AN EVALUATION OF COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
AND TECHNIQUES FOR
REMOVING PYRITIC
SULFUR FROM FINE COAL
A Report
to Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Monitoring
•^National Environmental Research Center
Control Systems Division
Research Triangle Park, N C. 27711
by Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
Contract No. 68-O2-OO24
BCR
-------
AN EVALUATION OF COAL
CLEANING PROCESSES
AND TECHNIQUES FOR
REMOVING PYRITIC
SULFUR FROM FINE COAL
A Report
to Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Monitoring
National Environmental Research Center
Control Systems Division
Research Triangle Park, N C. 27711
by Bituminous Coal Research, Inc.
Contract No. 68-O2-OO24
-------
II.
III.
IV.
I.
A.
B.
C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . fI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Obj ect i ve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A pproac h. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DISCUSSION OF PHASE I EVALUATIONS...................
DISCUSSION OF PHASE II EVALUATIONS..................
A.
B.
Test P:roced\1re.................................
1. Coal Cleaning on the No. 14 Concentrating
Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pyrite Beneficiation on the No. 15-S
Metallurgical Concentrating Table.......
Stnnmary- of Results.............................
1. Coal Cleaning.............................
2. Coal Utilization Potential................
3. Power Generation Potential................
2.
CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Appendix A, Phase II Evaluations - Concentrating
Table and Pyrite Beneficiation....................
Appendix B, Fuel and Pyrite Concentrate Evaluations.
, \
-111-
Page
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
18
18
22
28
32
A- 33
B-131
-------
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
LIST OF FIGURES
Text
Flow Sheet for Coal Cleaning and Pyrite Beneficiation
Tests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Flow Sheet for Concentrating Table Tests.....
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch
x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for Bakerstown Seam
from Grant County, West Virginia, BCR Sample
No. 2856............................................
Sample Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests.......
Total Sulfur Reduction from Direct Two-Stage
Cle8Iling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX
Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch
x 0 Concentrating Table Feeds for W. Kentucky No.6
Coal, Butler County, Kentucky, BCR No. 2847.........
Table Feeds for Bakerstown Seam, Grant County,
West Virginia, BCR No. 2856.........................
Table Feeds for Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland
County, Pennsylvania, BCR No. 2860..................
Table Feeds for Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County,
Pennsylvania, BCR No. 2881..........................
Table Feeds for Ft. Scott Seam, Rogers County,
Oklahoma, BCR No. 2889..............................
Table Feeds for Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County,
Pennsylvania, BCR No. 2900..........................
Table Feeds for Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas,
BCR No. 2926........................................
Table Feeds for Clements Seam, Walker County,
Alabama, BCR No. 2928...............................
-v-
--"\..'
Page
5
6
8
16
20
A- 36
A- 48
A- 60
A- 72
A- 84
A- 96
A-108
A-120
-------
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
LIST OF TABLES
Text
Screen Analysis of a Sample Coal - Bakerstown
Se8JJl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Analyses of ROM Coals Subjected to Deep Cleaning
Studies, Dry Basis...................................
Ash Reduction Obtained from Direct Two-Stage
Concentrating Table..................................
Results from a Typical 3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
and Pyrite Precleaning Test on the No. 14
Concentrating Table - Bakerstown Seam................
Results from a Typical 30 Mesh x 0 Pyrite Cleaning
Test on the No. l5-S Concentrating Table -
Bakerstown. Seazn.......................................
Results from a Typical 60 Mesh x 0 Pyrite Cleaning
Test on the No. l5-S Concentrating Table -.
Bakersto'WIl Seam.......................................
Compilation of Results from a Typical Pyrite
Beneficiation Test - Bakerstown Seam.................
Sample Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Test -
Baker stown. Seam.......................................
Total Sulfur Reduction Obtained from Direct Two-Stage
Concentrating Table Cleaning.........................
Effects of No. 14 Table Cleaning on Phase II Steam
Coals. (Computed from Table Composites)...............
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fraction from
Bakerstown Coal Using "Conventional" Three-Split
Separation of 3/8 Inch x 0 Coal......................
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fraction from
Bakerstown Coal Using "Unconventional" Three-
Split Separation of 3/8 Inch x 0 Coal................
