 1. 53
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) in dollars/ton
(per ton)
(per ton)
7.00
1.05
CASE .1:!-
Mine Location:
ALLEGANY COUNTY. MARYLAND
Consumer Location: WASHINGTON
Raw Coal: ..lQ....l..% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned 'Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11.200 BTUs/pound
l..:.!L..% Sulfur
1 .06 % Sulfur
Q.I
=='
....
lIS
>
-
~ g 4.00
0401
U ~ 5.00
J'; 6.00
Differential Costs
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Coat
(par ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
less Benefits)
7.0
1.06
1.31
1.54
in dollars/ton
1. j 1
-------
CASE -l.-
Mine Location:
GARRF.T COUNTY. MARV1ANn
Consumer Location:
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND
Raw Coal: ..ll.:.Q.% Ash j
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
a...16....% Sulfur
Q..jL% Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
l2.000BTUs/pound
!
1""4
co
:>"...
...ta
. 5 4.00
a
tJ I 5.00
s-
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Coat
(per ton)
Differential
7.00
0.6
0.75
o. 7
Costs (Cleaning Costs
less Benefits) 1n dollats/toR
CASI -1-
Kine Loc:ati08:
GARRETT COUNTY. MARYLAND
COD8W88r Location: WASHINGTON. D. C.
law Coal: ~% Ash;
neep-CleaBed Coal: ~% Ash;
Cle.ninl Plant Yield: .J!2-~
Beat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11.700 BTUa/pound
J...lL.% Sulfur
0.82 % Sulfur
SINGLI CAR SHIPMENT
r.O.B. aaw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMEIIT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
0.63
0.75
7
0.59
0.71
0.83
(Cleaning Costs
1 0
les8 Benefits) in dollaTs/ton .
-------
CASE --1L-
Mine Location:
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Consumer Location: BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
...!.!.:.2.. % As h ;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~ Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Raw Coal:
..LJJ.% Sulfur
..L.Ql..% Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
}] ,600 BTUs/pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal.Co8t
" .
(II
::I
..-i
1\3
>-
c:
';J B 4.00
o
u ~ $5.00
! ~ $6.00
(per ton)
(per ton)
0.75
7.0
0.74
0.76
0.80
in dollar8/ton
Differential Costs (C]eaning Costs le8s Benefits)
CASE --L.
Mine Location:
COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Consuaer Location: CLEVBLAND, OHIO
Raw Coal: .!Q.22.% Ash;
Deep-CleABed Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,400 BTUs/pound
~% Sulfur
0.62 % Sulfur
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
QJ
::s
....
'"
>
-
~ 8 4.00
0401
U ~ 5.00
!.; 6.00 0 . 67
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs
(per ton)
(per ton)
0.71
0.83
le8s Benefits) in dollars/ton
-------
CASE ~
Mine Location:
COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Consumer Location: YOUNGSTOWN. OHIO
Raw Coal: 9.32% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,400 BTUs/pound
~% Sulfur
~% Sulfur
TRUCK SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
QJ
;s
r-4
CIS
>-
d
~ B 4 .00
o
u ~ $5.00
! ~ 6.00
(per ton)
$5.00
1.08
L.16
1. 35
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs le8s Benefits) tn dollars/ton
CASE ---L-
Mine Location:
HARRiSON COUNTY. OHIO
Consumer Location: DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: .!!...:.E.L.% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
l.a.JO....% Sulfur
1. 09 % Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,400 BTUs/pound
~
.-4
lIS
>
-
~ g 4.00
0..,
u ~ $5.00
i ~
CIIC - 6.00 1. 00
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
less Benefits) in dollars/ton
-------
CASE 8
Mine Location:
MAHONING COUNTY. OHIO
Consumer Location:
Raw Coal:
YOUNGSTOWN. OHIO
...l....:.2£Io Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 3.19% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~
~% Sulfur
..!..:..Qi% Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
]2,500BTUs/pound
TRUCK SHIPMENT
(II
:I
.....
"'
>-
~
n: B 4.00
o
u ~ $5.00
:. ~
: - 6.00
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
7.00
l.0]
1.18
1. 34
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) in do11ar./to.
CASE --2-.
Kine Location:
ARMSTRONG COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Con8u.er Location: INDIANA. PENNSYLVANIA
law Coal: 12.99% Ash;
Deap-Cla8Ged Coal: ~ % Ash;
Cleanin. Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,200 BTUs/pound
2.53 % Sulfur
1.02 % Sulfur
TRUCK SHIPMENT
F.O.B. ~aw Coal Cost
(per ton)
less Benefits) in dollars/ton
-------
CASE 10
Mine Location:
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Consumer Location: (MINE MOUTH)
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
.l.:.ll..% Sulfur
~% Sulfur
11.900BTUs/pound
NO SHIPPING
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
ell
;2
....
co
>-
=
~ 3 4.00
o
u ~ 5.00
:J ~
~ - 6.00
(per ton)
7.00
0.77
1.05
1.43
1.17
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) in dollars/ton
CASE -2:!.-
Kine Location:
BUTLER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Consumer Location: ASTABULA, OHIO
Raw Coal: ...!2..:.!i.% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11.800 BTUs/pound
.l.&.Jl..% Sulfur
0.98 % Sulfur
QI
:'I
....
.
.
"...
~!
0..
tJ... .5 . 00
!! 6.00
Differential Costs
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
7.0
0.57
0.82
1.07
(Cleaning Costs
less Benefits)
7.0
0.81
1.06
1.31
in dollars/ton
-------
CASE --1.L
Mine Location:
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Consumer Location: PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Coal: B.:lQ.% Ash; .J.....2Z.%
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash; ..1.JlQ.%
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: l2.300BTUs/pound
Sulfur
Sulfur
TRUCK SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(I)
='
....
as
>-
r:::
~ E 4.00
o
u ~ $5.00
:.. ~
~ '"" $6.00
(per ton)
7.00
0.77
1.08
1.39
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs 1... Benefits) ift doll.rs/toR
CASE -22...
Mine Location:
LAWRENCE C.CUtNTY PF.NNSVT v A NT A
Consumer Location: PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA
Raw Coal: ~% Ash; ~~.~5_% Sulfur
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash; 1.03 J Sulfur
Cleaninl Plant Yield: ~Z
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,000 BTUs/pOMRd
I
....
.
.
-
~ S 4.00
ou
u ~ 5.00
!! 6.00
Differential Costs
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMlJrr
F.O.B. Ia. Coal Cost
(per tOR)
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
1.0.B. R.w Coal Cost
7.
0.67
0.72
0.77
(Cleaning Coats
less Benefits)
0.71
0.76
0.81
in dollars/ton
-------
CAS E -li...
Mine Location:
CAMBRIA COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Consumer Location: BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 4.92% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
2.:1L% Sulfur
1.03% Sulfur
l3,200BTUs/pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
Q)
::t
f""4
cu
>-
r:::
~ 13 $4.00
o
u ~ $5.00
:. Q
~ - $6.00
Differential
(per ton)
(per ton)
$5.00
0.24
7.00
0.04
0.26
0.48
Costs (Cleaning Costs
less Benefits) In dollars/ton
CASE -1L-
Mine Location:
SUMMERSET COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Consumer Location: WASHINGTON, D. C.
Raw Coal: l~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,500 BTUs/pound
~% Sulfur
0.72 % Sulfur
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. R8W Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
~
.....
: 7.
-
r;: g .00 0.30 0.22 0.14
0+.1
u ~ 5.00 0.37 0.29
!..; 6.00 0.44
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs
(per ton)
(per ton)
0.60
0.52
0.67
7.
0.44
0.59
0.74
in dollars/ton
less Benefits)
-------
CASE -.!.L
Mine Location:
CLEARFIELD COUNTY. PENNSYLVANTA
Consumer Location: NEWARK, NEW JERSEY
Raw Coal: !!..:!Q.% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 4.66% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: l2,800BTUs/pound
..l:1L% Sulfur
...!.:..Q.!.% Sulfur
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
QJ
='
~
>-
R
r;; E 4.00
o
u ~ 5 .00
:. Q
~ - 6.00
Differential COlts (Cleaning Costs less Benefits)
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMEIT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
7.00
0.95
1.18
1.41
in dollar8/ton
CASE -1.L.
Mine Location:
JEFFERSON COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
Consumer Location: DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12.500 BTUs/pound
..L..l'L% Sulfur
1.08 % Sulfur
4U
;:I
pof
III
>
-
~ 8 4.00
0...
u... 5.00
!.; 6.00
Differential Costs
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
0.72
7.
0.69
0.13
0.11
(Cleaning Costs
less Benefits)
7.0
0.13
0.17
0.81
in dollars/ton
-------
CASE -!!!!
PRESTON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
Mine Location:
Consumer Location: WASHINGTON. D. C.
~ Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~
Raw Coal:
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
GI
='
.-4
~
>-
c::
r;: B 4.00
o
u ~ 5.00
:a. C).
~ - $6.00
Differential
(per ton)
6.00 57.00
0.88 0.69
1.53 1.34
1.98
Costs (Cleaning Costs
CASE ...1a..
~% Sulfur
..!.:1!.% SuI fur
11,900BTUs/pound
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
less Benefits) in dollars/ton
PRESTON COUNTY. WEST VIRGINTA
Kine Location:
Consumer Location: NEWARK. NEW JERSEY
Raw Coal: 3~ Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: l~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: Ll.900 BTUs/pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
8
.-4
as
>
-
r;; 8 4.00
O.a.l
U ~ 5.00
!! 6.00
Differential Costs
.2.....3.D.-% Sulfur
1.31 % Sulfur
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
0.62
1.27
1.91
(Cleaning Costs
1.22
1.87
7.00
1.03
1.68
2.32
in dollars/ton
less Benefits)
-------
CASE --1.2!
Mine Locatton:
PRESTON COUNTY. WEST VIRGINIA
Consumer Location:
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
...l...Mt.% Sulfur
JhlJ..% Sulfur
l2.500BTUs/pound
Q)
='
.....
co
>-
c::
r;1 8 4.00
o
u ~ $5.00
rs !:I
~ - 6.00
Differential
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
0.22
7.0
0.27
0.38
0.50
in dollars/ton
0.26
Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits)
CASE ~
Kine Location:
PRESTON COUNTY. WEST VIRGINIA
Consumer Location: ROCHESTER. NEW YORK
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12.500 BTUs/pound
..L1!.L% Sulfur
0.73 % Sulfur
GI
='
aI
> 7.
-
~ 8 4.00 0.09 0.01
O~
u ~ 5.00 0.20 0.12
!! 6.00 0..24
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
less Benefits)'
7.0
0.12
0.23
. 0.35
in dollars/ton
-------
CASE 20
Mine Location:
PRESTON COUNTY! WEST VIRGINIA
Consumer Location: WASHINGTON! D. C.
!!:1Q. % Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 8.85% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Raw Coal:
2.24 % Sulfur'
~% Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
l2, 300 BTUs /pound
Q.I
='
~
cIj
>-
=
~ 0
cIj...
8...
Q)
=- 0
~-
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton) I (per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00 55.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.48 0.39 0.30 0.78 0.69 0.60
$5.00 --- 0.60 O.SI --- 0.90 0.81
$6.00 --- --- 0.7] --- --- 1.01
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) in dollars/ton
CASE -ll..
Mine Location:
GRANT COUNTY. WE~T VIRGINIA
Consumer Location: WASHINGTON, D. C.
Raw Coal: ~ Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: .bL.i2.% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
.lJl.L.% Sulfur
0.95 % Sulfur
11,900 BTUs/pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
Q)
;t.
r-4
II
>
,.....
~ g 4.00
0'"
u ... $5.00
! b 6.00
Differential Costs
(per ton)
(per ton)
0.31
0.56
less Benefits) in dollars/ton
-------
CASE ~
Mine Location:
COLUMBIANA COUNTY. OHIO
Consumer Location:
Raw Coal:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
..L.QQ. % As h ;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 4.00% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~
..J.....5.Q.% Sulfur
~% Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
12.500BTUs/pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
-
~
r;; 3 4 . 00
o
u ~ 5 . 00
) Po
~- 6.00 1.01
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits)
(per ton)
(per ton)
0.98
7.00
0.85
0.95
1.07
in dollars/ton
CASE -1.L.
Consumer Location:
CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CHICAGO. ILLINOIS
Mine Location:
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: -1.:.!i..% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12.400 BTUs/pound
.L..21L% Sulfur
1.20 % Sulfur
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN' SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
7.00
0.58
0.72
0.86
(Cleaning Costs
0.84
0.80
0.94
less Benefits) in dollars/ton
-------
CASE -1.L
Mine Location:
BELL COUNTY. KENTUCKY
Deep-Cleaned Coal:
CINCINNATI, OHIO
~% Ash;
2.:.QQ. % Ash;
..l...!i.l% Sulfur
...L..Ql.. % SuI fur
Consumer Location:
Raw Coal:
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
13.000 BTUs/pound
Q)
:=J
.-t
1'0
>-
e::
~ 0
1'0 .,J
o
u ...
Q)
:. c;l
cu-
~
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT UNl'f TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton) I (per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.83 0.80 0.76 0.90 0.87 0.83
$5.00 --- 0.91 0.87 --- 0.98 0.94
$6.00 --- --- 0.99 --- --- 1.06
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) in dollars/ton
CASE .22.-
Mine Location:
tOGAN COUNTY. WEST VIRGINIA
Consumer Location: COLUMBUS, OHIO
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: 2..:.2-% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
..L..6.L.% SuI fu r
1.15 % Sulfur
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
13,200 BTUs / pound
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
Q)
:=J
.-t
ctt
>
~ g 4.00
0401
U ... $5.00
~ G)
~ ~ 6.00 1.02
Differential Costs (Cleaning Costs
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
(per ton)
5.00
0.88
~6.00
0.86
0.94
0.92
less Benefits)
7. 0
0.89
0.97
L07
in dollars/ton
-------
CASE 26
-
Mine Location:
VIGO COUNTY. INDIANA
Consumer Location: INDIANAPOLIS. INDIANA
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11,400BTUs/pound
..LiZ..% Sulfur
0.95 % Sulfur
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
cu
='
""'"
as
>-
e::
~ B 4.00
o
u ~ 5.00
! ~ 6.00
Differential
(per ton)
(per ton)
7.00
1.08
1.26
1.44
Costs (Cleaning Costs
less Benefits)
7.00
1.14
1.32
1. 0
in dollars/ton
CASE --1L
Mine Location:
CALDWELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY
Consumer Location: INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
Raw Coal: 10. 0 % Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11.800 BTUs/pound
!.:.iL% Sulfur
1. 05 % SuI fur
~
.-1
as
>
-
~ g 4 .00
0....
u... 5.00
!! 6.00
Differential Costs
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
1. 35
1.60
1.85
(Cleaning Costs
less Benefits)
1.40
1.65
1 0
in dollars/ton
-------
CASE ~
CALDWRI T COUNTY I KRN'1'IIr.¥V
Mine Location:
Raw Coal:
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
10.0% Ash;
...l.:.!!l.% Sulfur
1.05 % Sulfur
Consumer Location:
Deep'-Cleaned Coal:
-2..:1.% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yie]d: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
QI
~
~
n1
>-
~
a: B $4.00
o
t.J ~ $5.00
:J C1
~ '-" $6.00
Differential
(per ton)
] 1,800 BTUs Ipound
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
7.00
1.29
1.54
1.7
Costs (Cleaning Costs
1.58
CASE -1.L.
Mine Location:
less Ben~flts) in dollars/ton
FltANKLIN COUNTY- ILLINOIS
Consumer Location: ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
Raw Coal: ~% Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
SINGLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
~
::2
~
to
>
-
Q; 5 4.00
0...
u ... $5.00
~~
P!: '-" 6 . 00
Differential Costs
(per ton)
~ Sulfur
0.95 % Sulfur
10,800 BTUs/pound
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMEN'1'
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
7.00
0.59
0.74
0.88
in dollars/ton
less Benefits)
-------
CASE --12-
Mine Location:
FRANKLIN COUNTY. ILLINOIS
Consumer Location: CHICAGO. ILLINOIS
Raw Coal: ~ Ash;
Deep-Cleaned Coal: ~% Ash;
Cleaning Plant Yield: ~%
Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: lO.800BTUs/pound
...J....2.5..% Sulfur
.JL.2l.% Sulfur
~
I"'i
to
>-
=
~ 3 4.00
o
u ~ 5 .00
:. Q.
~ -- 6.00
Differential
SI1!GLE CAR SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
UNIT TRAIN SHIPMENT
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
,.
7.00
0.25
0.36
0.48
Costs (Cleaning Costs
less Benefits)
7.00
0.36
0.47
0.59
in dollara/ton
-------
50
45
40
Q 35
~
:2'4
1-4
! 30
~
(f.)
~
(f.)
< 25
u
~
C
Eo- 20
z
~
u
~
~ 15
~
~
10
5
CJ
Ii]
E:2]
$4.00/ton;
$5.00/ton;
$5. 00 It on ;
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
$5.00/ton
$6.00Iton
$7.00Iton
Raw Coal Value
Raw Coal Value
Raw Coal Value
-0.25 to 0
0.25 to 0.50 0.75 to 1.00 1.25 to 1.50
0.50 to 0.75 1.00 to 1.25 1.50 to 1.75
o to 0.25
Differential Cost Range in Dollars per Ton Cleaned Coal
FIGURE 7-5
DIFFERENTIAL CLEANING COSTS LESS BENEFITS - SITON
-------
50
45
40
&3 35
z
H
~ 30
~
en
fZiJ
~ 25
t..)
~
C
Eo- 20
z
(:0.1
u
~
~
c.. 15
Ci
10
5
D
mm
f2]
$4.00/ton;
$5.00/ton;
$5.00/ton;
Raw Coal Value
Raw Coal Value
Raw Coal Value
F.O.B. Haw Coal Cost
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
o to 0.25
0.50 to 0.75 1.00 to 1.25 1.50 to 1.75 .2.00 to 2.25
0.25 to 0.50 0.75 to 1.06 1.25 to 1.50 1. 75 to 2.00
Differential Cost Range in Dollars per Ton Cleaned Coal
FIGURE 7-6
DIFFERENTIAL CLEANING COSTS LESS BENEFITS - S ITON
(UNIT TRAIN SHIPPING RATES)
$5.00/ton
$6.00/ton -
-------
~
45
40
~ 35
r:.1
z
H
~ 30
w
V,)
fd
en 25
-<
u
rz.
0
E-o 20
z
~
u
~
~ 15
p..
iD
10
5
D
~
~
[2'J
$4.00/ton;
$5.00/ton;
$5.00/tOD;
law Coal Value
Raw Coal Value
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
$5.00/ton
$6.00/ton
$7.OO/ton
Raw Coal Value
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
-1 tv 0
2 to 3
3 to 4
6 to 7
5 to 6
o to 1
1 to 2
4 to 5
Differential Cost Range in Cents per Million BTUs
FIGURE 7-7
DIFFERENTIAL CLEANING COSTS LESS BENEFITS - t/MBTU
-------
50 0
.
45 ~
40
Q
~
z 35
1-4
a
(/J 30
~
(/J
<
u
rz.. 25
0
~
z
~ 20
~
~
Q..