Potential Three-Split Combinations for Maximum
Utilization of 3/8 Inch x 0 Phase II Coals for
Combustion Feedstock..................................
-vii-
Page
7
9
11
12
13
14
15
17
19
21
23
24
25
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Text
Page
-
14
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fractions from
Bakerstown Coal Using "Direct" Two-Split Separation..
26
15
Potential Combustion Use of Selected Fractions from
Bakerstown Coal Using "Conventional" Two-Split
Separat ion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Z7
16
Potential Two-Split Combinations for Maximum
Utilization of 3/8 Inch x 0 Phase II Coals for
CombustiQn Feedstock.................................
29
17
Effects of "Direct" Cleaning 3/8 Inch x 0 Coal
Relative to Its Power Generation Potential...........
31
Appendixes
Table Seam County State Page
Al through AlO Western Ky. No.6 Butler Kentucky A- 35
All through A20 Bakerstown Grant West Virginia A- 47
A21 through A30 Lower Kittanning Westmoreland Pennsylvania A- 59
A3l through A40 Lower Freeport Indiana Pennsylvania A- 71
A4l through A50 Fort Scott Rogers Oklahoma A- 83
A5l. through A60 Lower Freeport Butler Pennsylvania A- 95
A6l through A70 Baxter Crawford Kansas A-107
A7l through A80 Clements Walker Alabama A-1l9
Bl through B4 Western Ky. No.6 Butler Kentucky B-133
B5 through B8 Bakerstown Grant West Virginia B-137
B9 through B12 Lower Kittanning Westmoreland Pennsylvania B-14l
B13 through B16. Lower Freeport Indiana Pennsylvania B-145
B17 through B20 Fort Scott Rogers Oklahoma B-149
-viii-
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Appendixes
Table Seam County State Page
B21 through B24 Lower Freeport Butler Pennsylvania B-153
B25 through B28 Baxter Crawford Kansas B-157
B29 through B32 Clements Walker Alabama B-16l
-ix-
-------
BITUMINOUS COAL RESEARCH, mc.
SroNSORED RESEARCH PROGRAM
AN EVALUATION OF COAL CLEANING PROCESSES AND
TECIDrIQUES FOR REMOVING PYRITIC SULFUR
FROM FINE COAL
Report for the Period May 1971 - March 1972
(BCR Report L-464)
April 1972
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.
Background
During the combustion of fossil fuel, sulfur oxide compounds are
formed and released to the atmosphere. Where it is feasible to physi-
cally remove pyrite ~om coal in significant quantities, the amount of
sulfur oxide produced from coal firing can be reduced.
A review of the literature indicated that little information
exists relative to the washability of coals mined primarily for use in
power generation. To eliminate this deficiency, the Environmental
Protection Agency had awarded contracts to the United States Bureau
of Mines, the Illinois Geological Survey, and Commercial Testing and
Engineering Company to develop washability data on selected steam
coals.
The washability studies were unique in that they were specifically
initiated to define pyrite liberation at various stages of crushing
and grinding. Previous studies had concentrated on developing washa-
bility data ~om sized coal ~actions as-mined so the proper sized
splits could be made and the proper cleaning equipment and separating
gravity released.
On June 1, 1967, Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., was awarded
contract No. PH 86-67-139, to develop additional data on selected
coals.
The objective of the initial work undertaken by Bituminous Coal
Research, Inc., was twofold; first, to develop washability data on
finer sizes of coal, and second, to evaluate coal cleaning methods and
techniques for removing pyritic sulfur from the fine-sized coal. From
BCR's previous work on pyrite removal from finely sized coal, two size
consists were of paramount interest in the Phase I washability studies.
-------
2.
The first was the 30 mesh x 0 size. This range approximates the
lower limit in coal sizing that would contain pyrite particles typical
of a utility pulverizer's recycle load. Recycle load here refers to
the pulverizer product which is either too coarse or too heavy to
report to the pulverizer classifier. This recycle material might
conceivably be diverted from the utility pulverizer, wet-cleaned to
remove the pyrite, and, after dewatering, reinjected with the feed to
the pulverizer without thermal drying.
The second size range of interest was that having 60 to 80 per-
cent minus 200 mesh, which constitutes a coal's "as fired," or pul-
verized coal (p.c.), grind. At this stage of pulverization, insofar
as the coal's present utilization is concerned, maximum theoretical
pyrite liberation occurs. Consequently, the maximum degree of poten-
tial pyrite removal has been attained with each coal's p.c. grind.
The Phase II evaluation of coal cleaning methods and techniques
was conducted at two size consists; namely, 3/8 inch x 0 and 30 mesh
x O. A two-stage operation was adopted to maximize pyrite removal
from selected coals using conventional coal cleaning equipment.
pyrite concentrations were obtained from the 3/8 inch x 0 refuse
following pulverization to a uniform 30 mesh topsize. A portion of
this material was further reduced to a 60 mesh topsize and reprocessed.
The main objective of this research was to produce a high-grade pyrite
concentrate. This could be used as feedstock to a sulfuric acid plant
or, in combination with high-Btu refuse from either the coal cleaning
or pyrite concentration steps, for a specially designed, non-polluting,
high-sulfur combustor.
Effective utilization of high-Btu refuse fractions would, by
maximum use, enhance the economic potential of a coal.
The results of the work completed during the calendar year 1969
were reported to the National Air Pollution Control Administration in
BCR Report L-362 dated February 1970, entitled, "An Evaluation of Coal
Cleaning Processes and Techniques for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from
Fine Coal," Contract No. PH 86-67-139.
The work completed in 1970 under Contract No. CPA 70-26 was
reported und~r the same title in BCR Report L-404, submitted to the
Environmental Protection Agency in April 1971. The current research
is sponsored under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0024.
B.
Objective
The basic objective of this work did not differ significantly
from the earlier studies.
-------
3.
The
deletion
existing
selected
scope of the current research, however, was modified by the
of the Phase I washability studies concerned with extending
data to 30 mesh x 0 pulverized coal (p.c.) grind sizes of
steam coals.
In its stead, a southern Appalachian coal was added to the coals
slated for comprehensive two-stage beneficiation to further define
this method for removing and concentrating pyrite from steam coals.
As in the previous report period, particular attention was
focused on the use of the high-gravity middlings fractions in line
with the total steam utilization concept.
C.
Approach
Eight geographically diverse bituminous coals, used basically for
power generation, were collected by BCR personnel and subjected to
two-stage cleaning studies under Phase II of the current contract.
The purpose was to determine the suitability of a concentrating table
for deep cleaning coals at a topsize of 30 mesh. Each coal was rough
cleaned on a No. 14 concentrating table (1/4 commercial size) at a
3/8 inch topsize to remove the obvious impurities. Zones A, B, and C,
constituting the clean coal fraction, were combined, crushed to a top-
size of 30 mesh, and recleaned with this concentrating table.
In the pyrite beneficiation studies, the raw material for testing
was obtained by accumulating the heavier gravity Zone E refuse from
the rough cleaned 3/8 inch x 0 coal on the quarter-size (No. 14) con-
centrating table. This heavy refuse was pulverized to minus 30 mesh
and further concentrated using a l5-S metallurgical concentrating
table. The l5-S table has approximately one-fourth the surface, or
cleaning area, of the No. 14 coal cleaning table.
To simulate the reclamation of recycle product that had been
further reduced in size to increase pyrite liberation, the middling
Zone D material from cleaning the 30 mesh x 0 on the l5-S table was
collected, pulverized to minus 60 mesh, and recleaned on the l5-S
table. These pyrite beneficiation studies were combined under Phase
II studies to establish the Coal Cleaning and pyrite Beneficiation
Phase.
Numerous high-sulfur, high-ash fractions containing significant
quantities of combustible material were collected from the concentra-
ting table tests and analyzed. Resultant data permitted an initial
evaluation of the use potential of these fractions in a high-sulfur
combustor. Tests for calorific value, ash fusion, and ash analysis
by spectrography introduced under Contract 70-26 were continued in
this program. These reflect the increased importance of determining
the combustion and ash characteristics of the high-ash, high-sulfur
fractions having potential for use in a high-sulfur combustor.
-------
4.
II.