15
N
0
10
5
Raw Coal Val1le
Raw Coal Value
Raw Coal Value
$4.00/toni
$5.QO/toni
$5.00/tonj
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $5.00/ton
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $6.00/ton
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost $7.00/ton
o to 1
1 to 2
2 to 3
3 to 4
4 to 5
5 to 6
6 to 7
7 to 8
8 to 9
Differential Cost Range in Cenes per Million BTUs
FIGURE 7-8
DIFFERENTIAL CLEANING COSTS LESS BENEFITS -
(UNIT TRAIN SHIPPING RATES)
-------
REFERENCES
1. Federal Power Commission, Federal Power Survey, 1964
2. Battelle Memorial Institute, A Review and Comparison of Selected
United States Energy Forecasts, Northwest Laboratories, Dece~
ber 1969
3. U. S. Government Printing Office, Minerals Yearbook 1968 (Vol. I -
1]) Meta~s, Minerals, and Fuels, Bureau of Mines, Washington,
D. C., 1969
4. DeCarlo, J. A., Sheridan, E. T., and Murphy, Z. E., Sulfur Con-
tent of United States Coals, Bureau ,of Mines Information
Circular IC 8312, 1966
5. Walker, F. E., and Hartner, F. E., Forms of Sulfur in U. S.
Coal~, Bureau of Mines Information Circular IC 8301, 1966
6. Duerbrouck, A. W., and Palowitch, E. R., Survey of Sulfur Reduc-
tion in Appalachian Region Coals by Stage Crushing, Bureau of
Mines Information Circular 8282, 1966
7. McGraw-Hill Inc., Keystone Coal Industry Manual - 1969, New York,
1969
8. Gluskoter, H. A., and Simon, J. A., Sulfur in Illinois Coals,
Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 432, 1968
9. He1finstine, R. J., et a1. Sulfur Reduction of Illinois Coalsl
Washability Tests, Illinois State Geological Survey Environ-
mental Geology Not~~ Number 34, April 1970
10. Helfinstine, R. J.. et a1. Sulfur Varieties in Illinois Coals
Float-Sink Tests, Illinois State Geological Survey Report of
Study Phase I, Department of Health Education and Welfare
Contract No. PH-86-67-206, August 10, 1969
11. Paul Weir Co., Inc., An Economic Feasibility Study of Coal
Desulfurization, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Contract No. PH-86-65-29, October 1965
12. Bituminous Coal Research. Inc., An Evaluation of Coal Cleaning
Proces8a8 and Techniques for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from
Fine Coal, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Contract.
No. PH-86-67-l39, Interim Report, September 1969
-------
REFERENCES (Cont.)
13. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Probable Ori~inal
Mineable Extent of the Bituminous Coal Seams in West Vir~inia,
~ro
14. Averitt, P., Coal Resources of the United States - January 1,
1967, Geological Survey Bulletin 1275, 1969
15. Federal Power Commission, Air Pollution and the Re~lated Elec-
tric Power and Natural Gas Industries, Staff Report, September
1968
16. Internal Revenue Service, Depreciation Guiqelines and Rules
Revenue Procedure 72-21, Publication 456, Revised August 1964
17. Journal of Mines, Metals and Fuels, pp. 12-19, August 1961
18. Leonard, J. W., and Mitchell, D. R., Coal Preparation, American
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical) and Petroleum Engineers,
Inc., New York, 1968
19. Bureau of Mines, Unit Train Transportation of Coal - Technology
and Description of Nine Representative Operations, Information
Circular 8444, 1970
20. Interstate Commerce Commis~lon, Territorial Distribution Traffic
and Revenue by Commodity Classes Carload Waybill Statistics,
1966, June 1968
21. American Waterways Operators, Inc. (The), 1968 Inland Waterborne
Commerce Statistics, Washington, D. C., March L970
22. National Coal Association, Coal Traffic Annual, Washington, D. C.,
September 1969
23.
Holmes, John G., Jr., (Chief, Steam-Electric Generation Branch,
TVA), The Effect of Coal Quality on the Operation and
Maintenance of Large Central Station Boilers, paper for
presentation at Annual Meeting of the American Institute
of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers,
Washington, D. C., February 16-20, 1969.
-------
APPENDIX I
SULFUR CONTENT RELATIONSHIPS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 DATA BASE CONSIDERATIONS
3.0 COAL PRODUCTION AND RESERVES
4.0 COAL CLEANING CONDITIONS
5.0 DERIVATION OF SULFUR CONTENT RELATIONSHIPS
REFERENCES
Figure 1-1
Figure 1-2
Figure 1-3
Figure 1-4
Figure 1-5
Figure 1-6
Figure 1-7
Figure 1-8
Figure 1-9
Coal Producing Regions
Percent Sulfur Content, u.S. Coal Production,
by Region
Percent Sulfur Content, u.S. Coal Reserves,
by Region
Upper Freeport Seam
Lower Freeport Seam
Upper Kittanning Seam
Lower Kittanning Seam
Pittsburgh Seam
Districts 7 & 8
Figure 1-10 District 10
123
Page
125
126
128
132
134
146
129
130
131
135
136
137
138
139
140
-------
Page
Figure 1-11 Estimated Physical Cleanability of Coal
to 1% Sulfur Content, Category 1,
(Allegheny Seam Series)
143
Figure 1-12 Estimated Physical C1eanabi1ity of Coal
to 1% Sulfur Content, Category II
(Pittsburgh Seam)
144
Table 1-1
Sulfur Removal Relationships
142
-------
APPENDlX I
SULFUR CONTENT RELATIONSHIPS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sulfur is unive~sally present as an impurity in coal, varying in
content from 0.2% to 12.0% by weight as min~d. This sulfur may be pre-
sent in three forms: as pyrite or marcasite, as organic compounds, and
as sulfate. The physical cleaning procedures discussed in this paper
are designed to remove the pyritic sulfur which may be from 40% to 80%
of the total.
The design of the physical cleanjng method and the amount of pyrite
which can be removed is dependent on the size and dispersal of the py-
rite particle. Pyrites in coal occur as highly variable concentrations
which may be in the form of lenses, bands, joints, cleats, balls, modules,
or as finely disseminated particles. It is this basic variability which
creates uncertainty in both estimating the cleanability of a coal source
and in designing the physical cleaning process. Sulfur in organic com-
bination is distributed a~ part of the molecular structure of the coal
and generally cannot be removed by physical cleaning procedures. Sulfate
sulfur is not a significant percentage of the total sulfur burden and
may for all practical purposes be neglect~d.
-------
2.0 DATA BASE CONSIDERATIONS
The basic limitation of the coal composition and cleanability
data references applied jo this study 1s this natura] variation in
the concentration and particle size of sulfur and ash forming
impurities in coal. The analyses described in these references
represent approximately 4000 coal samples from 280 counties in 30
coal-producing states and represent most of the coal seams that are
mined commercially in the United States. Although the number of
analyses seems large, it represents only about one analysis for
every 400 million tons of the estimated coal reserve.
In consideration of the natural compositional variability of
coal, even this large number of observations can only be used to
statistically indicate trends in coal composition through development
of probability distributions. No attempt will be made to indicate
statistical confidence levels because the quantity and represent a-
tiveness of analyses varies considerably from one coal source to
another. Fortunately, the data base is most comprehensive in the
Northern Appalachian Region where it will be shown that the largest
exploitable cleanable coal production exists. To improve the accuracy
of estimates in this study, two classes of analysis observations were
not considered:
-------
Analyses which were not representative of the coal as
mined. Specifically, those samples in Reference 1 which
are indicated as tipple samples or are of a size I 1/2
inch or less. These conditions are indicative that some
preparation of the coal may have occurred.
Analyses from unproductive sources. Some analyses in
Reference] are 25 to 40 years old 'and reflect a quality
of coal long since consumed. Estimation of samples in
this category was made by comparison with Reference 2.
Continuing efforts are being made under the sponsorship of the
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) to analyze more
thoroughly the coal deposits of the Eastern United States. These
efforts will improve the confidence in any estimate of the cleanability
potential of coal sources.
The results of this clean coal source study are intended as
background information in estimating the boundaries of application
of physically cleaned coal in meeting 802 emission control regulations.
-------
3.0 COAL PRODUCTION AND RESERVES
The origin of coals is normally indicated according to producing
districts as established under the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935. These
districts are oriented primarily toward coal transportation factors
rather than any basic composition of the coal deposits themselves.
For the economic evaluation purposes of this paper, it is con-
venient to divide the coal deposits indicated in Figure I-I into
four coal-producing regions. These regions, based both on geographical
considerations and commonality of total sulfur content, may be identi-
fied as follows:
Western
Midwestern
Northern Appalachian
Southern Appalachian
The total 1968 coal production and estimated remaining coal
reserves for each region are indicated in Figures 1-2 and 1-3,
respectively, according to sulfuT content. [2,3,4,5,6]
-------
-
N
\0
~
SUBBITUMINOUS COAL
mill
LtGMTE
o 200
L I I I I
400
I
600 MILE.S ,
---.J ,.-
FIGURE I-I
-------
CUMULATIVE PRODUCTION
(MILLIONS OF TONS)
I-'
"'"
C
210
1.0. 2.0
-- ~--
4+
1----
---
-
---
3.0 . 4.0
2.0 . 3.0
3.0 - 4.0
0 - 1.0
-
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 3.0
I O. 1.0 1 1.0 - 2.0
I I 0 - 1.0
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
WESTERN
REGION
NORTHERN
APPALACHIAN
REGION
SOUTHERN
APPALACHIAN
REGION
MIDWESTERN
REGION
FIGURE 1-2
-------
CUMULATIVE RESERVE
(BILLIONS OF TONS)
-
900
1.0-1.5
t---
f---- --
-- f---- -------- --
f--- ----------
0 . !.O
I
,
I 4+ I
~- 1---------- - --
I -
i
r---- 1----- - -------------------
I 3.0. 4.0
i 2.0 - 3.0
----- 3.0.4.0 1.0 - 2.0
2.0 . 3.0 2.0 . 3.0 I
1.0.2.0 O. 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
o
WESTERN
REGION
MIDWESTERN
REGION
NORTHERN
APPALACHIAN
REGION
SOUTHERN
APPALACHIAN
REGION
FIGURE 1..3
-------
4.0 COAL CLEANING CONDITIONS
4.1 Coal Crushing Size
As coal crushing size is reduced, the percent of pyritic sulfur
released from the coal tends to increase. This tendency can vary
significantly between coal sources depending on the particular pyrite
size and distribution characteristics of the source. The degree of
sulfur reduction is generally described in the literature according
to four stages of top size crushing. [7,a,9,10]
A. 1 1/2 inch
B. 1/4 to 3/8 inch
C. 14 to 30 mesh
D. Pu1verilation grind (on the order of 100 to 200 mesh)
For this study, stage B will be examined to estimate the coal
production which can be cleaned to a 1% total sulfur level.
Stage B 18 considered the minimum size which can be currently trans-
ported economically by rail, barge, or truck without excessive dusting.
Thus, this would curre~tly be the minimum practical crushing size for
pyrite removal prior to shipment.
-------
4.2 Separation Conditions
Tbe question of separation conditions involves a compromise. For
example, in heavy media separation, a tradeoff must be made between
achieving maximum separation of the high density pyrite which dictates
low specific gravity on the order of 1.30 and the economic desire for
maximum coal recovery which requires a relatively high specific gravity
fluid. The compromise generally reflected in experimental coal clean-
ing analysis literature is 1.60. Analyses at this specific gravity
indicate a consistent 90% or greater recovery of total coal heat content
at the 3/8 inch top size grinding conditions. [7,10] Further study of
this variable, relative to the characteristics of each cleanable coal
source, should be performed to achieve the optimum tradeoff. It appears
from the limited data available that lower specific gravities might be
applied advantageously, although the precise conditions must be deter-
mi.ned on an individual coal source basis.
-------
5.0 DERIVATION OF SULFUR CONTENT RELATIONSHIPS
Table 4-2 in the body of this report is based on published coal
analyses indicating the effect of crushing high-sulfur coals for the
liberation of pyritic sulfur. [7,8,10] The translation of these analysis
results into first-order estimates of the probability of physically
cleaning coal of a given sulfur content to a reduced total sulfur con-
tent is indicated by this Appendix. Figures 1-4 through 1-10 each
represent an individual group of coal sources for which a statistically
meaningful number of coal c1eanabi1ity ana1yies are available.
Figure 1-4 through 1-7 indicate analyses from individual seams in
the Allegheny Seam Group of the Northern Appalachian Region (Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Northern West Virginia. Figure 1-8 represents the Pittsburgh
seam, also of the Northern Appalachian Region.
Figure 1-9 represents coal cleanability analyses from pistricts
7 and 8 (E. Kentucky, Southern West Virginia, Virginia-, Tennessee) of the
Southern Appalachian Region. Finally, Figure 1-10 describes cleanabi1ity
analysis results from District 10 (Illinois) of the Midwestern Region.
Each figure plots the total sulfur content of the raw run-af-mine
coal sample before the physical cleaning process and its corresponding
total sulfur content after cleaning. The cleaning conditions'.considered
in all figures are:
Crushing to a 3/8 inch top size
Heavy media separation at a 1.60 specific gravity.
-------
c
z
...
z
<
(oJ
..J
to)
co;
~
F-
10.
<
/tot-'
~
:z:.
r.:
Eo-
8
c:;:; tZ
;;:;>
c:a ~
~
;i
i-
c:
3.2
3.0
20%
CLEANING COKDITIONS
3/8 INCH TOP SIZE cauSUDIG
2.8
1.60 WASH SPECIFIC GiAVITY
2.6
36 ANALYSES
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
o 4
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 LO 1.2 1.4
1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4
3.6 3.8 4.0 1..2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0
TOTAL SULFUR COIITEIIT t. RAW 1lL'N-OF-MlNE COAL BEFO!\E CLEANIJIG
FIGURE 1-4
-------
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
j 2.2
M
=
w 2.9
...
to)
II::
loG
t: 1.8
<
....-
f- 1.6
z
r:.;z
E-o
8 1.4
(III IIC
- ~
5 1.2
~
~
f-
g 1.0
0.8'
0.6
:.0-.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
CLEANING OOIIDITlONS
3/8 IRca TOP SIZE CauSHDG
1.60 WAS1l SPEC111'1C GM'YI'!'Y
15 ARALYSBS
0.4
0.8
4.4
1.2
2.0
2.8
3.2
1.6
2.4
3.6
4.0
TOTAL SULFUR COIft"DT %,... -~I'-IIIIIE aw. IUORE CLEAlfIWC
FJ GURE 1- 5 -
LOWER FREEPORT -SEAM
40%
20%
0%
-------
/. (\
:?S
3.6
) !o
< :: ~
: ,,~
~ 'J
-.' !
c:;:;
......
..
~ !",
~ . ~!
~ ; - ~
I
. -~
,
!
- 0 I
!
,),,~
I
lOO~
NOT REPRODUCIBLE
CLEA:.I':C CO::DITI<1\S
J S 1'-<.h 1~1f' <;12£ C~:'St :'"
! toC W~h SPECtF:C Co,}.' .-
:.... ~~,,1- .,E.:
1', ,.t-
,
(I . ~
I
:J I.
o (\
o -
: 8
4.8
3.f:
0...
3.Z
l, 0
.. !o
1 :?
:? C
L(
- ~
TOTAL 'ill it Ii. CC'\'Ti:1r. :'.II.\~ at '\-1,.r-"I1 'E co.u. 8EFDI[ CLEA.\I,;r.
F IGURf; I" 6
UPPER KITTANNING SEAM
.).
80'
...":"
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
-------- - -- --- --_......J
I
I
-:c
:; :
b ()
to !o
b C
-------
].2
] 0
2 8
2.6
2 4
2.2 ~
7. ,,~
Z
~
:;
'" 1 8 L
= I
< . 6 ~
I
I
" ).:. I
0:; ... 1 2 ~
(I)
.... . -~ ~
~ I
I
0 Bt-
I
O.~ I
I 04 r
0 l r-
0 0 I
0 (I 0 4
CLEANU:C CONDITIONS
3/8 INCH TOP SlZE CRUSHING
1.60 WASH SPECIFIC CIIAVITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
. :'0.1
:')%
28 ANALYSES
0.8
2.0
2.8
S.:!
] :!
].6
2.4
4.0
1.6
4.4
4.8
1 2
TOTAL StiU,"!' CONTEIIf %, IW/ RLN. OF-IUNE COAL BEFORE CL£AhI!lG
FIGURE 1-7
-------
"'.~
.. ~
4 I)
c;;
r.D
j at-
3 !;~
~ ~~
j = ~
jv~
I
~~
I
~ - t'r
:: ~ .t-
= I
~ I
~ l : r
:.. : ( ~
- I
:: . -~
I
!
1 ~r
I
. ~I
1 ~~
I
I
\ 'J t-
::L
-
-<
<
-
o ()
I
0.:'
'L"~"( ro'.v!!:..::..:,::
3 ~ t"'C.... ... I "1...}- Ck~:-I"..-
I .,C ":A-::oJ ~Ptt ,T"IC L~- .1-
~- A.\:"_lS_~
I
o 8
L-
1.11
toe
2 f
3 2
:! C
1 2
" 8
2 L
i.....
", .
, ,"
TOTAL :.ULFLR CONTEJoT 1, RAW RL,-or-Hl5£ COAl. BEFORE CLE.u.JM;
FIGURE 1-8
-------
2 &f-
:-I
1 8~
; 6 r-
1 ~ r-
1 2 r-
10EI -
~ 6
0.6 i
0.4
:J-
0.0
:z:
z
~
:;
..
...
S
...
z
:z:
..
;:
~ or
o c
j;.
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.!I
2 8
100:
CLEA..'IING CONDITIOIIS
3/8 IIiCH TOP SIZE CRI:SF.!NC
1.60 WASt- SPECIFIC GBAvn'Y
156 ASALYSES
. I
r. . .
.. .
0%
0.4
0.8
4.0
.. .~
2.0
3.6
2.4
2.8
3.2
1.2
1.6
TOTAL s:''l.n-a C01ITER1' Z, MoW RUII-OF-KUiE CvAL BEFORE CLEA..''ltEC
FIGURE 1-9
DISTRICTS 7 8 8
4.8
5.2
-------
3 8
3ft
3"
"~
J 0
2 S ~
,
~ 6 ~
I
I
2" r
:;0:: ,,~
z
-::
<: '.\' t-
:;; i: I
-:: ,,\-
~,- I
~ - ~ r
ii: .... t-
v 1 Z L
<:
I:
I- 1 0
J 8
0.6
(j 4
0 ?
0.0 I
1 :I lot. 1.8 . - 2 (, 3.0
ClE":. !\{, CO\I"-IC'.<;
J e 1 'C-' TOP sin CRl SrI'C
I r"r \orA';" ..PEClrIC CU\.,
53 A.'.u.\s<;.
3.8
...2
4.t
5 0
5 1,
5.8
6 :!
6.6
7 0
TOTAL SULFl.R CCNTE1CT ro. RAW IW)'-C'F-'UNE COAL BEFORE Cl.EA."HNG
FIGURE 1-10
-------
gac~ figure then indicates, in 20% intervals, the upper bounds
containing the corresponding percentage of analyses. Figures 1-11 and
1-12 summarize the intercepts of these upper bounds with the coordinate
corresponding to a total sulfur content after cleaning of 1%1 Figure
1-11 combines the individual seams of the Allegheny Group which con-
stitute sulfur removal Category II Upper and lower bounds on the sulfur
removal relationship are indicated. Figure 1-12 combines those seams
or coal producing districts, depending on the availability of c1ean-
ability analyses, which constitute sulfur removal Category II. In
general, the second category requires a lower raw coal total sulfur
content to achieve the required sulfur content after cleaning. These
categories are summarjzed in Table I-I.
TABLE 1-1
SULFUR REMOVAL RELATIONSHIPS
CateRorv
Potential Cleanable Coal Sources
I
Defined from Analyses
. Allegheny seam group, Districts
1, 2, 3, Northern Appalachian
Region
I
Estimated from Organic
Sulfur Content
. District 4, Midwestern Region
II
Defined from Analyses
. Pittsburgh seam, Districts 2 and
3, Northern Appalachian Region
II
Defined from Analyses
District 7 and 8, Southern
Appalachian Region
II
Defined from Analyses
. District 10, Midwestern Region
II
Estimated from Organic
Sulfur Content
Di.trict 9, Midwestern Region
-------
~ .
~ 80';"
.. ,
£: 70..
~
(M
i bO~
:..
;: I
~ :.( r
~
~ ]V
- .
E £0;-
~ ~
~... ,,0'"
100
, A\..-'( "
~ I
, ,''' ..
. . "\1' .
>01-
I
o l ------.-.--
1 I) l :
1 II
1 -
2 0
2 2
. £
2 ,
TOTAL SULPlI COJrr'IJIT '.RAII RL")'-:;f-MI'IoE COAL Bi.fOIlE Cl.UIIf.8C
3 ,
FIGURE I-II
ESTIMATED PHYSICAL CLEANABILITY OF COAL TO 1% SULFUR CONTENT, CATEGORY I
-------
100
1-4
:II;
/iIiI
E-4
:EO tI)
0
u
e:c
~
,..
S CLEANING CONDITIONS
00
~ 60 3/8 INCH TOP SIZE CRUSHING
E-4
o 1.60 WASH SPECIFIC GRAVITY
E-4
N
~
C
i-t
(z;
~ 40
~
.. ~
raJ 7 & 8
~ ,..J
u
~
0
u 20
~
0
toe
o
1.0
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
1.2
1.4
1.6
TOTAL SULFUI. CONTENT %) UW IUJH-OF-MIIa CO~.L BEFORE CLEANING
FIGURE I-12
ESTIMATED PHYSICAL .ClEANABILITY OF COAL TO
ON E PERCENT SULFUR CONTENT - CATEGORY II
-------
These categorlt~s, as might be expected, correlate fairly well with
the trends in organic sulfur content indicated in Table 4-1. Sources
in Category II, which generally indicate a lower percentage of a give~
sulfur content coal cleanable to 1% than Category I, a180 indicate a
higher percentage of the total sulfur content in the organic form.
Thus the degree of pyritic sulfur which must be removed to achieve 1%
total sulfur is correspondingly higher in Category II than in Category
I. Based on this correlation with organIc sulfur content, the remaining
districts in the Midwestern Region are divided, with District 4 (Ohio)
tentatively &asigned to Category It District 9 (Western Kentucky) to
Category II, and District 11 (Indiana) divided between the two categories.
Additional cleanabi1ity analyses whou1d be performed in the Midwestern
Region, however, including District 4 to confirm this organization.
-------
APPENDIX I
REFERENCES
1. Walker, F. E., and Hartner, F. E., Forms of Sulfur in U.S.
Coals, Bureau of Mines Information Circular IC 8301, 1966
2. Keystone Coal Industry Manual - 1969, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
New York, 1969
3. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook 1968 (Vol. I - II) Metals,
Minerals, and Fu~ls, U. S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C., 1969
I
4. DeCarlo, J. A., Sheridan, E. T.~ and Murphy, Z.E., Sulfuf
Sontent of United States Coals, Bureau of Mines Informatien
Circular IC 8312, 1966
5. Gluskoter, H. A., and Simon, J. A., Sulfur in Illinois Coals,
Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 432, 1968
6. West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, Probable Ori~inal
Mineable Extent of the Bituminous Coal Seams in Welt Virginia I
1970
7. Duerbrouck, A. W., and Palowitch, E. R., Survey of Sulfur
Reduction in Appalachian Region Coals by Stage Crushing,
Bureau of Mines Information Circular 8282, 1966
8. Helfinstine, R. J., et aI, Sulfur Varieties in Illinois Coals
Float-Sink Tests, 1111nois State Geological Survey Report of
Study Phase I, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Contract No. PH-86-67-206, August 10, 1969
9. Paul Weir Co., Inc. An Economic Feasibility Study of Coal
Desulfurization, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Contract No. PH-86-65-29, October 1965
10. Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., An Evaluation of Coal Cleaning
Processes and Techniques for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from
Fine Coal, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Contract No. PH-86-67-l39, Interim Report, September 1969
-------
APPENDIX II
PO'IENTIAL CLEAN COAL APPLICATION
1.0 FUEL COST RELATIONSHIPS
2.0 AREAS OF POtENTIAL APPLICATION
REFERENCES
Figure 11-1 1968 Cost Relationships Between Foasi1 Fuel
Options for Industrial and Utility Users
Figure 11-2 States Exceeding 90% Utility and Industrial
Coal Consumption
Figure 11-' Estimates 1975 aDd 198' Cost Relationships
Between 802 Emission Control Options
Fi~re 11-4 Estimates 1975-l985 Geographical Markets of
Fossil Fuel and A8sociated 802 Emilsion Control
Options
Table 11-1 Coal Requirements of Electric Power Geft8rating
Units Installed Prior to 1950
Table 11-2 Estimated Potential Supply of l~ Sulfur
Content Physically Desu1furized Coal and the
Electric Utility Coal Demand-for Units Installed
prior to 1950
147
Paae
148
153
160
149
l~O
1.52
1,54
1.58
-------
A~PENDIX II
POTENTIAL CL~AN COAL APPLICATION
1.0 FUEL COST RELATIONSHIPS
In estimating the probable, rather than theoretical, application
of coal cleaned to 1% sulfur content, it is useful to compate the
delivered cost relationships of the various £ossi1 fuel options
available to the utility and industrial markets before and after
the introduction of S02 emisRion control regulations.
Figure 11-1 describes, in a first order sense, the delivered
cost relationship between coal, oil, and natural gas in 1968, prior
[1 2 3 4]
to the introduction of widespread 502 emission control regulations. '"
These relationships have tended to create the current dependence on coal
in the states indicated in Figure 11-2. Natural gas, for example,
is produced primarily in the Far West and Southwest. Although it ha~
relatively low production and transportation cost rates,
the transport distance from source to user has limited its economic
competitiveness east of the Mississippi. Oil, on the other hand, has
been restricted in primary utilization to large metropolitan areas along
the East Coast where the low water transport costs of foreign oil imports
has created a competitive delivered cost. This cost at an East Coast
port or large river barge terminal is the initial or zero distance cost
indicated for oil in Figure II-I. Once overland transportation is
included in the delivered cost, oil does not currently compete with coal
in the Eastern United States.(4]
-------
$
MBTU
.
-
1.00
.~
.60
.40
.20
o
o
600
800
400
MILES
FIGURE II-I
1968 COST RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FOSSIL FUE,L OPTIONS
FOR INDUSTRIAL AND UTILITY USERS
-------
TOIfI OF COAL COtIStIfED (103 )
FIGURE It - 2
STATES MtEM COAL PROVIDES 90% OR IKR r6 ALL.
UTI LITY AND INDUSTRIAL FUEL COMSU.MED
-------
With the introduction of 1% sulfur content in fuel or equivalent
-SQ&,~mission regulations. the cost relationships which the utility and
industrial f08sil fuel user must eonsider become considerably more complex.
These relationships are indicated, in a first order sense by Figure 11-3
for the 1975-1985 time period.[l,2,3,4,5] By 1975. these relationships
can be expected to stabilize and create a new equilibrium in utilization
between £os811 fuel options. The development of Figure 11-3 is based on
the following assumptions concerning the 1975-1985 tiae period:
The application of 1% sulfur content or equivalent
S02 emission regulations in the Eastern United States will
be complete.
The 802 emission control optioBS indicated will be
available for commercial applicatIon.
F08sil fuel demands by utility and induetrial con8UMers,
. will, at a minimrun, remain constant.
Major shifts i.n the location of utility plants in the
Eastern United States will not occur.
The location of primary fuel sources will not chanle
from present conditions. In the case of oil, this means
deep water ports or barge terminals.
The overland transportation methods currently in U~~
for coal, oil, and gas will not change in a maRner to affect
relative cost.
-------
(JI -
,."
t-
en
o
(..)::;)
~~ 4
t=~
:5
&.U
a:
8
7
6
5
3
2
",1UAAl GAS
. '
o
IX)
a DJ
~
1m
-
DJ
3XJ
600
FIGURE n- 3
ESTIMATED 1975-1985 COST RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN S02
EMISSION CONTROL OPTIONS
-------
Utility and industrial consumers will not tend to change
the type of £08811 fuel consumed unless a clear cut cost
advantage can be shown. This limited flexibility is created
primarily by plant design considerations which limit fuel
specifications and long term fuel contracts.
These assumptions are indicated for the 1975-1985 time period.
Beyond this period, reduced confidence in the assumption.. coupled
with the possible impact of nuclear power aeneration. makes the cOlt
relationships questionable. It is empha~ized that Figure 11-3 repre-
sents estimations based on available technology and economic forecaats.
The important factor 1s not the absolute cost attached to each option
but rather the cost relationships between options.
2.0 AREAS or POTENTIAL APPLICATION
Usini Figure 11-3 and the previously identified fo..il fuel ,ourca .
locations, it i$ po88ible to de'ermine the leographical marketing areas
of the Easterft United States in which the various fossil fuel alter-
natives would be economicaJly preferred. 1~ese marketing area. are
indicated in Figure II-~.
Figure 11-4 a180 indicates the emission control option which might
be expected to have greatest application in each of the coal marketing
areal. Thie estimate is based both on the sulfur characteristic. of the
coal sources serving each marketing area and the supply potential of
these sources to meet the corresponding fuel demand. In the case of
physically desulfurized coal, for example, the area of primary appli-
cation is considered to be the Northern Appalachian coal marketing area.
-------
LEGEND
[[OJ] MlDWESTERN COAL SOURCE
~
MIDWESTERN COAL MARKET
(High Sulfur Co.l Plus
Combustion and Post-
Combustion Process)
II1II NORT~ERN APPALACHIAN COAL
SOURCE
~ NORTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL
MARKET (Physically
Desulfurized Coal)
mIm SOUTHERN APPALACH1AN COAL
SOURCE
r;,'.~:.;:1 SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN COAL
MARKET (Natural Low Sulfur
Coal)
OIL MARKET
E::l
~ NATURAL CAS MARKET
o
I
100
I
200
300
I
400
I
500
I
MILES
ESTIMATED
AND
FIGURE II-4
1975-1985 GEOGRAPHICAL MARKETS OF FOSSIL FUEL
ASSOCIATED 502 EMISSION CONTROL OPTIONS
-------
.Lower fractions of coal production in the Southern Appalachian'and
Eastern Region appear cleanable to a Ii. sulfur level than in the Northet"p.
Appalachian Region. As ~ result, these regions appear most exploitable
in terms of natural low sulfur coal and high sulfur coal plus combustion
and post-combustion sulfur removal processes respectively and are so
indicated in Figure 11-4. Further pro'duetton development of the Illinois
and Indiana cleanable coal deposits could, however, provide a significant
portion of local coal demands.
The Northern Appalachian coal marketing area. where physically
desulfurized coal i8 expected to have the greatest application as an
802 emission control option, has a current utility and industrial coal
demand on the order of 110 million tons annually. [5] Thus the Northern
Appalachian production of coal cleanable to less than 1% total sulfur
must increase about five times to meet the total expected 1975 stationary
power source coal demans in its corresponding market area (see Table 4-2).
Unless the coal industry can soJve its interrelated cost/production
problem based on such facto5s as the shortage of miners for underground
operations, the provisions of the recent Mine Safety Law, and the un-
stable union-management relationship, its ability to react to the
changing coal demands forced by the S02 emission regulations is severely
limited.
In the face of these problems, a five-fold increase in
cleanable coal production appears highly unlikely by 1975. As a result,
the majority of coal burning stationary power sources in the clean cOBl
ecomonica11y preferred area will be forced to introduce combustion or
post-combustion sulfur removal processes or switch to other fossil fuels.
-------
The 11~ited supply potential of coal physically desulfurized to
1% sulfur content may most logically result in this fuel being primarily
used in older stationary power plants in the Northern Appalachian and
Midwestern Region coal marketing areas. For the purpose of this study,
an "older" stationary power plant is defined as 8 plant whose present
generating units were placed in service prior to 1950. Large pollution
control capital equipment investments for units installed prior to 1950
would probably not be considered economiaal1y viable by electric utili-
ties or industrial stationary power sources during the 1975-1985 ti8e
period for several practical reasons:
Low plant capacity use factors (18ss than SO%) occur as
the older plants are transferred from base load to peak load
service. This reduced production severely penalizes any fixed
plant investment but 4oe~ :1a,"" -eff"ot fuel cost, which is demand
responsive.
The 28 year minimum allowed Internal Ievemue Service
depreciation period for steam-electric production plants.
The 5 year minimum allowed Internal Revenue Service
depreciation period for pollution control equipment
additions.
High operating and maintenance costs as a result of low
heat rate efficiency and low per unit ianerating capacity.
This would promote investment in new more efficient units
rather ~h8ft cofttinued tapital modifieations.
-------
More than 80% of these older plants are located within the boundaries
of incorporated communities. Moreover, 60% are within Census Bureau
defined Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) with populations
greater than 100,000 where air pollution concentrations are generally
higher!7]The average annual coal consumption of these older plants is
about 500,000 tons.
Since the supply/demand relationship will ultimately determine ~he
market value of coal physically cleaned to a 1% sulfur content, it is
interesting to compare the coal consumpt~on requirement of these older
stationary power sources with the supply potential developed in
Section 4.0. Based on available information, Table 11-1 indicates the
1968 coal demand and selected characteristics of electric utility gen-
erating units installed prior to 1950.[6] As stated earlier, electric
utilities create approximately 75% of the total stationary power souf~e
coal demand in the Eastern United States. This coal demand is siven by
state within the Midwestern and Northern Appalachian Region coal mark~t
areas as indicated in Figure 11-4. Table 11-2 compare~ this 1968 coal
demand with the estimated potential supply of coal physically desulfur-
ized to a 1% sulfur content, as developed in Section 4.0 and based on
1968 coal production. Table 1]-2 indicates that the estimated potential
~upply of this coal and the corresponding coal demand of electric gen-
erating units installed prior to 1950 are approximately equivalent.
-------
TABLE II-I
COAL REQUIREMENTS OF ELECTRIC POWER GENERATING UNITS INSTALLED PRIOR TO 1950
COAL AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE UNIT
NUMBER CONSUMED PLANT INITIAL YEAR GENERATING
STATE OF
1968 HEAT RATE or PLAIIT CAPACITY
PLANTS (1000 TONS) (BTU/KWHr) OPERATION (MW)
NORTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION COAL MARKETl6J
MD. 6 2.117 13.334 1929 40
MICH (R.) 6 4.197 12.072 1926 56
N. J. 3 1.188 11.520 1930 57
N. Y. 9 2.950 12.199 1937 49
OHIO (E.) h 1,017 12.746 1933 49
PA. 13 7.517 14.135 ]930 55
VA. 4 '} .093 11 .990 1930 56
I
W. VA. (N.) 2 ---L.!!l- 14 .022 1918 34
49 24.192
MIDWESTERN REGION COAL MARKET (6]
ILL. 8 3,860 12,:1l8 1936 52
w
IND. 7 3.718 I ~I ,459 193J 54
KY. (w.) 2 883 U ,067 1946 60
MICH. cw.) 1 308 12,342 1939 46
OHIO _L 3.646 12,13] 1929 52
24 12.395
TABLE LJ-2
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SUP!Jf.Y OF J% SULFUR CONTENT PHYSICALLY DE SULFURIZED COAL
AND
THE ELECTRIC IJTlI.lTY COAL DEMAND FOR UNHS INSTALLED PRIOR 'f0 1950
(Baaed on 1968 Coal Production lind 1968 Electric Utility Coal Consumption)
NORTHERN APP_ALACHIAN REG~ON COAL MARKET
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SUPPLY (1000 TONS)
ESTIMATED DEHAND[61 (1000 TONS)
25,500 - 18,000
24.192
~lDWESTERN REGION COAL MARKET
ESTIMATED POTENTIAL SUPPLY nooo TONS)
ESTI~AT!D DEMAND£6] (1000)
7,bOO - 11.400
12,395
-------
This supply/demand equivalence is indicative, in a first order
sense, that the coal needs of these older stationary power sources.
particularly in the Northern Appalachian Region coal market, could
be satisfied by physically desulfurized coal of 1% sulfur content
without extensive additional raw coal mine production or new com-
petition within domestic coal markets.
The results of this preliminary examination suggest that
r
detailed economic "system" lMta1Yles be performed to relate physi-
cally desulfurized coal to other 502 emission control alternatives.
Areas to be considered should include plant capacity use factor.
and other markets for low sulfur coal.
In this manner, a forecast uf the actual market price of 1%
sulfur content physically desu1furized steam coal could be developed,
giving the coal industry and stationary power plants perspective on
which to plan future coal production and utilization.
-------
APPENDIX II
REFERENCES
1. National Coal AssociatioD, Steam - Electric Plant Factors/1968
Edition, Washington, D. C., October 1968
2. Bureau of Mines, ~in~r~ls Yearbook J968 (Vo~.~~_II) Metals,
Minerals, and Fuels, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D. C., 1969.
3. Federal Power Commission, Air Pollution and the Regulated Electric
Power and Natural Gas Industries, Staff Report. September 1968
4. Interstate Commerce Commission, Territorial Distribution Traffic
and Revenue by Commodity Classes Carload Waybill Statistics,
1966, June 196R
S. Gambs, Gerard C., The Electric Utility Industry - Future Fuel
Requirements 1970-1990, Mechanical Engint:'ering, April 1970
6. Federal Power. Commission, Steam Electric Plant Construction Cost
and Annual Product~on Expenses - Twenty-First Annual Supplement -
1968, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.,
November 1969.
7. frogress in th~ Prevention and Control..£.LAir Pollution, First
Report of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
June 1968.
-------
APPENDIX III
AMORTIZATION PAYMENT DATA
Table 111-1 Self-Liquidating Mortgage Payment Per $1000 of Loan
Yearly Costs--Based on Equal Monthly Payments
Table 111-2 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacj ty. Plant Cost - $3000/Ton Hour
Table 111-3 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost.- $5000/Ton Hour
Table 111-4 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment~ Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost - $8000/Ton Hour
Table 111-5 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost - $10 ,OOO/Ton Hour
Table 111-6 Self-Liquidating Yearly MOrtgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost - $12 ,OOO/Ton Hour
Table 111-7 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost - $15 ,OOO/Ton- Hour
Figure 111-1 Se.Lf-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $1000/Ton Hour
Input Capacity
Figure 111-2 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $3000/Ton Hour
Input Capaci ty
Figure 111-3 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $5000/Ton Hour
Input Capacity
Figure 111-4 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $8000/Ton Hour
Input Capacity
Figure 111-5 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payment Per Ton Hour -
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $lO.OOO/Ton Hpur
Input Capaci ty
161
Page
163
164
164
165
16.5
.166
166
167
168
169
170
-------
APPENDIX [II (CONTINUED)
Figure 111-6 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgag~ Payments Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $12,OOO/Ton Hour
Input Capacity
Figure 111-7 Self-Liquidating Yearly Mortgage Payments Per Ton Hour
Plant Input Capacity. Plant Cost of $15,OOO/Ton Hour
Input Capacity
162
172
-------
APPENDIX III
AMORTIZATION PAYMENT DATA
This appendix indicates cleaning plant self-liquidating - yearly
mortgage payments per ton hour plant input capacity. These
values are provided for various plant costs and unpaid balance
interest rates. The data are presented both in table and graph
form.
TABLE 111-1
SELF-LIQUIDATING MORTGAGE PAYMENT (IN DOLLARS) PIR. $1000 OP LOAN
YEARLY COST--BASED ON EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS I
Intereat Rate 6% 7% 8% 8-1/2%
-2.L
9-1/'2%
Loan Period (Yrs.)
8 157.19 163.69 169.72 172.18 175.88 179.00
10 133.31 139.41 145.67 148.86 152.08 155.35
12 1] 7.18 123.48 129.97 133.28 136.63 140.03
15 101.34 107.93 114.75 118.23 121,. 78 125.37
20 8~.04 93.10 100.44 104.20 108.03 111.92
-------
TABLE 111-2
SELF-LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT (IN DOLLARS) PER TON
HOuR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. PAYMENTS BASED QN PLANT COST OF
$3,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
Interest Rate 6% 7% 8% 8-1/2% 9 9-1/2%
---
Loan Period (Y rs .)
8 473.37 491.07 509.16 518.34 527.64 537.00
10 399.93 418.23 437.01 446.58 456.24 466.05
12 351.54 370.44 389.91 399.84 409.89 420.09
15 304.02 323.79 344.25 354.69 365. 34 376.11
20 258.12 279.30 301.32 312.60 324.09 335.76
TABLE 111-3
SELF-LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT (IN DOLLARS) PER TON
HOUR PL~~T INPUT CAPACITY. PAYMENTS BASED ON PLANT COST OF
$5,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
Interest Rate 6% 7% 8% 8-1/2% 9 9-1/2%
Loan Period (Yra.)