DISCUSSION OF PHASE I EVALUATIONS
This work was discontinued under the existing contract. Funds
allocated for this work were used to evaluate one additional coal
under comprehensive two-stage Phase II beneficiation.
III.
DISCUSSION OF PHASE II EVALUATIONS
A.
Test Procedure
1. Coal Cleaning on the No. 14 Concentrating Table: Eight coals
were selected for the modified Phase II, Coal Cleaning and Pyrite
Beneficiation Tests, a schematic of which is shown in Figure 1. Each
coal was rough-cleaned at the 3/8 inch x 0 size consist on the No. 14
concentrating table to remove the obvious refuse prior to further size
reduction. Figure 2 shows typical characteristics of the material
reporting to the various zones collected from the concentrating table,
and the analyses performed on the subject fractions.
In the 3/8 inch x 0 rough cleaning, some of the high-carbon
Zone D refuse fraction, which is normally discharged in actual clean-
ing plant practice because of its high ash content, was combined with
Zone C material for further processing. It is from this high-carbon
refuse fraction, together with the high-ash coal normally reporting
to Zone C, that significant additional pyrite liberation and removal
can be obtained through size reduction and recleaning.
The rough cleaned material obtained from Zones A, B, and C was
pulverized to 30 mesh for a second 5-zone separation on the No. 14
concentrating table.
Table 1 shows the size consist of the
inch x 0 and the 30 mesh x 0 concentrating
town coal (BCR Lot No. 2856), while Figure
data in graphical form.
feed material for the 3/8
table tests on the Bakers-
3 presents the cumulative
Table 2 shows the ROM chemical analyses of the Phase II coals
tested under this program.
2. Pyrite Beneficiation on the No. 15-S Metallurgical Concen-
trating Table: The Pyrite Beneficiation work (formerly Phase IV)
was effected using a smaller concentrating table, designated as a
15-S, or metallurgical table. This table has one-fourth of the
cleaning area of the quarter-sized table (No. 14) being used in the
coal cleaning studies and one-sixteenth of the area of a commercial
coal cleaning deck. The smaller metallurgical table was set up with
five sampling zones, paralleling the arrangement for the larger coal
cleaning table.
-------
5.
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
Initial Pyrite Concentrate
Coal Rough Cleaning
and
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
Crushed to
.30 mesh x 0
IRe,...
Coal Deep Cleaning
No. 14 Table
y
I Clean Coal I
No. 15-5 Table
High
Grade
Pyrite
/
Pyrite
Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
Pyrite
Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076Gl
Figure 1. Flowsheet for Coal Cleaning and Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
-------
0'\
.
Feed
Zone E
Pyrite
Float-Sink at
2.95 sp. gr.
Float, Sink
t t
Analysis
Adjustable-
Division
Zone A
Ultra Clean Coal
Zone C
High Ash Coal
Float-Sink at
1.90 and 2.95
sp. gr.
t
1.90 Float,
1.90 x 2.95,
2.95 Sink
t
Chemical Analysis
Assumed 1.60 Float Material
Float-Sink at 1.60 and 1.90 sp. gr.
Float 1.60, x 1.60 x 1.90, 1.90 Sink
t t
Chemical Analysis
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G2
Figure 2. Sampling Flow Sheet for Concentrating Table Tests
-------
7.
TABLE 1. SCREEN ANALYSIS OF A SAMPLE COAL - BAKERSTOWN SEAM
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed To 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/411 9.3 9.3
1/4" x 6 M 23.5 32.8
6Mx12M 21.2 54.0
Minus 12 M 46.0 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C From 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) Crushed To 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M 6.6 6.6
30 M x 50 M 29.3 35.9
50 M x 100 M 24.-5 60.4
Minus 100 M 39.6 100.0
-------
CP
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
11(
.Sieve opening in mm
:.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
100
30
6
1/4
U. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076GJ
Figure 3. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table
Feeds for Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia, BCR Sample No. 2856
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYSES OF ROM COALS SUBJECTED TO DEEP CLEANING STUDIES, DRY BASIS
Weight Percent Calorific
Coal Identification Volatile Fixed Total Sulfate Organic Pyritic Value,
Lot Seam Ash Matter Carbon Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/lb
2847 W. Ky. No.6 Seam 10.1 45.7 44.2 5.48 0.02 0.80 4.66 12,772
Butler County, Ky.
2856 Bakerstown Seam 24.0 19.8 56.2 2.88 0.46 2.42 1l,604
Grant County, W. Va.
2860 Lower Kittanning Seam 26.4 18.0 55.6 4.18 0.02 0.52 3.64 11,198
Westmoreland County, Fa.
2881 Lower Freeport Seam 19.9 25.0 55.1 1.86 0.02 0.42 1.42 12,294
Indiana County, Fa.
2889 Ft. Scott Seam 13.3 41.3 45.4 4.21 0.08 1.17 2.96 12,882
Rogers County, Okla.
2900 Lower Freeport Seam 15.0 34.2 50.8 3.36 0.04 0.54 2.78 12, 576
Butler County, Fa.
2926 Baxter Seam 14.8 38.6 46.6 4.02 0.01 0.78 3.23 12,826
Crawford County, Kan.
2928 Clements Seam 25.3 31.4 43.3 1.96 0.54 1.42 ll, 044
Walker County, Ala.
\0
.
-------
10.
Feed material for the pyrite beneficiation studies was obtained
by collecting all the normal :lone E material, plus a portion of the
material that would have ordinarily gone to adjacent Zone D, during
a normal 3/8 inch x 0 rough cleaning test.
As illustrated in Figure 2, Zone E collects the pyrite-rich
fraction from the coal cleaning test and Zone D, the remaining refuse.
The material diverted from Zone D to Zone E is the highest gravity
material normally report ing to :lone D and, hence, the material most
likely to contain additional pyrite that might be liberated by fur-
ther size reduction. Eight coals were processed in this manner, and
the ash reductions obtained when cleaning these coals at a 3/8 inch
x 0 are shown in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the results from a typical 3/8 inch x 0 cleaning
test in which a deep cut had been made into the normal Zone D to
insure that all the pyrite had been captured for subsequent reclean-
ing. This so-called deep cut is evidenced by a higher than normal
percentage of 2.95 float material in Zone E.
The modified Zone E pyrite-rich material from the coal cleaning
test was pulverized to a 30 mesh topsize for the initial pyrite
beneficiation test with the l5-S metallurgical table, following the
flow diagram shown in Figure 1. Table 5 shows a sample copy of the
information obtained on the 30 mesh x 0 pyrite cleaning test. The
pyrite concentrate from Zone E in this 30 mesh x 0 test, which was
very high in total sulfur and low in carbon, was not further processed.
For each of the eight coals, the Zone D material from this test was
collected, pulverized to minus 60 mesh to further liberate high grade
pyrite, and recleaned on the metallurgical table.
Table 6 is a sample copy of the data sheet illustrating the
separation obtained from the Bakerstown seam on the metallurgical
table when using the 60 mesh x 0 refuse feed material. The break-
down by zones is shown with the secondary pyrite concentrate ob-
tained from :lone E assaying 39.8 percent total sulfur.
Table 7 is a tabulation of the Bakerstown seam pyrite cleaning
steps, showing, in the last line of figures, that 1.2 percent of the
total feed is recoverable as high grade pyrite containing 43.8 per-
cent sulfur.
The sample flowsheet, Figure 4, shows the steps of pyrite clean-
ing in a different manner, utilizing a schematic flow diagram and
showing the distribution of total sulfur in pounds per ton of ROM
coal.
The final sample data sheet, Table 8, shows the chemical data
by steps and the total quantity of material removed from each step
for subsequent reprocessing. .
-------
TABLE 3. ASH REDUCTION OBTAINED FROM DIRECT TWO-STAGE CONCENTRATING TABLE CLEANING
Percent Ash, Percent Ash, Percent
Cleaned Percent Cleaned Percent Total
Coal Identification Percent Ash 3/8 Inch x 0 Primary 30 Mesh x 0 Secondary Ash
Lot. Seam R.O.M. Feed Composites* Reduction Composites* Reduction Reduction
2847 Western Ky. No.6 10.1 6.4 36.6 4.9 23.4 51.5
2856 Bakerstown 24.0 15.6 35.0 12.5 19.9 47.9
2860 Lower Kittanning 26.4 10.9 58.7 7.6 30.3 71.2
2881 Lower Freeport 19.9 14.0 29.6 10.1 27.9 49.2
2889 Ft. Scott 13.3 8.2 38.3 5.4 34.1 59.4
2900 Lower Freeport 15.0 14.0 6.7 11.9 15.0 20.7
2926 Baxter 14.8 12.4 16.2 10.2 17.7 31.1
2928 Clements 25.3 11.2 55.7 7.2 35.7 71.5
Average Reduction 34.6 25.5 50.3
(8 coals)
I-'
* Cleaned fractions designated represent weight percent composites of Zones A, B, C I-'
.