8 788.95 818.45 848.60 863.90 879.40 895.00
10 666.55 697.05 728.35 744.30 760.40 776.75
12 585.90 617.40 649.85 666.40 683.15 700.15
15 506.70 539.65 573.75 591.15 608.90 626.85
20 430.20 465.50 502.20 521.00 540.15 559.60
-------
TABLg 111-4
SELF-LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT (IN DOLLARS) PER TON
HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. PAYMENTS BASED ON PLANT COST OF
$8,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
Interest Rate
6%
7%
8%
8-1/2%
9%
9-1/2%
Loan PerIod (Yrs.)
8
10
12.
15
20.
1262.32 1309.52 1~57.76 1382.24 1407.04 1432.00
1066.48 1115.28 1165.36 1190.88 1216.64 1242.80
937.44 987.84 1039.76 1066.24 1093.04 1120~24
810.72 863.44 918.00 945.84 974.24 1002.96
688.32 744.80 803.52 833.60 864.24 895.36
TABLE 111-5
SELF-LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT (IN DOLLARS) PER TON
HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. PAYMENTS BASED ON PLANT COST OF
$10,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
Interest Rate 6% 7% 8% 8-1/2% 9%
9-1/2%
---
Loan Period (Yrs.)
8
10
12
15
1577.90 1636.90 1697.20 1727.80 1758.80 1790.00
1333.10 1394.10 1456.70 1488.60 1520.80 1553.50
1171.80 1234.80 1299.70 1332.80 1366.30 1400.30
1013.40. 1079.30 1147.50 1182u30 1217.80 1253.70
-------
TABLE 111-6
SELF-LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT (IN DOLLARS) PER TON
HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. PAYMENTS BASED ON PLANT COST OF
$12,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
Interest Rate
6%
7%
-1!- 8-1/2%
9%
9-1/2%
Loan Period (Yrs.)
8
10
12
15
2'0
1893.48 1964.28 2016.64 2073.36 2110.56 2148.00
1599.72 1672.92 1748.04 1786.32 1824.96 1864.20
1406.16 1481.76 1559.64 1599.36 1639.56 1680.36
1216.08 1295.16 1377.00 1418.76 1461.36 1504.44
1013.48 1117.20 1205.28 1250.40 1296.36 1343.04
TABLB 111-1
SELF-LIQUIDATI»G YUlLLY MORTGAGE PAY"T (IN DOLLARS) PER TON
HOUR PLANT ItfPUT CAP ACITY . P AYHElftS BASED ON PLANT COST 01'
$15,000 lEi TOM IDUi lliUT CAPACITY AID EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMEHTS
Interest Rate
Loan Period (Yrs.) ~- --1.L 8% 8-1/2% 9% 9-1/2%
2)66.8J 245J.3S %'45.80 2591.70 2638.20 2685.00
8
1999.65 2091.15 2185.05 2232.9,0 2281.20 2330;25
10
IJ.57.70 1852.20 1949.5S 1999.20 2049.45 2100.45
12 1721.25 1773.45 1826.70 1880.25
,15 1520.10 1618.95 1620.45 1678.80
20 1290.60 1396.50 1506.60 1563.00
-------
INTkREST RATE I I
-j -ONfA~Fr I -- - -I - .. - --- - ---- ---
- -t i - u t -- - -- --r - -- - - -- i ----
-- --1- i--- - ----~ -- - -- -.---. --+~~ ~--
~ 130 - - - --- - - - - . ---.- -- - - - . L - --
~
......
~ 120 -- -. --- >- - - ,----- - --
,8 . I
--- --- -- ~- - . -- -- - - - -- - -
--- J_~t -~- - ~ '..- ----+-~~~ ---~ - ~~. -~
150 - - --
~- 0
8
9
10
11
12
11
14
15
l'
17
18
19
2q
LOAM PIIlIOD II BAal
'IGU~E m-I
SlL' .. LKUDATtNG YEARLY MORTGAG£ ~YII£.TI
PER TON t«>UR PlANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED
-------
$600
500 --- -
I
I I I I I
~ 9!sX I INTEREST RATE I
_-1_~J:~j lE -- ~----L-- ---- -
9% II 1 I
~% I I I
AX -.1. 7%
-1- -- --I -~- -- - --
I
----I +- L___-t - - "- - r--- --
- -'--- -- -+--- -J --- -i- - _I
I I
.. - ----..
~ 400 - - i' -
1M
........
~
]t)O
200
o
II
9
1.0
1]
12
])
14
1.5
16
17
18
l'
20
LOAN PE.rOD IN !!All
. FIGURE m-2
SELf' - LIOUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
PER TOH HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED. ON
PLANT COST OF S3,OOO PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
$900
soo
-. --I' 1----'" -. - - - .
I I I
- .t- -.t--. t-- --- I
I INTEREST aATI
ON UNPAID JALAlCI
800
700 . -' - -
3
~
.......
3 600
t-1
8
"--i- - - ---
- - --R-r
I
... -..-. ---t-t -l-
400 - - - --.- - ...- -- - ~ - - .0
o
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1.5
16
17
18
19 20
l"Od PERrOt) I)f YEAIlS
FtGURE m-3
SELF -ltQU1DATING ,(EARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
PER TON HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED ON
PLANT COST OF 55,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
$1500
1300 -. . +- -~ t~~- -.~UNPArt- . -.. "-rn._.
1200 ... - - -- :9i=t~x -1-- -, _.~ ... .,' "'-, -- I -
) ]00
~ 900 .. -... -..... . -_. - . 6%
~ 800 . -+ .... - - - -- - .. - - - -. . 1 '.
- --- -t.-- 1'-- -- - - '. . .!. ------1 I
I
----
o
8
9
10
1]
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
~OAH PERIOD IN YEARS
FIGURE m - 4
SELF-LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE 'PAYMENTS
PER TON HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED ON
PLANT COST OF 58,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
$1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400 -
--- ---- --- - -~-
-1=
I
.~
---- -- - - --- ---
-- - ---
"-- - - - - - ---- - -J -- - -
-- -J
INTEREST RATE
ON UNPAID BALANCE
S 1300 ---t- --- --_..
......
~ 1200 --- -- --- -- -
~
8
1000
-- -
--- ---
---- - --- - ------
--- . --- ------- -- - -
---- --
-- -. ------.. - -- -.
o
8
10
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LOAN PERIOD IN YEARS
FIGURE m-5
SELF - LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
PER TON HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED ON .
PLANT COST OF 110,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
$2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
3 1600
IH
......
~ 1500 ----
...:I
8
1400
1300
1200
1100
-- aM - --- - ..---~ ---.. - -- -- - -
..-- ..--
..-- ---
-- - -.... - -- --- - --
- .. - -.. -- -------.. -----
---- --- .--- --..- - u--- --t --_.- -- -- --
INTEREST RATE
ON UNPAID BALANCE
--- -- --
-- ..-- - ---
---- - ---
-- -..._--- --
-_.. -
.. --- .. ---
-- -- - -
-- ... --.....
o
8
11
9
10
17
18
19
20
12
13
14
15
16
LOAN PERIOD IN YEARS
FIGURE m-6
SELF - LIQUIDATING YEARLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS
PER TON HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED ON
PLANT COST OF 512,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
2300 - r
I
?200 --!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
I
1 ,
I ~
I I
L__- . I.
I
I
$2700
2600
2500
2'.00 -- --
:noo
~ 2000
ILl
~
......
~ J 900
...1
~
g U~OO
170(\
1500
I
I
I
- I - --
I I
+ -I
i I
-1 1
I 'I
1
-or
1--
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
-I
iJ
I
1300 - i -
I I
1200 - -I - I
I I
o
R
12
13
LOAN PERiOD LW Y!AiS
14
15
lb
9
10
11
I
-I
I I
I I
- - -I r
I I
1" t
I I
- 1 ~
I J
I
I
- i
I
-I
I
I -- -
I I
-I - J ~ ---
I
I 1- I
INT~RES'l' RATE
ON UNPAID BALANCE
~ ---
I -
l---j
'- t
i
- - - - --_.-
17
18
20
19
FIGUR!: m r_"
SELF - LIQUIDATING YE ARL Y MORTGAGE PAYME NTS
PER TON HOUR PLANT INPUT CAPACITY. COSTS BASED ON -
PLANT COST OF SI~)OOO PER TON HOUR INPUT
CAPACITY AND EQUAL MONTHLY PAYMENTS
-------
APPENDIX TV
CLEANING PLANT UTILIZATION AND AMORTIZATION FUNCTIONS
Figure IV-l Cleaning Plant Utilization
Figure IV-2 Amortization Cost/Ton CI~anE'd Coal - Plant
Cost $3000 (7%)
Figure IV-3 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $3000 (8%)
FIgure IV-4 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $3000 (9%)
Figure IV- 5 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $5000 (7%)
Figure IV-6 Amortization Co.t/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $5000 (8%)
FigurE' IV-7 Amortization Cosl/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
C08t $5000 (9%)
Figure 1'1-8 Allorllzatlou Co.t/Tan Cleaned Coal - Plant
COfit $8000 (7%)
lilw~a JV-~ ~Ttization Cost/Tun Cleaned ~o.l - PlaA~
Cost $8000 (8%)
Figura IV-IO hilortization Cost/Tou Cleaned Coal - Plat
Cost $8000 (9%)
Figure IV-II Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $10.000 (7%)
Figure IV-12 Aao rtization Cos t l1:on C1ean~d Coal - Plaat
Cost $10,000 (8%)
Fiaure IV-13 ADortlzation Coat/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
C08t $10,000 (9%)
Filure IV-14 Amertization Cost/Ton Cleatted Coal - PlsRt
Cost $12,000 (7%)
Figure IV-I.5 Amortization Cost/Toft Cleaned Coal. - Plant
C08t $12,000 (8%)
Preceding page blank
175
Page
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
-------
APPENDIX IV (CONTINUED)
Figure IV-16 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $12,000 (9%)
Figure IV-I7 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $15,000 (7%)
Figure IV-18 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $15,000 (8%)
Figure IV-l9 Amortization Cost/Ton Cleaned Coal - Plant
Cost $15,000 (9%)
Page
193
194
195
196
-------
APPENDIX IV
CLEANING rLANT UTILIZATION AND AMORTIZATION FUNCTIONS
F:f.gure IV-l indicates the percent of cleaning plant utiliz3tion as
a function of operating hour~ per yec.lr (assuming plant operate~ at
capaci ty) .
Figures IV-2 through IV-IY :i.ndicate the range of cleaning p,lant
amortization costs per ton of coal cleaned dB a continual func~ion
of plant utilization, plant cost, interest rate (on unpaid balance),
and plant yield. All curves are based 011 the accepted Internal
Revenue Service ten-yea~ amortization peri(~.
-------
lOC
90
~o
5
...... 70
!;...
<.
N
.....
..... 60
~
;::.
z
~ SO
a:
.::: ~
..... 40
CD ~
~
......
r..;
~ :}o
U
10£
r:.; 20
c..
1G
C
30Q DAY£/YR ~ 20 ERS/JAl
260 DAYS/YR @ 20 r.RS!~Al
!
I
f--24~ D~YS:YK @ 20 H~S/I}AY
I .... "If'\ D' 'i. - Iv::> '" ~n "£1-' - iT'" "'-
I ... I-..J rt... ;,. j, n ~ .L. OJ Ill.......:>, 1.18--1 j,
i I
I
390 ~AyS/YL ~ 13 HAS/~AY
i I
260 J;'YS;Y~. '? 13 ERS,'DAY
t
I
1
I
I
I
j
I
I
i I
I ~- I
I . - I
; i ~
-r---+- .
! I I
I I
I I
1
~oao
2000
XJOO
5000
6000
.000
7000
:aTr.8r 81P-mJ.AI~" 1:I00i-$ PErt YIM
FIGURE nz:-J
CLEA'NING PLANT UTILIZATION
I
I
-t-
I
J
I
I
~
i
I
I
j
8000
J
-------
j 1 60
!
I
~ O.IG
,
~
...2
t.>
!;
! 8.&0
~
....
~
c
-.: z:
C8 c
f: 0.40
<;
~
r,..
I
u.20
I
---'---
,
-+
i
~
I
I
I
+-
I
-r-
ii'
I Ct'R\'E A - 100:; YIELD I
B - 901 YIELD .
C - 10:': YIELD
D - 70: YI£I..:J
E - 60% 1'IUD
I
I
I
-...,...--
I
I
- -+----+---- I
! i
-L--t-
: I
I I
~------i------t
. I
1:)
20
"5E)
6C
70
80
ao
Ite
PERCENT UTILIZAn~ OF C'~IHG PLAliI
FIGURE rl-2
AMORTIZAtiON COST I TON CLEANED COAt
FOR:
PLANT tOST - $ 3,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
I NTE~£St RATE - 7°io WAN PERIOD -10 YEARS
I
I
~-
I
I
~
I
~
I
I
90
-------
1.00
3
..;I
~O.IC
CI:'
o
~
~
:II;
<
~ 0.60
u
~
z;
o
i-'
.....
~ 0.40
.:5
z;
~
;-c
<
N
~ 0.20
i
o
,
I 1
~ ~ A - 100: YIELD I
I - ~O% YIE~
Ie - 80% YIEL~ I
D - i'az "lIELD .
E - il9!C YIELJ
,
I
I
I
~
I
i
I
r
-L-L
1:0
lO
~
ac
50
JO
60
1e
P8CEJPI aTI1.IZ'A'II8Iii OF C!.EMIIIIG PlANT
FtGUfiE rl-3
AMO~TIZATt(HI COST I TMI CtEA~.ED COAL
FOR:
PLMT cosr - $ 3,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
tNTEREST RATE- 8% LOAN PERIOD-IOYEARS
90
-------
I LM
~ O.~
!
CD
....
o
~ O.6Q
t:
f-
er;
c
to;
!
;:
<
'"
f-
a
~
Q.40
&.2£1
o
J
I 1
1 j
I I
I !
I
jam. A - HH '!IELD :
. - .. nEW) I
c - 101 Y:Eli:LII I
I p - JOZ YIELD
E - . 6IfII YIELD i
1 I
! ; I
'i:
+------+------~ - - - -- -t---
! I I !
.
40 59 60
PEJ.g.NT . ~'!H:.I2A"II~ Of' CLlMING PLANT
tlG Uftt 11"- 4
A80tt'TIZATION COST I TON CLEAN ED COAL
flOR :
PLbNT COST - '$ 3,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAP.ACITY
INTEREST RATE - 9% LOAN PERIOD -10 YEARS
10
20
30
I
!
i
I
I
1
I I
~ I
I I'
r--
I
; I
1-
I
-+
70
80
90
-------
j
~
=-
N
~
! 1.50
! 1.H f
z.
~
t D.~
1!I.'oii
I
I
1
1--
j
-i
I
I
i
I
-I
I t
I I-!-
CBaWE A - ho.z:IiU I
: I - 90% IIl~ I
I C - 801 YIELD
i p - 70% YIEL& I
1 [ - ~ '0% Yl!~ t--
. I
I
i
I
I
~
I
I
G
I
I
I
1
I
--r-
10
8Q
9C
lOO
20
30
40
60
lij
PDaeDn' UTILIZATIC!>N OF C~G PI.A1fI
FIGURE m-5
A'IMORTIZATION COST I TOil CLEANED COAL
fFOR:
PLA-NT COST - $ 5,000 PER TON "OUR INPUT CAPACITY
-------
,
~
~
u 1.60
!
,
~ 1.1!I
.. ....
!
c..I ;..'
~
I Q.iQ
~
QI:
0
~
o. toO
I I
H
~!
I I
I '
I !
! !
I
I
I
I
I I
I ! I
I ! f
1~.-yU~
1 B - 90% YIELD
(- 80% YIELD
»- 791 YII£U
I - 60% YIELD
I
, I
-+-~
I
I i
I :
; !
!- l
I I
i-+
i
i
I
~
I
I
o
5£1
7e
60
..0
10
20
)6
PZRCENT t.iILlZAniJR oJF CLEANING PLANT
I
I
I
.-+-
8CI
90
FIGUR.E ~-6
A.ORTIZATION COST I TO'N CLEANED COA L
FOR:
PLANT COST - $ 5,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 8 010 LOAN PERIOD-IO YEARS
-------
1.80
......
iI!I
~ 1."
..:I
g
~ 1. 40
u
~ 1. 20
;:j
,.J
t)
~ 1.00
I
I
t
ClJlWE A - 100% YIE1..» i
. - 90% YIEIJ> -I
C - 89% YI~&6 I
,
D - 7~% YIELD I
.1
CD
...
1&
o
i-'
-- 0.80
foO
~
tS
~ Q.6O
I
1
~
£ - 60% YI&L~ !
~
~
~ 0.40
~
i 0.2'0
(}
10
70
80
20
30
50
bO
4G
PElleEn' l'fiUZAIION \JF c-LE-~ING PLANT
FIGURE rl-7
AffemT~ZATt(}H COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
~ANT COST - $ 5,000 PER ~TON HOtfi ftPtJT CAPACITY
~TEREST RATE - 9% LOAN PERIOD -10 YEARS
I
I
I-
I
I
90
-------
%.
j2.CO
o
e.
~
!;.J 1. 60-
;z;
~
...:I
U
!i.,
o
ii
UI~
z
E 1.20
......
~
t;
~
50.80
~
i>;
o
~
0.40
o
I
. !
I I
I CIJR\'E A - 10D% YIE..D :
. 1ii - J&-% YIELD i
C - 20% YI!1.D .
;) - 70% HELD ;
E - 60% vTEID .
---4--
!
- I
!
--+
i
I
I
I
!
-------...---
70
10
1.0 50 60
UCENT UTILIZATION OF CLEANING PLAN'!'
F~GURE JY-8
AMORTIZA'ffO'N COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOrt:
Pl*"NT CO'ST - $8,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 7010 LOAN PERIOD-IO YEARS
20
-------
2.40
~ 2.00
<;
-I
~
~
u 1. 60
z
;J
..J
~
~
.t 1. 20
C»
en
.....
:J;
8
:It
e
~ 0.80
s
....
c-
~
~
<
0.40
~
I
o
1
I
I
!
CURVE A - 1001 YIELD I
B - 90% YIELD :
C - 80% YIELD I
D - 70% YIELD ,II
E - '01 YIELD I
I I
i
,
I
--+-
10
I
I
'-
20
70
30
40 SO 60
PERCEN'I uTILIZATION .JF CLEANDIG PLANT
FIGURE m - 9
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST -$8.000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 8 %. LOAN PER 100 - 10 YEARS
I
1-
!
I
I
I
I
!
,
8C
90
-------
2'-
z...
;- 2.iJ
~
I
- 1. 60
J
u
e
~ 1. 20
t:
ii r<
:..., se
t5
~
;;C 0.89
:-:
...
c:
~ ~
<" 0.40
I
o 10
I
I I I
-bJ' I: I
~ i
----+-
~ A - lOO~ Y:LELD I I
I B - !;O't YIELD:
" c: - '0% YIELD I !
~ - 7.1% ~.IELD I I
-I E - tnrELO 1- I r---
! i ! I I
-~+!
; I , !
! I I i
: I
I
t-
I
20
!
i
I
- I
30
90
L
7C
!IO
41) 5C 60
PLRCENT U'l"!lIZATICN JF rILANING PLANT
FIGURE Dr-IO
AMORTIZATIO-N COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST - $ 8,000 PER TON ~OUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 9°10 LOAN PERIOD-tO YEARS
-------
i
:h.oo
g
I
:.>
~l.iO
(.)
t
~
Cii
co
.... i.20
8'2
o
t.J
~
~
t-4
~ €I.
~
2.".
2.48
!
t
I
!
!
I
I
I CI8vr: A - 100% YIELD I
I - 96% YIELD I
C - 80% YIELD i
D - 70% YIELD \
E - 6:;:: YIELD I
-I
f
I
I
.).!.!)
--1----- !
I
I
+-
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
i
I
~
!
I
I
!
I-
I
i
I
I
I
I
+
I
I
50 60
PERC:Ez,,"!' t-rILIZATION CJF CLEANINC. PLAN'I
FIGURE :Ii:-II
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLfANEO COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST - $10,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 7°10 LOAN PERIOO -10 YEARS
70
-------
~ ..fiI
2.4ICI
I I..
I
~ 1.60
tJ
~
,
I 1.:;JO
G8
U)
z
3
~
N
i 0.80
'.:)
::Ii:
"I(
0.4(1
I
I
I
j
~
I
I -l I
+-1
I I I
I I
I I
I I
t. j I
GLJR~ A - 100% '\: lEL» I
. - 90% YIELD
I C - IN YIJ:LD
1 J) - JQ& YI&8 i
I I: -.. ... YIIa I
I '
I I
! i
t
11
40
50
61)
J&
Je
i
I
I
~
I
!
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
-I
I
i
-l
I
I
\
I
,-
90
100
79
.
PE'lCENT I'IILl'ZATIQN OF CLEANING PLAIiT
FIGURE :m: 12
MtOftflZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PL,tNT, COST - $ 10,000 PER TON HOUJt INPUT CAPACITY
-------
3.00~:
~ 2.50
~
o
S
~
o
u
I Z.OO
::
"'"
CO!
z:
c
....
..... 1. 50
us
o
~
u
z
3
~
f::i 1.00
g
%
<
c.so
o
~ I
+-+-
I -!
I
I
-I
I
1
i
Ci8lE A - 100% YIElD I
B - 90% YIELD !
C - 10% nELD .
. - 70% YIELD "
E - 60% YIELD
I .
. !
~
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
. I
. I
+----1 -
. I
!
! I
I
I I . 1
I I
.1 I I I
10 20 30 ..0 SCi 60 70
30
90
PER~" UTILIZATION OF C~~lNG ?L.\NT
Ft6flR£ ]i;f 3
AMORTIZATIO
-------
3.50
3.00
U)
~
g 2.50
~
8
~
d 2.00
~
1&0
o
z
~
...
8 1.50
z
o
g
....
...
ex::
~ 1.00
0.50
c.
CURVE A - 100% YIELD
B - 90% YIELD
C - 80% YIELD
D - 70% YIELD
E - 60% YIELD
10
20
70
80
30
50
40
60
PERCENT UTILIZATIOJi1 OF CLIWIIHG PLAHT
FIGURE :m.: 14
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST -$12,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 7 ok LOAN PERIOD -10 YEARS
90
-------
3.50
3.00
,.....
U2
3 2.50
,..J
0
s.
~
0
u
3 2.00
,..J CURVE A - 100% YIELD
u B - 90% YIELD
roo C - 80% YIELD
o
z D - 70% YIELD
~ E - 60% YIELD
1.50
~
en
~ 8
N
z
S
~
~ 1.00
~
.
0
?i
0.50
o
10
20
30
40 50 60
PERCENT UTILIZATION OF CLEANING PLANT
70
FIGURE ~ 15
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST -$12,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE - 8% LOAN PERI OD-IO YEARS
80
90
-------
3.50
3.00
....
~
~
~
8
"" 2. 50
~
o
u
CQ
(III
~
IzJ
~
U
1&0 2.00
o
z
o
!::
i-<
w
o
u 1. 50
z
g
~
N
H
i-<
a:
o
~ 1.00
0.50
o
CURVE A - 100% YIELD
B - 90% YIELD
C - 80% YIELD
D - 70% YIELD
E - 60% YIELD
10
20
30 40 50 60
PERCENT UTILIZATION OF CLEANING PLliNT
90
100
70
80
FIGURE m-16
AMORTIZATION COST 1 TON CLEAN ED' COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST -$12,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
-------
4.20
3.60
~ 3.00
(5
e.
~
~
u
U)
~
~ 2.40
...1
u
....
o
;z:
o
E-<
:: 1. 80
en
o
u
;z:
o
....
~
N
i:: 1.20
!II:
~
0.60
o
CURVE A - 100% YIELD
B - 90% YIELD
C - 80% YIELD I
D - 70% YIELD .
E - 60% YIELD
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
8(f
PERCENT UTILIZ4TION OF CLEANING PLANT
FIGURE :m.:17
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST -$15,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE- 7°1.. LOAN PERIOD-IOYEARS
90
-------
4.20
3.60
(I)
'"
::s 3.00
...:I
o
8
:c1
o
u
CQ
UI
32.40
...:I
U
foo
~
Z
o
Eo<
-1.80
Eo<
(I)
o
u
z
o
M
~
~1.20
t
~
0.60
o
CURVE A - 100% YIELD
B - 90% YIELD
C - 80% YIELD
D - 70% YIELD
E - 60% YIELD
10
20
50
70
80
30
40
60
PERCENT UTILIZATION OF CLEANING PLANT
FIGURE __:m.I~
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEAN ED COAL
FOR:
PLANT COST -$15,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE- 8% LOAN PERIOD-IOVEARS
90
-------
4.20
3.60
3
~
o
e 3.00
:i!
o
u
CD
en
~
~
u 2.40
'"'
o
:z:
o
!::
E-<
fI)
8 1. 80
:z:
S
E-<
<
:::1
E-<
'"
i 1.20
CURVE A - 100% YIELD
B - 90% YIELD
C - 80% YIELD I
.D - 70% YIELD
E - 60% YIELD I
0.60
o
80
90
10
20
40 50 60
PERCENT UTILIZATION OF CLEANING PLANT
FIGURE Ii"-19
AMORTIZATION COST I TON CLEANED COAL
FOR:
PLA NT COST - $ 15,000 PER TON HOUR INPUT CAPACITY
INTEREST RATE -9 % LOAN PERIOD-IO YEARS
30
70
-------
APPENDIX V
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
Page
CASE I MINE - ILLINOIS NO. 6 BED, FRANKLIN COUNTY 198
CASE II MINE - ILLINOIS NO. 6 BED, MONTGOMERY COUNTY 201
CASE III MINE - ILLINOIS NO. 5 BED, FULTON COUNTY 202
CASE IV MINE - WEST KENTUCKY NO.9, UNION COUNTY 203
CASE V MINE - PITTSBURGH BED, GREENE COUNTY, PA. 205
CASE VI MINE - OHIO NO. 8 BED, HARRISON AND BELMONT
COUNTIES 206
Figure V-I
Operation and Maintenance Cost
199
-------
APPEND IX V
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COST ESTIMATES
Information contained in the 1965 Paul Weir study was examined as
a basis for developing current 0 & M cleaning plant costs attributable
to a ton of cleaned coal. As indicated in the main body of this report,
current anticipated 0 & M costs for various plant yields were derived
from available 1965 data. The projections from the 1965 data follow.
Figure V-I (also in main body of report) indicates the anticipated 0 & M
costs for plants of the variety believed required to clean the more
readily cleanable coals. The indicated maximum deviations (~s) are the
maximum anticipated 0 & M cost variations that may arise due to varia-
tions in plant characteristics and management concepts.
CAS E I
MINE - ILLINOIS NO.6 BED, FRANKLIN COUNTY
(Cost estimates based on available data)
Date constructed
$2,560,000
700 t.p.h. raw coal feed
1960 (completed)
Heavy media process for coarse
coal, Deister tables for fine
sizes, and thermal dryers
Plant cost
Plant capacity
Plant type
Original plant cost per ton
hour input capacity
Projected current (1970) plant
cost per ton hour input capacity. $6,570
(Based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics information
on hourly wage rates for building contractors)
$3,660
\.
-------
0.80
-
~ 0.70
g
~
tJ
~ 0.60
fat
0
~ 0.50
~
~
~
...
en
8
J: 0.40
04
0
~
S
0.30
0.90
0.20
0.10
100
90
80
CLEAN PLANT YIELD - PERCENT
70
FIGURE Jl-I
OPERATION AND MAINTENAt«:E COST
-------
1965 0 & M Cost
If coal is washed to produce 90% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling).
Refuse handling
Total
If coal is washed to produce 80% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling)
(=0.344 x .90/.80) .
Refuse handling (=0.025 x 2) .
Total
If coal is washed to produce 70% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling)
(=0.344 x .90/.70) .
Refuse handling (=0.025 x 3) .
Total
. $0.344/ton
0.025/ton
$0.369/ton
. $0.387/ton
0.050/ton
$0.437/ton
$0.442/ton
0,075/ton
$0.5l7/ton
1970 0 & M Cost
(Based on 1970 hourly earnings as compared to 1965 houly earnings.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At 90% yield;:;; 0.369 x 4.47/3.49 = $0.472/ton
At 80% yield = 0.437 x 4.47/3.49 = $0.558/ton
At 70% yield = 0.517 x 4.47/3.49 = $0.660/ton
-------
CAS E II
MINE - ILLINOIS NO.6 BED, MONTGOMERY COUNTY
(Cost estimates based on available data)
Plant Cost .
Plant capacity
Date constructed
Plant type .
. $2,200,000
. 800 t.p.h. raw coal feed
. Not known - older plant
. Uses a combination of wet
washing and air tables for
cleaning. Plant is not
capable of cleaning coal at
densities lower than 1.60.
Original plant cost per ton
hour input capacity
. $2,750
1965 0 & M Cost
If coal is washed to produce 90% yield
Plant 0 & M cost' (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling.
. $0.2720
0.0173
Total
$0.2893/ton
If coal is washed to produce 80% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling.
. $0.3060
0.0346
Total
$0.3406
Due to equipment type, this plant is not capable of cleaning at
lower densities and for the characteristics of coal processed, 80% yield
appears to be cleaning limit.
1970 0 & M Cost
(Based on 1970 hourly earnings as compared to 19.65 hourly
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At 90% yield = 0,289 x 4.47/3.49 = $0.37/ton
earnings.
At 80% yield = 0.341 x 4.47/3.49
201
=
-------
CAS E III
MINE - ILLINOIS NO.5 BED, FULTON COUNTY
(Cost estimates based on available data)
Plant cost
Plant capacity
. $2,700,000
. 800 t.p.h. raw coal feed
. Not known
Date constructed.
Plant type
. Basically Baum jigs for cleaning.
Contains two jigs for 6" x 0,
one for 2" x 0, and a middling
jig. The 1/4" x 0 is rewashed
in a Rheolavour launder system.
The 3/4" x 1/8" product is
heat-dried.
Original plant cost per ton
hour input capacity
. $3,380
1965 0 & M Cost
If coal is-washed to produce 90% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling)
Refuse handling.
Total
If coal is washed to produce 80% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling)
Refuse handling.
Total
If coal is washed to produce 70% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling)
Refuse handling.
Total
202
.$0.222/ton
. 0.017/ton
$O.239/ton
.$0.250/ton
. O.033/ton
$0.283/ton
.$0.286/ton
. O.050/ton
-------
1970 0 & M Cost
(Based on 1970 hourly earnings as compared to 1965 hourly earnings.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At 90% yield = 0.239 x 4.47/3.49
=
$0.306/ton
At 80% yield = 0.283 x 4.47/3.49
=
$0.352/ton
At 70% yield = 0.336 x 4.47/3.49
=
$0.42/ton
CAS E I V
MINE - WEST KENTUCKY NO.9 BED, UNION COUNTY
(Cost estimates based on available data)
Date constructed.
. $1,850,000
. 1,000 t.p.h. raw coal feed
. Not known
Plant cost.
Plant capacity
Plant type.
Basically consists of two
parallel Baum type jigs, and
a smaller piston type jig for
cleaning 28 mesh x O. No
heat dryers.
Original plant cost per ton
hour input capacity.
. $1,850
1965 0 & M Cost
If coal is washed to produce 90% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling.
. $0.152/ton
0.033/ton
Total
$0.185/ton
-------
If coal is washed to produce 80% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling)
Refuse handling.
. $0.170/ton
0.067/ton
Total
$0.237/ton
If coal is washed to produce 70% yield
Total
. $O.195/ton
O.IOO/ton
$0.295/ton
Plant 0 & M cost (less refus~ handling)
Refuse handling.
1970 0 & M Cost
(Based on 1970 hourly earnings as compared to 1965 hourly earnings.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At 90% yield = $0.237/ton
At 80% yield = $0.304/ton
At 70% yield = $0.378/ton
-------
CAS E V
MINE - PITTSBURGH BED. GREENE COUNTY. PA.
(Cost estimates based on available data)
Date constructed
. $3.500,000
. 500 t.p.h. raw coa+ feed
. Completed 1964 or 1965
. Employs separator screens,
sink and float screens,
flotation cells, Deister
tables, magnetite separators,
and heat dryers.
l'lant cost
Plant capacity.
Plant type
Original plant cost per ton hour
input capacity.
$7,000
Projected current (1970) plant cost
per ton hour input capacity. . $10,000 to $11,300
(Based on U.s. Bureau of Labor Statistics information on hourly
wage rates for building contractors.)
1965 0 & M Costs
If coal is washed to produce 90% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling
. $0.380/ton
0.035/ton
Total
$0.415/ton
If coal is washed to produce 80% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling
. $0.428/ton
O.070/ton
Total
$0.498/ton
-------
If coal is washed to produce 70% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling).
Refuse handling
. $0.488/ton
0.105/ton
$0.593/ton
1970 0 & M Cost
(Based on 1970 hourly earnings as compared to 1965 hourly earnings.
Source: U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At 90% yield = $0.532/ton
At 80% yield = $0.638/ton
At 70% yield = $0.76/ton
CAS E V I
MINE - OHIO NO.8 BED, HARRISON AND BELMONT COUNTIES
(Cost estimates based on available data)
Date constructed
. $7,500,000
. 1500 t.p.h. raw coal feed
. Not known
Plant cost
Plant capacity
Plant type
. Essentially consists of Baum
type jigs, chance dense media
cones, Deister tab1e~, and
heat dryers.
Original plant cost per ton hour
input capacity
. $5,000
1965 0 & M Cost
If coal is washed to produce 90% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling).
Refuse handling
. $0.277/ton
0.018/ton
Total
$O.295/ton
-------
If coal is washed to produce 80% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling.
. $0.3l1/ton
0.036/ton
Total
$0.347/ton
If coal is washed to produce 70% yield
Plant 0 & M cost (less refuse handling) .
Refuse handling.
. $0.355/ton
0.054/ton
Total
$0.409/ton
1970 0 & M Cost
(Based on 1970 hourly earnings as compared to 1965 hourly earnings.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
At 90% yield = $O.377/ton
At 80% yield = $0.444/ton
At 70% yield = $0.523/ton
-------
CASE 1A
CASE 1B
CASE 2
CASE 3
CASE 4
CASE 5
CASE 6
CASE 7
CASE 8
CASE 9
CASE 10
CASE 11
CASE 12
CA$E 13
CASE 14
CASE 15
CASE 16
CAS~ 17
APPENDIX VI
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS CASE STUDIES
Page
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD., TO BALTIMORE, MD.
212
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD., TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
215
GARRETT COUNTY, MD., TO BALTIMORE, MD.
218
GARRETT COUNTY, MD., TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
221
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MD., TO BALTIMORE, MD.
224
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO, TO CLEVELAND, OHID
227
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO, TO YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
230
HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO, TO DETROIT, MICHIGAN
233
MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO, TO YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
236
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PA., TO INDIANA, PA.
239
ARMSTR:ONG COUNTY, PA. (MINE MOUTH)
242
BUTLER COUNTY, PA., TO ASTABULA, OHIO
245
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA., TO PITTSBURGH, PA.
248
LAWRENCE COUNTY, PA., TO PITTSBURGH, fA.
251
CAMBRIA COUNTY, PA., TO BOSTON, MASS.
254
SUMMERSET COUNTY, PA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
257
CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PA., TO NEWARK, N. J.
260
JEFFERSON COUNTY, PA., TO DETROIT, MICH.
2.63
CASE 18A PRESTON COUNTY, W. VA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
266
CASE IS! PRESTON COUNTY, W. VA., TO NE~~, N. J.
269 .
Pre-ceding page blaftt
-------
CASE 19A PRESTON COUNTY, W. VA., TO BALTIMORE, MD.
Page'
272
CASE 19B PRESTON COUNTY, W. VA., TO ROCHESTER, N. Y.
CASE 20
CASE 21
CASE 22
CASE 23
CASE 24
CASE 25
CASE 26
CASE 27
CASE 28
CASE 29
CASE 30
275
PRESTON COUNTY, W. VA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
278
GRANT COUNTY, W. VA., TO WASHINGTON, D.C.
281
COLL~IANA COUNTY, OHIO, TO CHICAGO, ILL.
284
CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PA., TO CHICAGO, ILL.
287
BELL COUNTY, KY., TO CINCINNATI, OHIO
290
LOGAN COUNTY, W. VA., TO COLUMBUS, OHIO
293
VIGO COUNTY, IND., TO INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
296
CALDWELL COUNTY, KY., TO INDIANAPOLIS, IND.
299
CALDWELL COUNTY, KY., TO CHICAGO, ILL.
302
FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILL., TO ST. LOUIS, MO.
305
FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILL., TO CHICAGO, ILL.
308
-------
APPENDIX VI
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS CASE STUDIES
This appendix analyzes the cost/benefit factors associated
with thirty potential clean coal source/destination cases. These
detailed analyses support the summary presentations in Section 7.0.
-------
CASE II 1A
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location ALLEGANY COUNTY , MARYLAND
1.2 Consumer Location BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
1.3 Raw Coal: 20.3 % Ash
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 13 . 1 % As 11
1.13 % Total Sulfur
1.06 % Total Sulfur
11,200 BTUs/pound
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
81 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.43/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.53 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . .$ 0.93 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.18 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.41 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case lA Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.95 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 2.20 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 2.43 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$s.OO/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
.$ 0.34 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
.$ 0.40 /ton
. $ 0 . 47 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.35 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOe/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
"
0.09 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.15 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . . $ 0.03 / ton
4.6 Es timated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . . $ 0.14 / ton
-------
Case 1A Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
. $1.03 / ton
. $ 1.09 / ton
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
........
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . .
. . . $ 1.16 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ O. 77 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . $ 0.83 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.90 /ton
6.0 SUHMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
Q)
='
...-4
CtS-
:.> c::
o
~4J
co
o ~
U <1J
0.
~~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.92 0.86 0.79
$5.00 --- 1.11 1.04
$6.00 --- --- 1.27
6.2 For unit train shipment
<1J
::s
~
Cd-
:> c::
o
~4J
'"
o ~
U QJ
0.
!-
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.18 1.12 1.05
$5.00 --- 1.37 1.30
$6.00 --- --- 1.53
-------
CASE II 1B
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1.2 Consumer Location
20.3 % Ash
1.13 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
13.1 % Ash
1.06 % Total Sulfur
1. 5 Heat Con ten t 0 f Cleaned Coal: 11 t 200 BTUs / pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
81 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.43/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.53 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of. cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0.93 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.18 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.41/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case IB Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.95 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.20 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.43 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.D.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ O. 34 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. $ 0.40 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. $ 0 . 47 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . . $ 0.35 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ 0.80~/ton
mil e . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.08 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (~ased
on ash disposal cost :I: $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.15 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6,.7). . . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . . $ 0.03 / ton
4.6 Es timated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . . $ 0.14 /ton
-------
Case 1B Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
.$1.03 /ton
. $ 1.09 / ton
........
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
. $ 1.16 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost i~ -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ O. 76 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 0.82 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0.89 / ton
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
..-4
CU.......
> =
o
..-4~
co
o $-I
U QJ
Co
)~
~
F.G.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.92 0.86 0.79
$5.00 --- 1.11 1.04
$6.00 --- --- 1.27
6.2 For unit train shipment
QJ
;::1
..-4
ro.......
::> =
o
..-4~
cu
o $-I
U QJ
0..
:J:~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.19 1.13 1.06
$5.00 --- 1.38 1.3]
$6.00 --- --- 1. 5~
-------
CASE II 2
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
GARRETT COUNTY, MARYLAND
1.2 Consumer Location
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
0.96 % Total Sulfur
1 . 3 Raw Co al :
12.0 % Ash
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
8.0 % Ash
0.64 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
12,000 BTDs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Qtllization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5--3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) . $ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0.45/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.55/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 0.67/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 1ax :Burden (Figure ';-6). . . . $ 0.05 /ton
-------
Case 2 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.33 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.43 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.55 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
, . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.19 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 0 . 23 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
........
. $ 0 .27 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . . $ 0.2,0 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOC/ton
m1..1e.. .. . .. ...... $
. ... .
0.07 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash di&posal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost II: $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ O.OB /ton
4.4 Saving in irinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saYing (Table 6-3). . .. 0.10 /ton
-------
Case 2
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . . $ 0.60 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . .$ 0.64 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
.$ 0.68 /ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
I
. . . . .
. $ 0.47 / ton'
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.........
. $ 0.51 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
........
.$ 0.55 /ton
6 .0 S L1-1MARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
QJ
='
~
10..-.
:> s:
o
1"""'44J
CtS
o ...
U Q)
~
)......"
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.73 0.69 0.65
$5.00 --- 0.79 0.7~
$6.00 --- --- 0.81
6.2 For unit train shipment
~
.-I
~-
:> c:::
o
.-I~
CtS
o ...
U
-------
CASE II 3
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
GARRETT COUNTY, MARYLAND
1.1 Mine Location
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1.2 Consumer Location
14.4 % Ash
1.14 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
9.6 % Ash
0.82 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: '11.700 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
89 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.39/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$--Q.A~_/ton
2.3' "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . .$ 0.50/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.62/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . ~ . .$ 0.74 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05/ton
-------
Case 3 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 1.40 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 1.52 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . .
. . .$ 1.64 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIAf,ED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.23 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.28 / ton
. $ 0 . 32 I ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . . $ 0.24 / ton
Saving on unit train shipmeht @ 0.80c;:/ton
mile. .0" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.07 /tori.
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.10 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cos t (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ 0.01 / ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . . $ 0.02 / ton
4.6 Es timated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . . $ 0.12 I ton
-------
Case 3
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . . $ O. 72 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . .
. . . $ O. 77 I ton
. $ O. 81 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.........
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
6 .0 S U~n1ARY
$5.00 I ton, benefit is . '. .
. . . . .
. . $ 0.55 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.........
.$ 0.60 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.........
.$ 0.64 /ton
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
Q)
='
~
cu..-...
> ~
o
~.6oJ
cu
o ~
U QJ
Po
~'-"
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 .' 0.68 0.63 0.59
$5.00 --- 0.75 0.71
$6.00 --- --- 0.83
6.2 For unit train shipment
~
.-f
cu-
:> ~
o
~+J
cu
o ~
U Q)
Po
)'-"
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.85 0.80 0.76
$5.00 --- 0.92 0.88
$6.00 --- --- 1.00
-------
CASE II 4
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
ALLEGANY COUNTY, MARYLAND
1.2 Consumer Location
BALTIMORE.. MARYLAND
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
11 - 9 % Ash
10.6 % Ash
1.13 % Total Sulfur
1.07 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
11,600 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
97 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure S-3). . . . . . ..$ 0.36/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure S-4).$ 0.40/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.l3/ton
$S.OO/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.15 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 0.19/ton
2.4 Cleaning :Plant Tax :Burden (Figure S-6). . . . $ O.OS/ton
-------
Cas e 4
Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . .
. . . .$ 0.94 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . .
. $ 0.96 / ton
. $ 1.00 / ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . .
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.06 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. .$ 0.08 /ton
. . $ 0 .09 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment.
. . . . .$
0.07 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ 0.80~/ton
m1°le . .. ....... ."'" $
. .
0.02 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.03 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ -0- /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.05/ton
-------
Case 4
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
.$0.22 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$0.24 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . . $ 0.25 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.17 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.19 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ O. 20 /to~
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
~
cd,....
:> t::
o
~~
cd
o ~
U QJ
C.
~......,
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.72 0.70 0.69
$5.00 ...--- 0.72 0.71
$6.00 --- --- 0.75
6.2 For unit train shipment
QJ
:s
.....
cd,....
:> t::
o
.....~
cd
o ).I
U QJ
Q.
:11'-'
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 n 77 0.75 0.74
$5.00 --- 0.77 0.76
$6.00 --- --- 0.80
-------
CASE II 5
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
1.2 Consumer Location
CLEVELAND, OHIO
10.39 % Ash
2.34 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
4.68% Ash
0.62 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12.400 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" .raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0.44 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.55/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 0.67/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant ~ax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ O.OS /ton
-------
Case 5 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
\o.'hen value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.32 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.43 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.55 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . .
. . .$ 0.27 /ton
$7.00/ton"benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ O. 32 / ton
. $ 0.38 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
........
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . . .$
0.21 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOC/ton
mil e . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.05 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.12 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . . $ 0.02 / ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance savina (Table 6-3). . . $ 0.14 /ton
-------
Case 5
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
.$0.77 /ton
. $ 0 . 82 I ton
........
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 0 . 88 I ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 0.61 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. . $ 0.66 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. . . .$0.72 /ton
6.0 SUHMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
'.1 For single car shipment
~
~
~".....
> =
o
~+J
cu
o ~
U Q)
~
)-.J
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.55 0.50 0.44
$5.00 --- 0.61 0.55
$6.00 --- --- 0.67
'.2 lor unit train shipment
8
~
"'".....
> =
o
~+J
..
o ~
U Q.)
c:1.
!~
F.O.!. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
-
$4.00 0.71 0.66 0.60
$5.00 --- 0.77 0.71
$6.00 --- --- 0.83
-------
CASE II 6
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
1.2 Consumer Location
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
1.3 Raw Coal:
9.32 % Ash
3.90
% Ash
2.39 % Total Sulfur
0.99
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
% Total Sulfur
1.5 ,Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:, 12,400 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield = 85
%
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . . $ 0.40 / ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.50 /ton
3.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ O. 70 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 0.88 /ton
$6.00!ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.07 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 7ax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
Cas e 6
Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 1. 66 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 1. 84 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 2.03 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
I
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.26 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ O. 31 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ O. 36 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K.
Figure 6-2)
Saving on truck shipment. .
. . ~ . . . $ 0.06
/ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost - $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.11 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.02 '/ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.12 /ton
-------
Case 6 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
Total benefits with truck shipment 'rate when F.O.B.
raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.58 /ton
6.0 SUMMARY
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.63 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . .$ 0.68 /ton
. . . . .
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
For truck shipment
~
r-4
M.......
> d
o
r-4~
M
o ~
u cu
~
)~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.08 1.03 0.98
$5.00 --- 1.21 1.16
$6.00 --- --- 1.35
-------
. CAS E II 7
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
HARRISON COUNTY, OHIO
1.2 Consumer Location
DETROIT. MICHIGAN
10.44% Ash
2.30 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
4.07% Ash
1.09 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12~400 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
,85 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant UtIlization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . ..$ 0.40/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) . $ 0.50 / ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0.70 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0 . 88 I ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.07,/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 'or ax :Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ Q.06lton
-------
Case 7' Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.66 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.84 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.03 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
. . $ 0.30 / ton
. . $ 0 . 36 / ton
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . .
. . $ 0 .42 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment . . . . .$ 0.29 /ton
Saving on,. unit train shipment @ O.SOc/ton
mile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.13 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.14 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02/ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.14/ton
-------
Case 7
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
.5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.91 /ton
"
() - c , c .'y
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . :'-.$ O.~97 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ 1 ~ 03 /ton
, ;
,
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit, is'. ',' . ..... " ''''0..$ 0.75 /ton
.,\; -1 " ,. ~\.. I)j\..~ ( 'I~ '
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
.. 1ft . 8... ~~ (""\ ~ 1 r ~ 8.. .
$7.00/ton, ~be'nefit"'is .~ . . . . . . .
. .$ 0.81 /ton
. .$ 0.87 /ton
6 . 0 SU~fMARY
Differe:n,tia,l Cost,,{Cleaning Cost.s less B,enefits,) per t',To1h',,\,~
6..1. 'oJ FO,r' single car tshipmel1t
QJ~
=''''' ,
.-4
ctt.......
:> ~r
o
.-4'~
ctt
o ~
C,,) QJ
"Clc
) ',-,
~'
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
" (per. ,tQIl): ~
$5.00 $6.00 $ 7 . O~,
.'
$4.00 0.75 O.6~ Q.63.
$5.00 --- 0.87 0.,81
,1 -,, ", ,
$6.00 (.7-- / --- . ~ (.. 1. ,Op
- ,
6.2 For unit train shipment
QJ
='
r-I
.,.......
> d
o
I"'-f~
'"
o ~
U I)
Po
)'-'
~
r.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
. (per:" tp'n).
$.5.00 $.6 . 00 $7.00
$4.00 0.91 0.85 0.81
$5.00 --- 1.03 0.97
$6.00 --- --- 1.16
, I
-------
CASE fJ 8
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO
1.1 Mine Location
1.2 Consumer Location
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
7.64 % Ash
3.19 % Ash
2.67 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.04 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: I 12,500 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield = 86
%
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . . $ 0.40 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.49 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.65 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.82 Iton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.98 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case 8 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton. differential cost is . . . . . . . . $1.60 /ton
$5.00/ton. differential cost is . . . . . . . . $1. 77 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$1.93 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-l). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0 . 21 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . .
. .$0.26 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.30 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K.
Figure 6-2)
Saving on truck shipment. . . . . . . . $ 0.05 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost. $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.09 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.02 . /ton
4.6 Estiaated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.12 /ton
-------
Case
8 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
Total benefits with truck shipment rate when F.O.B.
raw coal cost is -
6.0 SUMMARY
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .$ 0.50 /ton
.$ 0.55 /ton
. . . . .
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.59 /ton
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
For truck shipment
8
....
«1..-
> d
o
........
«I
o ~
u cu
~
)'-"
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.10 1.05 1.01
$5.00 --- 1.22 1.18
$6.00 --- --- 1.34
-------
CASE II 9
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
ABMSnONG COUNTY, PENNSYfLVANIA
1.1 Mine Location
1.2 Consumer Location
INDIANA, PENNSYLVANIA
1. 3 Raw Coal:
12.99 % Ash
2.53 % Total Sulfur
6 .10 % Ash
1.02 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1. 5 ,Heat Con ten t 0 f Cleaned Coal:' 12 I 200. B'EUs / pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Y.ield = 87
%
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000' per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning PlaJ;lt Utilization: 260' days./yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.40 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.48 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure. 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is
. . . .
. . $ O. 60 / ton
.$ 0.75 /ton
. $5.00/ton, additional cost is .
. . . .
$6.00/ton, additional cost is
. . . . .
.$ 0.90 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant !ax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.05 !ton
-------
iI, . ./ ,
Case 9~. '~Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $1.53 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 1.68 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 1.83 /ton
I
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
........
. $ 0 . 32 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . $ O. 39 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.45 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on truck shipment. . . . . . . . $ 0.08 / ton
4.3 Saving in ash 4~sposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost :II: $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.15 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-1). . . .$ 0.03 '/ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table '-3). . .$ 0.14 /ton
-------
Case 9 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
6.0 SUMMARY
Total benefits with truck shipment rate when F.O.B.
raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . .$ 0.74 /ton
. $ O. 81 / ton
. . . . . .
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.87 /ton
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
For truck shipment
~
...-4
tU",
> =
o
...-4...,
tU
o ,..
t..) eLl
c:1.
:.~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.79 0.72 0.66
$5.00 --- 0.87 0.81
$6.00 --- --- 0.96
-------
CASE /) 10
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
1.2 Consumer Location
ARMSTRONG COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
(MINE MOUTH)
21.55 % Ash
2.22 % Total Sulfur
1. 3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
7 . 86 % Ash
0.99 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:. 11t900 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield = 78
%
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten yearst 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e. t 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.44 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.55 /ton
2.3 "Additional" .raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/tont additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.13 /ton
$5.00/tont additional cost is . . . . . $ 1.41 /ton
$6.00/tont additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1. 70 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case 10 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is " " " " $ 2 .18 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 2.46 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.75 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ O. 60 /ton.
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ O. 72 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.84 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
No Shipping' . .
. . . . t . $ -0-
/ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.31 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.03 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.05 '/ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.18 /ton
-------
Case 10 Continued
,~ .
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
Total benefits with truck shipment rate when F.O.B.
raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. . . .$ 1.17 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. . . .$ 1.29 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. . . .$ 1.41 /ton
6.0 SUMMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
(No Shipping)
~
....
~~
:> c::
o
r-i+J
ns
o ~
u cU
~
)-....1
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4 . 00 1.01 0.89 0.77
$ 5 . 010 --- 1.17 1.05
$6 .010 --- --- 1.43
-------
CASE II 11
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
BUTLER COUNTY.. PENNSYLVANIA
1.2 Consumer Location ASTABULA.. OHIO
1.3 Raw Coal: 19.4 % Ash 1.32 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 8.7 % Ash 0.98 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: I 11,800 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
80 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.43/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.54/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.00 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . $ 1. 25 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.50/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 7ax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
CaRe 11 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
. .$ 2.03 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
. . $ 2.28 / ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. .$ 2.53 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . $ 0 .48 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . .
. . $ 0 . 58 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . .$ 0.68 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . .$ 0.32 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.80~/ton
mile. . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.08 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.24 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ 0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.04 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.16/ton
-------
Case 11 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . .$ 1.26 /ton
. $ 1. 36 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 1.46 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. . . .$ 1.02 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 1.12 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . . .$ 1.22 /ton
6 .0 S L'}fMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
QJ
=='
~
CIS"",
> r:::
o
~.j.J
rei
o ,...
c.J QJ
~
:J:'-'
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.77 0.67 0.57
$5.00 --- 0.92 0.B2
$6.00 --- --- 1.07
6.2 For unit train shipment
QJ
=='
~
CIS.-..
> r:::
o
~+J
CIS
o ...
c.J QJ
~
:J:'-'
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 ~7.00
$4.00 1.01 0.91 0.81
$5.00 --- 1.16 1.06
$6.00 --- --- 1.31
-------
CASE II 12
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
ALLEGHANY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1.2 Consumer Location
PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA
1.3 Raw Coal:
22 . 70 % Ash
1.97 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
8.55 % Ash
1.00 % Total Sulfur
1.5 .Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: l2!1300 BTVs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield. 76
,
%
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hra/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.45 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.58 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw"coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.27 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.58 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1. 89 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant !ax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case 12 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 2.36 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.67 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 2.98 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIAT~D WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . ... .
.$ 0.62 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
........
.$0.74 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
........
. . $ O. 87 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on truck shipment. . . . .. . . . $ 0.12 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton){Figure 6-~$ 0.32 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.03 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ O.O~ /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.20 /ton
-------
.' .
Case 12 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
Total benefits with truck shipment rate when F.O.B.
raw coal cost is -
6.0 SUMMARY
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. . . .$ 1.02 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.90 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.77 /ton
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
For truck shipment
~
r-4
~.......
:> s::
o
r-4~
~
o ...
u C1J
Q.
)~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.02 0.90 0.77
$5.00 --- 1.21 1.08
$6.00 --- --- 1.39
-------
CAS E II , ~
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
LAWRENCE COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PITTSBURGH. PENNSYLVANIA
1.2 Consumer Location
1.3 Raw Coal:
4.7 % Ash
2.35 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
2.5 % Ash
1.03 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
12,000 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield z
95 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capaci~y.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant UtIlization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . ..$ 0.36/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.4l/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.22 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.27 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . $ 0.32 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05 /ton
-------
Case 13 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.04 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.09 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.14 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . .
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0.11 / ton
. $ 0.13 / ton
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0 .15 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate' K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.05 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOC/ton
mil e . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.01 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.05 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$~~/ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-B). . . . $ 0.01 / ton
4.6 Es timated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . . $ 0.10 / ton
-------
Case 13 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$0.33 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . . . $ O. 35 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . . . $ 0.37 /ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.,......
. .$ 0.29 /ton
.$ 0.31 /ton
........
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.33 Iton
6 .0 S Ul-rMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
OJ
::J
.-I
CU""'"
> =
o
.-I+J
cu
o ...
U =
o
.-I+J
nt
o ....
U
-------
CASE II 14
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
CAMBRIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1.1 Mine Location
1.2 Consumer Location
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
15.95% Ash
2.57 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
4.92% Ash
1.03 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 13.200 BTUs/poumd
1.6 , Cleaning Plant Yield =
82 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton howr inpwt capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest OR unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilizatioa: 260 days/yr at 1] hra/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST fACTOIS
2.1 A.ortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0..2/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure ;-4) .. O.~2 /ton
2.3 "Additional It,. raw coal value to prQvide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.&8 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.~0 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.3.2/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax !urden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.0.6 /ton
-------
Case 14 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.88 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.10 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.32 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$S.OO/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . . .
. . $ 0 .50 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
. . $ 0 . 60 / ton
. . $ O. 70 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . . .$
0.66 /ton
Saving on .unit train shipment @ O.BOe/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.42 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.24 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). .
. . . $
0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8) .
. . . $
0.04 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.18/ton
-------
Case 14 . Continued
~.. :: I
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . . . . $ 1.64 / ton
. . . .
. $ 1. 74 / ton
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . $ 1.84 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
$6.00/ton, benefit is
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
6.0 SUMMARY
. . . . . .
,
. . .$ 1.40 /ton
. . $ 1.50 / ton
. . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .$ 1.60 /ton
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(par ton)
t rain shipmen¥"
F/~ Raw Coal Cos t
(per ton)
~5.00 $6.00
r
. 8 0.3'8
0.6.0
~
.-t
CU'"
> R
o
.-t ~ $4 . 00
cu
o ~
tJ cu $ 5 . 00
0.
! '-" $6.00
$5.00
.2
$6.00
0.14
0.36
6 . 2 Fa r uni t
~
.-t
""'"
I> g $4.0
~~
o ~ $5...00
I;.)CU7-
! b'$6.00
256
$7.00
0.04
426
:0 . 48
/'
$7.00
0.28
0.50
-------
CASE /I 15
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
SUMMERSET COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1.1 Mine Location
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1.2 Consumer Location
15.95% Ash
2.58 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
7.10% Ash
0.72 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:' 12,500 BTlls/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
87 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)'
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amo~tization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . . $ 0.40 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4).$ 0.4S/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.60/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0 . 75 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost i~ . . . . . .$ 0.90/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05 /ton
-------
. . I
Case 15 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is ........$ 1.53 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.68 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . .
. . . . $ 1. 83 / ton
I
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . .
. . $ 0.41 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
. .$ 0.49 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.57 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment.
. . . . .$
0.42 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ 0.80C/ton
mil e .".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.12 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.19 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$~.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . . $ 0.03 /ton
4.6 Es timated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . . $ 0.16 I ton
-------
Case 15 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 1.23 /ton
. $ 1. 31 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 1. 39 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
.$ 0.93 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 1.01 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 1.09 /ton
6 .0 S Ul-fMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
i
1"""4
GtJ.......
:> s::
a
1"""4~
CU
o H
U Q)
C1.
!'-'
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.30 0.22 0 . It.
$5.00 --- 0.37 0.29
$6.00 --- --- 0.4~
i.2 For unit train shipment
~
1"""4
cu.......
:> c::
o
1"""4~
'"
o H
U Q)
04
)'-'
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.GO
$4.00 0.60 0.52 O. t'~4
$5.00 --- 0.67 0.59
$6.00 --- --- 0.74
-------
CASE II 16
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1.2 Consumer Location
NEWARK. NEW JERSEY
1.3 Raw Coal:
11.60% Ash
4 .66 % Ash
2.57 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1.01 % Total Sulfur
,
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
12 ,800 BTUs / pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield = . 81 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0*41/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.53/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value tu pruvide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 0.94/ton
$S.OO/ton, additional cost 18 . . . . . .$ 1.17/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . $ 1.40/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax !urden (Figure 5..:.6). . . . $ O.06/ton
-------
Case 16 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 1.96 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
. . $ 2.19 / ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . .
. . . $ 2.42 / ton
,
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher h~at content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . $ 0 . 33 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . $ 0 . 39 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . $ 0 .46 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increa~ed heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment.
. . . . .$
0.36 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOC/ton
m1.le . . . . . . $
............
0.21 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost z $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.15 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ 0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.03 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.14/ton
-------
~ase 16 Continued
5.0 TDTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. . . .$ 1.03 /ton
. $ 1. 09 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
........
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
........
. $ 1.16 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
,
. . . . .
.$ 0.88 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
.$ 0.94 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . . . $ 1.01 / ton
6.0 SL'}1MAB.Y
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
.-4
tU.-.
> 5
.-4~
cu
o ...
u cu
Q.
)-...,J
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.93 0.87 0.80
$5.00 --- 1.10 1.03
$6.00 --- --- 1.2"
6.2 For unit train shipment
cu
::s
.-4
~.-.
:> r::
o
~~
to
o ~
u ~
p.
)~
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.08 1.02 0.95
--
$5.00 --- 1.25 1.18
$6.00 --- --- 1.41
-------
CASE II 17
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
JEFFERSON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1.2 Consumer Location
nRTROIT, MICHIGAN
1 . 3 Raw Co al :
8.4 % Ash
6.8 % Ash
1.33 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1.08" % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:, 12.500 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
96 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid ba1ance-.):
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . . $ 0.36 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4).$ 0.40/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 0.17/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ O.21/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0..25 / ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 'lax !urden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ O.OS/ton
-------
Case 17 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 0.98 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 1.02 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is ........$ 1.06 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0 . 08 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.09 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.11 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . . .$
0.09 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ D.BOC/ton
mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.05 / ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.03 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Filure 6-7). . . . .$ -0- /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.' Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-). . .$ 0.05 /ton
-------
Case 17 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . . $ 0 .26 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.........
. $ O. 27 I / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.29 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit ,train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 0.22 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. . $ 0.23 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.25 /ton
6.0 SUMMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
!
.-4
~~
> d
o
.-4.a.J
CtI
o ...
u OJ
!~
FIO.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.72 0.71 0.69
$5.00 --- 0.75 0.73
$6.00 --- --- 0.77
6.2 For unit train shipment
!
.-4
nI~
> g $4.00
M.a.J
IIj
o ~ $5.00
U Q)
c:1.
! '-' $6.00
$5.00
F.O.!. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$6.00
0.75
0.19
$7.00
0.73
0.77
o 81
-------
CASE II 18A
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
PRESTON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
1.2 Consumer Location
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1.3 Raw Coal:
35.26% Ash
2.36 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
11.65 % Ash
1.31 % Total Sulfur
I
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11,900 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
61 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 brs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.57/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.73/ton
2.3 "Additional" 'raw coal value to prl9vide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure )-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost i.~ . . . . . .$ 2.55 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 3.20 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost iG . . . . .$ 3.84 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant '.fax:Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.08 /ton
-------
Case l8A Continued
3.0 . TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 3.93 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 4.58 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 5.22 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.D.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0.96 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 1.15 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . . . . $ 1. 34 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . . .$
0.99 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.80~/ton
mile. ...'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.34 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned Cbased
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.58 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figur~6-7).....$ 0.05 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . . $ 0.08 / ton
4.6 Estimated mainteaance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.20 /ton
-------
Case l8A .Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 2.86 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 3.05 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
.$ 3.24 /ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . . .$ 2.21 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
. $ 2.40 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 2.59 / ton
6 .0 S L1'1MARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Cost~ leRH_Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
~
as,.....
> ~
o
~~
as
o ~
u cu
0.
~~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 ;1.07 0.88 0.6'
$5.00 --- 1.53 1.314
$6.00 --- --- 1.9;8
6.2 For unit train shipment
J
~
~,.....
:> ~
a
"""'~
IU
o ~
u cu
!5
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.12 1.53 1.34
$5.00 --- 2.18 ].99
$6.00 --- --- 2.63
-------
CASE II l8B
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
PRESTON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
1.2 Consumer Location
NEWARK. NEW JERSEY
35.26 % Ash
2.36 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
11.65 % Ash
1.31 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: ,11,900 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
61 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8.000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten yearss 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ ~.57 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.73 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of ci~aned coal (Figure 5-5) wheR
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 1.55 /ton
..
$5.00/ton, additional cost iF; . . . . .$~Jton
$6.00/ton, additional cost Ls . . . . " . $ ~.84 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax lurden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ p.08 /ton
-------
Case l8B Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 3.93 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 4.58 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 5.22 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.D.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.96 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 1.15 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. . . . $ 1. 34 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment.
. . . . .$
1.06 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.80~/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.65 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (b~ed
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ ~.5S /toR
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ ~.05 /ton
4.$ Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-5). . . .$ 0.08 /ton
4.' Estimated maintenance saving (TabJe 6-3). . .$ 0.20/ton
-------
Case 18B Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . . $ 2. 93
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 3.12
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 3.31
Iton
Iton
Iton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 2.52 Iton
.$ 2.71 Iton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
. . $ 2.90 I ton'
6 .0 S L1-rMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
OJ
::)
~
ns........
> d
o
~.&.J $4. 00
ns
o ~
U CIJ $ 5 . 00
Q.
~ ~ $6.00
$5.00
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$6.00
o.
.46
$7.00
0.62
1.27
1.91
6.2 For unit train shipment
011
:::J
~
c(S........
:> d
o
~.&.J
II
o ~
u CIJ
004
!'J
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.0.0
$4.00 1.41 1.22 1.03
$5.00 --- 1..87 1.68
$6.00 --- --- 2.32
-------
CASE II 19A
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
PRESTON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
1.2 Consumer Location
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
1.3 Raw Coal:
14. 76 % Ash
1.44 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
6.61 % ASh
0.73 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,500 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned ('oa1 (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.44 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . $ 0.55 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . $ 0.67 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant ~ax :Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05 /ton
-------
Case 19A Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . .$ 1.32 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.43 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.55 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL.
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ O. 38 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0.45 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.........
.$ 0.53 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . . $ 0.39 (ton
Saving on ~nit train shipment @ 0.80~/ton
mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.15 / ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton b~rned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.18 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cas t (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ 0.02 / ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.03 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.14 /ton
-------
Case 19A Continued
. '
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. . . . $ 1.14 I ton
. . . $ 1.21 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.......
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
.$ 1.29 /ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Belton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .f . .
. . . . . .
.$ 0.90 Iton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
........
.$ 0.97 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. . $ 1.05 I ton
6 .0 S L~!MARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
$
r-I
~~
> ~
o
r-f4J
~
o ,..
U QJ
Po.
:."'-"
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.18 0.11 0.03
$5.00 --- 0.22 0.14
$6.00 --- --- 0.26
6.2 For unit train shipment
i
r-f
~",....
> ~
o
r-f~
ad
o ,..
U EU
Po.
:,-.'-"
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $ 7 . 00
$4.00 0.42 0.35 0.27
$5.00 --- 0.46 0.38
$6.00 --- --- 0.50
-------
CASE II 19B
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
PRESTON COUNTY J WEST VIRGINIA
1.2 Consumer Location
ROCHESTER, NEW YORK
1.3 Raw Coal:
14. 76 % Ash
1.44 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
6 .61 % Ash
0.73 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12,500 BTDs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.44 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0 .55 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 0.67/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax :Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.05/ton
-------
Case 19B' Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . .
. . . $ 1.32 / ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . .
. . . . $ 1.43 / ton
. . $ 1.55 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00!ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . .
. . $ 0 . 38 / ton
. . $ 0 .45 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . .
. . .$ 0.53 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . .. .$
0.41 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOe/ton
mile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.30 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2!ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.18 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). .
. . . $
0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-B). . . .$ 0.03/ton
4.6 E8timate~ maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.14/ton
-------
Case 19B Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . .
. . . $ 1.16 /ton
$6.00Iton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 1.23 I ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . . $ 1. 31 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.BC/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. . . .$ 1.05 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
........
.$ 1.12 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 1. 20 I ton
6 . 0 S L'lo!MARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
$
~
cu,...
> d
o
r-4~
cf
o ~
u cu
~
J~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.16 0.09 0.01
$5.00 --- 0.20 0.12
$6.00 --- --- 0.24
6.2 For unit train shipment
I
~
"',...
> c::
o
~o4oJ
ftS
o ~
u OJ
r~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.27 0.20 0.12
$5.00 --- 0.31 0.23
$6.00 --- --- 0.35
-------
CASE II 20
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
PRESTON COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
1.2 Consumer Location
WASHINGTON, D. C.
1.3 Raw Coal:
18.50% Ash
2.24 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
8.85'% ASh
0.99 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 12t300 BTlls/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
83 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.42/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.51/ton
2.3 "AdditionalU raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 0.82/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cosL is . . . . . .$ 1.03 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.23/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 'lax :Burden (Figura 5-6). . . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case 20 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
. ..$ 1.'81 / ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 2.02 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
. $ 2.22 / ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). -When F .O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
"......
. $ 0 .44 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.53 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . .
. . . $ 0.62 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . . .$
o . 46 / ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ 0.80~/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . . . . $
0.16 / ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on a.h disposal cost. '$2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.21 /ton
4.4 Saving in Irinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02 /ton'
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.04 /ton
4.e Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.16 /ton
-------
Case 20
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . . $1.33 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
.$1.42 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 1.51 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
.$ 1.03 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. . $ 1.12 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ 1.21 / ton
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
aJ
::3
~
~"""'
> ~
o
~+J
..,
o H
U C1J
Po.
!-'
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4 . 00 0.48 0.39 0.30
$5.00 --- 0.60 0.51
$6.00 --- --- 0.71
6.2 lor unit train shipment
I
~
tII",,",
:;. ~
o
~+J
..
o H
U ~
c:1.
!-'
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $ 7 .00
$4.00 0.78 0.'9 0.60
$5.00 --- 0.90 0.81
$6.00 --- --- 1.01
-------
CASE II 21
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
GRA~T COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
1.1 Mine Location
1..2 Consumey Location ~ASHINGTON ,2, C.
1.3 Raw Coal: 28.48% Ash 3.03 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 11.45% AS11 0.95 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cledned Coal: 11,900 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
80 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, .8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ O.43/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.54/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) whel'l
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . $ 1.00/ton
$5.00/ton, ddditional cost is . . . . . $ 1.25 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost js . . . . . $ 1.50 / ton
2.4 Cleanjng Plant '.fax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . .$ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case 21 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.03 Iton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.28 Iton
$6.00/ton. differential cost is . . . . .$ 2.53 Iton
4.0 ASSESSABLF I:ENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher h~at content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.U.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . .$ 0.73 Iton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . .$ 0.87 Iton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . .$ 1.02 Iton
4.2 Tranbp0rtation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving eqnals applicable rate. K,
Figurf' 6-2)
Suving on single car shipment.
. . . . .$
o . 75 I ton
SRving o~ unit train shipment @ O.80(:/ton
mi Ie. . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.25 Iton
4.3 Savini-> in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost. $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.40 Iton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 0-7). . . . $ 0.04 Iton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.06 Iton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.20/ton
-------
Case 21
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
. $ 2.18 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
.$ 2.32 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
. $ 2. 47 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
.........
.$ 1.68 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
.$ 1.82 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 1.97 /ton
6 . 0 S L1-fMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Custs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
C1J
='
t""'\
ns,-.
> s::
o
t""'\4.J
ns
o ,..
U QJ
Po.
~~
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 -0.15 -0.29 -0.44
$5.00 --- -0.04 -0.19
$6.00 --- --- 0.Q6
6.2 For unit train shipment
QJ
='
~
~,-.
> s::
o
~~
~
o ,..
U QJ
Po.
)-
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Lust
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.35 0.21 0.06
$5.00 --- 0.46 0.31
$6.00 --- --- 0.56
-------
CASE II 22
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO
1.1 Mine Location
1.2 Consumer Location
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1.3 Raw Coal:
7 .00 % As h
1.50 % Total Sulfur
4.00 % Ash
0.92 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:. 12..500 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost It. . . .$ 0.45/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0 . 55 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.67 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax !urden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05 /ton
-------
Case 22 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . .$ 1.33 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.43 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.55 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.D.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . $ 0.15 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . $ 0 .17 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . $ 0 . 20 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equa1b applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.16 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ 0.80~/ton
m~le . . . . . .$
.. ............
0.10 /ton
4.3 Saving in a~h disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost z $2/ton)(Jigure 6-~$ 0.06 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$~.Ol /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance savin~ (labIa 6-3). . .$ 0.10/ton
-------
Case 22 Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.49 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . . . .$ 0.51 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.54 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. .. . . . .
. . . .$ 0.43 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.".....
. . $ 0 . 45 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
.."""
. $ 0 . 48 / ton
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Cosl~_less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
Q)
::s
,....
cu.......
:> c:
o
,....~
co
o ~
U QJ
0..
~~
~
F.D.B. Raw Co a] Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6. ()~-J $7.00
$4.00 0.84 0.82 I 0.79
-,--
$5.00 --- 0 . 92 I 0 . 89
$6.00 -,--
--- --- I 1.01
6.2 For unit train shipment
Q)
='
......
reS.......
:> S $4.00
,.....u
co
o ~ $5.00
u Q,)
0-
~ '-' $6.00
~
$5.00
. 0
-------
CASE II 23
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Hine Location CLEARFIELD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1.2 ConsumeT Location CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1.3 Raw Coal: 12.4 % Ash 2.24 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 7.4 % As 11 1.20 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: I 12 ,400 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
88 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day,
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization' Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.39 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0 . 47 / ton
2.3 "Addi tional" r'aw coal value to provide fOJi
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost ib . . .$ 0.54/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is .$ 0.68/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . .$ 0.82/ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 'fax !urden (Figure 1)-6). . . $ O.OS/ton
-------
Case 23 'C~htinued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.45 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . .$ 1.59 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.73 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . I
. . . . . . $ 0.24 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.$ 0.29 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
.$ 0.33 /ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate' K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . . $ 0.29 / ton
Saving on ynit train shipment @ O.SOc/ton
.ile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.21 / ton
4.3 Savini in ash disposal cost/ton burRed (b&sed
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(ligure 6-6)$ .0.10 /ton
4.4 Saving in grindin~ eost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-.). . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.12 /ton
-------
Case 23
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 0.78 Iton
. $ 0.83 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.87 Iton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. . . .$ 0.70 Iton
. $ 0.75 Iton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ O. 79 I ton
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
...-4
cu"-"
:> ~
o
...-4~
cu
o ~
U QJ
Q..
!~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.67 0.62 0.58
--
$5.00 --- 0.76 0.72
$6.00 --- --- 0.86
6.2 for WRit train shipment
!
...-4
.."-"
:> c::
o
...-4.j.J
cu
o ~
u CIJ
Q..
)~
~
F.O.!. Raw Coal Cost
(per tom)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
'-
$4.00 0.75 0.70 0.66
$5.00 --- 0.84 0.80
$6.00 --- --- 0.94
-------
CASE II 24
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location BELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY
1.2 Consumer Location CINCINNATI, OHIO
1.3 Raw Coal: 6.50 % Ash 1.41 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 3.00 % ASh 1.02 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 13,000 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38 /ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" "raw coal value to provide fDr
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 0.44 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional co~t is . . . . .$ 0.55 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . $ 0.67 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Ffax:Burden (Figure 5-6). . . '. $ 0.05 /ton
-------
,
Case 24 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . .$ 1.32 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . .. .$ 1.43 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.55 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . $ 0 .17 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . $ 0 . 20 / ton
. . $ 0 .24 / ton
. . . .
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.13 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.BOC/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.06 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (b as ed
on ash disposal cost - $2/ton)(Figure 6-~)$ 0.07 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . .$ 0.01 /ton
4.6 !stimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.10 /ton
-------
Case 24
Continued
~ (I" ~ \,
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.49 /ton
. $ 0.52 / ton
$5.00/ton, benefit is
.........
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
. $ 0.56 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at O.Be/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. . . . $ 0.42 / ton
.$ 0.45 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.49 /ton
6 . 0 S Ul-fMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
,....j
C1t"""'
:> ~
o
,....j4.J
C1t
o ~
U QJ
0..
),-,
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.13 0.80 0.76
$5.00 --- 0.91 0.87
$6.00 --- --- 0.99
6.2 For unit train shipment
QJ
::t
,....j
fEI",,",
> g $4.00
,....j4.J
.
a ~ $5.00
u ~
0..
! '-' $6. 00
$5.00
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$6.00
0.87
0.98
$7.00
0.83
0.94
1.06
-------
CASE '/J .25
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
LOGAN COUNTY, WEST ~IRGINIA
1.2 Consumer Location
COLUMBUS, OHIO
7.5 % Ash
1.86 % Total Sulfur
1 . 3 Raw Co al :
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
5.5 % Ash
1.15 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
13.200 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
92 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/y'r ..at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.37/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.43/ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, addi tional .cos t is . . ... . . $ 0 . 35 I ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 0.43/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 0.53/ton
2.4 C1~aning !>lant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05/ton
-------
Case 25' Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.20 Iton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . .$ 1.28 Iton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 1.38 Iton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . . .
. $ 0 .10 I ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. $ 0.12 I ton
. $ 0 .14 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
..,....
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.09 Iton
Saving on unit train shipment @ O.80~/ton
roi 1 e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
o .04 I ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost :I: $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.04 Iton
4.4 Saving in grinding cas t (Figure 6-7). . . . . $ -0- I ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.01 Iton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.08 Iton
-------
Case 25
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. $.0.32 Iton
. $ 0 . 34 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.........
. $ 0.36 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8~/ton mile. When
F.D.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . $ 0.27 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . , . . . . . . $ 0.29 Iton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . . $ o. 31 Iton
6 .0 S 1JNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
Q)
~
~
co,,-..
:> c::
o
~ +J $4. 00
co
o ~
U (l) $ 5 . 00
At
~....., $6.00
F.O.B. Raw Coal COSL
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
0.86 0.84
0.94 0.92
1.02
6.2 For unit train shipment
(l)
~
~
cd".....
=> E $4.00
~~
..
o ~ $5.00
U (l)
At
! '-' $6.00
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00
. 3
$6.00
0.~1
0.99
$7.00
0.89
0.97
r--
I J1L!
-------
CASE II 26
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
VIGO COUNTY. INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
1.2 Consumer Location
8.5 % Ash
1.47 % Total Sulfur
1.3 Raw Coal:
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
4.4 % Ash
0.95 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11.400 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
85 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.41/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.50 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of 'cleaned coal (FigtJre 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.70/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cusl jR . . . . . .$ 0 .88 / ton
$6.00/ton, additional cObl is . . . . .$ 1.06 /ton
2.4 Cleanina Plant !ax !urden (Fig. ,r.- 3-6). . . . $ 0.06 /ton
-------
Case 26 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . .
. . . $ 1. 67 I ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
. . $ 1. 85 I ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is
. . . . . .
. . $ 2.03 I ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. . $ 0 . 20 I ton
. . $ 0.24 I ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . .
. . $ 0.28 I ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment.
. . . . .$
0.09 Iton
Saving on unit t~ain shipment @ 0.80clton
mil e . .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.03 Iton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost :I: $2/tl1n)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.09 It on.
4.4 Saving in grinding C0st (Fig~re 6-7). . . . .$ 0.01/ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figu,e 6-8). . . .$ 0.02 Iton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.10/ton
-------
Case 26
Continued
t .
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
.....,.
.$ 0.51 /ton
. $ 0.55 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
........
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. . . . $ 0.59 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton m1le. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit 1s
II .1. . . . . . .
.$ 0.45 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. .$ 0.49 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit 1s .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.53 /ton
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
8
~
"'~
> d
o
~4J
cf
o ~
U GJ
~
)"-J
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.16 1.12 1.68
$5.00 --- 1.30 1.26
$6.00 --- --- 1.44
6.2. lor unit train shipment
i
r-f
"'~
> d
o
r-f4J
.
8 t
~
!"-J
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.22 1.18 1.14
$5.00 --- 1.36 1.32
$6.00 --- --- 1.50
-------
CAS E II 27
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location CALDWELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY
1.2 Consumer Location INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA
1 .3 Raw Coal: 10.0 % Ash
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 5.5 % Ash
1.42 % Total Sulfur
1.05 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal:
11,800 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
80 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(AmortIzed over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38..5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 AMrtization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . ..$ 0.43/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) . $ 0.53 /ton
~.3 "Additional" raw coal "value to provide for
oae ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) whem
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . . $ 1.00/ton
$S.OO/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 1. 25 I ton
$~.OO/ton, additional cost is . . . . $ 1.50/ton
2.4 Claaning 11ant Tax lurden (Figure )-6). . . . $ 0.06/ton
-------
Case 27 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . . $ 2.02 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.27 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . . .$ 2.52 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher h~at content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . .
. . . $ 0.22 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . .
. . . . $ 0.26 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . . .
. . $ 0 . 30 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saviAg due to increased beat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipm~nt . . . . . .$ 0.15 /ton
Saving o'n unit train shipment @ O.lee/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.10 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cosl/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-~$ 0.09 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (FigurE: 6-7). . . . . $ 0.01 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment tFig"re 6-8). . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.6 E8timated aaintenance saving (TCIble 6-3). . .$ 0 .10 / ton
-------
Case 27
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . . . . . . . .$ 0.59 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. . . . $ 0.63 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
.......
. $ 0.67 / ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 0.54 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit i5 .
........
.$ 0.58 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.62 /ton
6.0 SUNMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
Q)
~
r-4
m-..
> d
o
r-4+J
~
o ~
U QJ
0..
)..,.;
J!
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.43 1.39 1.35
$5.00 --- 1.64 1.60
$6.00 --- --- 1.85
6.2 For unit train shipment
Q)
::s
r-4
ro-..
:> c::
o
r-4<4.J
ro
o ~
U 111
Po
)--
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cust
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.48 1.44 1.40
$3.00 --- 1.69 1.65
-
$6.00 --- --- 1.90
-------
CASE II 28
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location CALDWELL COUNTY, KENTUCKY
1.2 Consumer Location CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
1.3 Raw Coal: 10 .0 % Ash 1.42 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 5.5 %,ASh 1.05 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 11,800 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
80 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . . $ 0.43 / ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.53 /ton
2.3 "AdditIonal". raw coal value to prQvide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . .$ 1.00/ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . .$ 1.25/ton
$6.00/ton, additional cas tis . . . . $ 1.5.0 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax !urden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.0:6/ton
-------
Case 28 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . .$ 2.02 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . . . .$ 2.27 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 2.52 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATLD WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . $ 0 . 22 / ton
. . $ o. 26 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . . $ 0 . 30 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equalb applicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment. . . . . .$ 0.21 /ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ 0.80e/ton
mi 1 e . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.14 /ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figu~e 6-~$ 0.09 /tort
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . $ 0.01 Iton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). .$ 0.10/ton
-------
Case 28
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . . . .
. . $ 0.65 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . .
. . . $ 0 . 69 / ton
. . . $ O. 73 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
.......
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8C/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
. . .$ 0.58 /ton
. $ 0.62 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.........
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
.........
. $ 0.66 / ton
6.0 SillfMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Cost::, le::~. Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car 8hipment
8
.-I
~-
> d
o
,...j,j,J
~
o ...
U Q)
~
~""-'
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 1.37 1.33 1.29
$5.00 --- 1.58 1.54
$6.00 --- --- 1.79
6.2 For unit train shipment
!
.-I
"'-
I> c::
o
~,j,J
o ...
U Q)
!~
F.O.B. Raw Coal CORt
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00
$4.00 1.44 1.40
$5.00 --- 1.65
$6.00 --- ---
-------
CASE If 29
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
1.2 Consumer Location ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
1.3 Raw Coal: 17.0 % Ash 1.25 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal: 10.0 % ASh 0.95 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: ' 10,800 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cl~aning Plant Yield =
88 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8)000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleanjng Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure ~J). . . . . . . .$ 0.39/ton
2.2 Operation and Mai.ntenance Cost (Flgur~ 5-4) .$ 0.47 Iton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal valu~ lu plovide fot"
one ton of cleaned coal (F'igl!fC 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost 1[-=.. . . .$ 0.53 Itpn
$5.00/ton, additional cost if-> . .$ 0.68 Iton
$6.00/ton, additional cost -'- [; . . $ 0.82 Iton
2.4 Cleaning Plant 'fax:Burden (Fi.~urc .s.+6). . . .$ 0.05 Iton
-------
Case 29 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.44 /ton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.59 /ton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is . . . . .$ 1.73 /ton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED tvITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higlq='r lwat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). Whe,,}< .0. B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit Ls .
. . . . .
.$ 0.33 /ton
$6.00/ton, benef~t is .
.. . ill .
. . . .
. $ 0.39 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . .
. . . .
. $ 0 .46 / ton
4.2 Transportation cas t saving dtH' t\.1 l.ncrealilted heat
content of coal. (Saving P411Hl ~ a.pplicable rate. K,
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shjprncnt
. . . . . .$
0.20 / ton
Saving on unit train shipment f (L80~/ton
mil e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
0.05 /ton
4.3 I-.ina in ash disposaJ cost/ton bUE8ed (~.sed
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(rigure 6-~$ 0.15 /ton
4.4 Savial in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02/ton
4.5 Saving im benefit payment (FigurE' 6-8) .
. . . $
0.03 /ton
4.6 Estiaated maintenance savimg ('Lib! F-' 6- 3). . .. 0.14 /ton
-------
Case 29
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 0.87 /ton
. $ O. 93 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . . .
. . . .
.$ 1.00 /ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8e/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 0.72 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
.$ 0.78 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.85 / ton
6 .0 S U~1MARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
~
M
CU"'"
> d
o
M~
~
o ~
U Q.I
Q..
~'oJ
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.57 0.51 0.44
$5.00 --- 0.66 0.59
$6.00 --- --- 0.73
6.2 For unit train shipment
Q.I
='
r-f
cu.-.
:> r::
o
~~
o ....
U Q)
Po.
)'-'"
~
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.72 0.66 0.59
$5.00 --- 0.81 0.74
$6.00 --- --- 0.88
-------
CASE II 30
1.0 CASE CONDITIONS
1.1 Mine Location
FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
1.2 Consumer Location
r.HTr.Ar.O. ILLINOIS
1.3 Raw Coal:
17.0 % Ash
1.25 % Total Sulfur
1.4 Cleaned Coal:
10.0 % Ash
0.95 % Total Sulfur
1.5 Heat Content of Cleaned Coal: 10,800 BTUs/pound
1.6 Cleaning Plant Yield =
90 %
1.7 Cleaning Plant Cost: $8,000 per ton hour input capacity.
(Amortized over ten years, 8% interest on unpaid balance.)
1.8 Cleaning Plant Utilization: 260 days/yr at 13 hrs/day
(i.e., 38.5%)
2.0 COST FACTORS
2.1 Amortization Cost (Figure 5-3). . . . . . . .$ 0.38/ton
2.2 Operation and Maintenance Cost (Figure 5-4) .$ 0.45 /ton
2.3 "Additional" raw coal value to provide for
one ton of cleaned coal (Figure 5-5) when
value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.44 /ton
$5.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.55 /ton
$6.00/ton, additional cost is . . . . . .$ 0.67 /ton
2.4 Cleaning Plant Tax Burden (Figure 5-6). . . . $ 0.05 /ton
-------
Case 30 Continued
3.0 TOTAL DIFFERENTIAL PRODUCTION COST TO PROVIDE A TON OF CLEANED
COAL
When value of raw coal is -
$4.00/ton, differential cost is
.......
.$ 1.32 Iton
$5.00/ton, differential cost is
-......
.$ 1.43 Iton
$6.00/ton, differential cost is ..... . . .$ 1.55 Iton
4.0 ASSESSABLE BENEFIT FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH CLEAN COAL
4.1 Added coal value due to higher heat content
of Coal (Figure 6-1). When F.O.B. Raw Coal
Cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
. $ a. 33 / ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
. $ 0.39 / ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is
. . . .
. . . . .
. $ 0 . 46 / ton
4.2 Transportation cost saving due to increased heat
content of coal. (Saving equals applicable rate. K.
Figure 6-2)
Saving on single car shipment
. . . . . .$
a . 27 I ton
Saving on unit train shipment @ a.BOC/ton
mil e . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
a .16 / ton
4.3 Saving in ash disposal cost/ton burned (based
on ash disposal cost = $2/ton)(Figure 6-6)$ 0.15 /ton
4.4 Saving in grinding cost (Figure 6-7). . . . .$ 0.02 /ton
4.5 Saving in benefit payment (Figure 6-8). . . .$ 0.03 /ton
4.6 Estimated maintenance saving (Table 6-3). . .$ 0.14 /ton
-------
Case 30
Continued
5.0 TOTAL BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
5.1 Total benefits with single car shipment rate. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$6.00/ton, benefit is . . .
. . . .
. . .$ 0.94 /ton
. . .$ 1.00 /ton
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . . . .
$7.00/ton, benefit is .
. . . .
. . . .
.$ 1.07 /ton
5.2 Total benefits with unit train at 0.8C/ton mile. When
F.O.B. raw coal cost is -
$5.00/ton, benefit is .
.......
. .$ 0.83 /ton
$6.00/ton, benefit is
.......
. . .$ 0.89 /ton
.$ 0.96 /ton
$7.00/ton, benefit is . . . .
. . . . .
6.0 SUMMARY
Differential Cost (Cleaning Costs less Benefits) per Ton
6.1 For single car shipment
cu
:J
~
C'O-
:.> d
o
~~
~
o ~
u cO
Po.
3;'-'
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.38 0.32 0.25
$5.00 --- 0.43 0.36
$6.00 --- --- 0.48
6.2 For unit train shipment
~
r-I
~-
:> Cj
o
~~
~
o ~
U <1J
P.
3;"'--'
~
F.D.B. Raw Coal Cost
(per ton)
$5.00 $6.00 $7.00
$4.00 0.49 0.43 0.36
$5.00 --- 0.54 0.47
$6.00 --- --- 0.59
-------
APPENDIX VII
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODEL
2.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
~Page
312
31'4
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
3.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM,AP.PLICATION
-318
-------
APPENDIX VII
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODEL
1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this computerized cost/benefit analysis model is
to examine the net economic effect resulting from the production and
utilization of cleaned coal. As indicated in Sections 4.0, 5.0, and
6.0, all the economic factors bearing on the evaluation are variable
and must be quantified for specific conditions.
The general structure of the cos,t/benefit analysis model consists
of three basic elements:
Clean Coal Source
Transportation
Clean Coal User
Essentially the model develops the production cost of cleaning
coal at a mine, taking into account the cost variation in transporting
clean coal to the user and finally applying the ~ost savings to the
user to achieve a net economic result.
The variable economic factors discussed in Sections 4.0, 5.0,
and 6.0 may be grouped according to these three elements in the following
manner:
Clean Coal Source
A. Coal composition before and after cleaning (sulfur
and ash)
B. Cleaning plant amortization costs
C. Cleaning plant operation and maintenance costs
D. Additional coal costs
E. Tax burden
-------
Transportation
A. Clean coal source location (county)
B. Clean coal user location
C. Transportation method
D. Transportation cost savings as a result of increased
heat content
Clean Coal User
A. Increase in coal value as a result of increased
heat content
B. Ash disposal cost savings
C. Grinding cost savings
D. Welfare payment savings
E. Maintenance cost savings
A computer program for this model was developed to perform the
computations required for clean coal cost/benefit analyses. The
program provides for"analysis flexibility by accepting each quantified
economic variable as an input condition.
-------
2.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The symbols used in the cost/benefit analysis program are
explained in the following list:
Definition of Program Symbols
Symbol
YIELD
COST
HOUR
ROM
RATE
PERIOD
COAL
SHIP
ASH
PSULB
PSULA
PASHB
PASHA
GRIND
WEL
PN
Value
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
Data Input
=0.25
=0.40
=12 x PERIOD
Units
Definition
Yield of cleaning plant
(Output/Input)
$/ton-hr -Cleaning plant cost per
ton-hour input capacity
Utilization of cleaning
plant in hours/year
hr
$/ton
yrs
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
months
Raw Coal Value
(Cost to provide raw coal)
Cleaning plant interest rate
on unpaid balance
Cleaning plant amortization
period
F.O.B. raw coal cost
Shipping cost from mine to
consumer
Cost of disposing ash by coal
user
Fractional sulfur content of
raw coal (by weight)
Fractional sulfur content of
deep-cleaned (by weight)
Fractional ash content of raw
coal (by weight)
Fractional ash content of
deep-cleaned (by weight)
Cost to user of grinding coal
Mine contribution to welfare.
fund per ton shipped
Cleaning plant amortization
period
-------
BTU
RED
OM
x
y
SM
TAB 1
TAB 2
TERM
ACOST
BEN
=PASHB - PASHA
=PSULB - PSULA
+PASHB - PASHA
y
.7
.8
.9
1.0
.64
.54
.453
.377
TAB 2
=.15
.12
.09
.07
.05
.03
.02
-=.16
.14
.12
.10
.08
..05
.Q3
Equation 1
Equation 2
-
(1 -+ RATE)PN
12
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
$/ton
Fractional decrease in ash content
of coal due to deep cleaning (i.e.,
fractional increase in BTU value)
Fractional reduction in sulfur plus
ash content of coal due to deep
cleaning
Cleaning plant operation and 'main-
tenance cost per ton of clean coal
Table of yield values for cleaning
I plant
Cleaning plant operating and
maintenance costs corresponding
to X
Assumed savings in maintenance due
to reduction in sulfur plus ash
content
Table of fractional reductions in
sulfur plus ash content
Assumed maintenance savings
corresponding to TAB2
A term in the amortization equation
(see Equation I (1) below)
Total additional costs due to
deep cleaning
Total additional benefits due-to
deep cleaning
-------
The operation of the cost/benefit analysis program is summarized
by the following equations:
Equation 1 - Additional Costs
The additional cost (ACOST) is a summation of the following items:
.
Cleaning Plant Amortization Cost
(1 + ~YN COST
12 x RATE x ('1 + RATE) PN x HOUR x YIELD
12 -1'
(1)
.
Cleaning Plant Operation and Maintenance Cost (OM)
OM is computed by interpolation
Yi-1 - Yi
OM = Yi-l - x. - X (Xi-l - YIELD)
1-1 i
(2)
where i is the smallest i such that YIELD ~ Xi
.
Additional cost of coal
ROM x (1 - YIELD)
YIELD
(3)
. Tax Burden
COST x 0.02
HOUR x YIELD
(4)
-------
Equation 2 - Benefits
The benefit (BEN) is a summation of the following items:
. Increase in coal value due to increased BTU content
BTU
COAL x 1 -+ BTU
. Shipping cost saving
BTU
SHIP x 1 + BTU
. Ash disposal cost saving
A8H x BTU x (1 + BTU)
. Grinding cost saving
BTU
GRIND x 1 + BTU
where GRIND = .25
. Welfare payment saving
BTU
WEL x 1 + BTU
where WEL = .40
. Maintenance cost saving (8M)
8M is computed by table lookup
SM = TAB2.
1
where i is the smallest 1
such that RED > TAB1.
- 1
317
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
-------
3.0 COMPUTER PROGRAM APPLICATION
The performance of the program was evaluated by application to the
potential clean coal source/user combinations described in Section 7.0
and summarized by manual computation in Volume II. The following are
two examples of the results achieved:
. INPUT CONDITIONS
Example No. 1
Mine Location Alleg.ev County, Md.
Consumer Location Baltimore
Raw Coal 20.3% Ash;
1.13% Tota~ Sulfur
Cleaned Coal 13.1 % Ash;
1.06% Total Sulfur
Cleaning Plant Cost (assumed) . . . .$8,000 per ton hour
cap. (Amortized over 10 years, 8% interest on unpaid balance)
i.8 Coal Value III: $4.00 per ton
F.O.B. Raw Coal Cost :8 $5.00/ton
Tran8portation Cost - $5.17 per ton
Ash Disposal Cos~ - $2.00 per ton
Yield = 90%
Example No.2
(Ca8e lA)
This example differ
from Example No. 1 in the following manner:
K8w Coal Value - $6.00 per ton
$7.00/ton
'.0.1. Raw Coal Cost
III
Yield = 80%
-------
.
COMPUTER OUTPUT
Example No.1
t.N ! t'~r< 1 NrJ U 1 IJ{,! 11
Y IELrJ"COS l..HOlJi,,,,
-------
. COMPUTER PROGRAM LISTING
I~ DIMENSION rA8I(7)~TAB2C7)
2~ DIMENSION X(4)~Y(~)
30 1 AB 1 ( 1) = . 1 S
4~ lAHI(2) = .12
5v) I'AB I C 3) = . ~ 9
60 TABI(4) = .~7
70 TA81 (~) = .0S
80 TABIC6> = .03
90 TA~I(7) = .~2
I~~ 1AB2(1) = .16
11~ 1'A82(2) = .14
12~ rA~2(3) = .12
130 lAB2(4) = .10
I~~ TAB2(5) = .08
150 TA82(6) = .05
160 TAB2(7) = .03
170 YCI) = .64
180 Y(2) = .5~
190 Y(3) = .453
200 YCte) = .377
21'1 XCI) = .7
22v' X(2) = .8
230 X ( 3) = . 9
24"-' X(4) = 1.0
2~£1 4 FOKMAT CV)
260 10 PKINT 2~0
270 PRINT 2el
280 200 FORMAT (" ENTEH INPUT DATA ")
29(1 201 F'0t1MA'1 (tl YIELD~COST'~HOUH~~OM")
3~~ I~EAD 46YIELD~COST6HOUR~ROM
310 P}~INT 202
320 2~2 FOkMAT C" RA'I E6t'EriIOD")
330 ~EAD 4~RATE6PERIOD
3Jt0 ~~INl 203
350 203 FORMAl C" COAL6SHIP6ASH")
360 ~EAD 46COAL~SHIP~ASH
370 PRINT 204
380 2~4 FORMAT cn PSULB6P~tJLA~flASH86PASHA")
390 KEAU 46PSULB6P~ULA6PASHB.PASHA
400 ~RIND = 0.25
410 ~,:EL = 0. ~0
420 lAX = .02
430 PN = PERIOD*12.
~40 B1U = PASHB - PASHA
450 IF (YIELD-XCI» 11.11.12
4 6~~ 110M = Y C t )
470 ~O TO 18
480 12 DO 13 1=2.4
490 Ir (YIELD-XCI» 15.15613
5"'" I 3 CON "I IN UE
~ln OM = Y(4)
*
-------
52~1 GO TO 1 8
533 15 OM = YCI-I) - CCYCI-l)-YCI»/CXC!-I)-XCI»)
540& *(X(I-l)-YI~LU>
~50 1~ ~ED = PS~LB-PSULA + PASHB-~A~HA
56fJ DO 2(1 1= 1 ~ 7
S70 Ir C~ED-TABICI» 20.123~23
')80 2:d CONTINUE
~9VJ SM = fl).
61J0 (-=0 TO 25
610 23 SM = TAB2CI)
620 2~ KATE = RATE/12.
630 TE~M = Cl.+RAlE>**CPN/2)
640 IE~M = TERM*TE~M
650 ACOST = ROM*CJ.-YIFLD)/YIELD + OM
660& + 12.*RATE*lERM/CTEKM-).) * (COSI/(HOU~*YIELD»
670& + COST*TAX/CHOUR*YIELD>
680 P~INT 5~ACOST
690 5 fORMAT (n COSTS = "61"9.2)
7'1 ia BEN = B 1 U / ( B T U + 1 . ) * ( CO A L + ::) HIP + C KIN D + \.: E L )
710& + ASH*8TU*CI.+8TU) + SM
720 PHINT 6~aEN
730 6 FO~MA I C" BENEF 1 ~1 S = "61'9.2)
740 ACOSI = ACQST-BFN
7~M PHINl 7~ACOST
76t' 7 "OI~MA'l (" NET CO~I = " "f9.2)
770 P~INT 8
7n0 ~ fORMAT (" ANOTHER CASE? It)
790 ~HINl 81
800 81 F"OkMAT C" TYPE I I"u~ YES OK 10 FOr< NOli)
HI 0 i~ EAD 9" M
82~' 9 JOOrUv,A f (I 1 )
830 I~ CM) 1~0,100,J0
8413 10G 510P
050 END
Kf"AfJY
*
------- |