from the concentrating table runs.
-------
12.
TABLE 4. RESULTS FROM A TYPICAL 3/8 INCH x 0 ROUGH CLEANING AND PYRITE.
PRECLEANING TEST ON THE NO. 14 CONCENTRATING TABLE - BAKERSTOWN SEAM
Product Weip;ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab le Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 47.3 0.34 10.2 1.23
Zone B 22.0 0.28 13.0 1.24
Zone C
Float at 1.60 6.0 ~9.7 0.~4 .15.5 1.~5
1.60 by 1.90 6.6 4~.4 0.45 45.2 2.02
Sink at 1.90 2.6 16.9 0.44 60.5 5.22
Composite 15.2 100.0 36.1 2.29
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 2.1 17.3 0.22 36.2 1. \6
1.90 by 2.95 5.6 71.2 0.~6 77.5 4. \9
Sink at 2.95 1.4 11.5 0.20 61.0 38.
Composite 12.1 100.0 6~.4 ~.24
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1.3 39.1 0.80 79.2 6.34
Sink at 2.95 2.1 60.9 0.22 62.0 40.5
COMPosite 3.4 100.0 65.7 27.1
Composite of 84.5
Zones A. B. C 15.6 1.42
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 75.'i 11.5 1.24
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 'i.5 61.6 ~9.7
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 23.8 3.12
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.66 24.0 2.88
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Run Date:
7-16-71
-------
13.
TABLE 5. RESULTS FROM A TYPICAL 30 MESH x 0 PYRITE
CLEANING TEST ON THE NO. 15-S CONCENTRATING TABLE - BAKERSTOWN SEAM
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 81.8 0.61 12.0 LOg
Zone B 10.0 0.47 15.1 1.12
Zone C
Float at 1.60 0.7 71.3 0.47 18.9 1.14
Sink at 1.60 0.3 2t).7 0.42 143.() 2.94
Composite 1.0 100.0 26.0 1.66
Zone D
Float at 1.60 0.6 9.4 0.62 27.3 1.16
1.60 by 2.q5 '1.8 87.4 0.68 55.2 2.20
Sink at 2.95 0.2 :1.2 0.18 161.0 43.1
COIIIPosite 6.6 100.0 52.t) ~.41
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 17.8 0.69 168.2 13.0
Sink at 2.ql) 0.5 82.2 0.22 62.1 44.1
COIIIPosite 0.6 100.0 63.2 38.6
Composite of 12.5
Zones A. B. C q2.8 1.10
Composite of 1.60 93.1
Float Fractions 12.5 1.09
Composite of 2.95 0.7 61.8 43.8
Sink Fractions
Composite of 1.48
Table Products 100.0 15.5
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.50 16.4 1.65
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date: 7-27-71
-------
14.
TABLE 6. RESULTS FROM A TYPICAL 60 MESH x 0 PYRITE
CLEANING TEST ON THE NO. 15-S CONCENTRATING TABLE - BAKERSTOWN SEAM
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 24.0 0.43 74.4 20;4
Zone B ~5.4 0.64 75..3-- 19.4
Zone C n.8 0.~8 76.0 15.8
Zone D 14.0 0.68 78.2 17.4
Zone E 12.8 0.26 69.3 19.8
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 74.8 21.5
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.14 75.1 21.2
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
7 -29- 71
-------
15.
TABLE 7. COMPILATION OF RESULTS FROM A
TYPICAL PYRITE BENEFICIATION TEST - BAKERSTOWN SEAM
Pyrite Prec1eaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed To
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 24.0 2.88
Zone E (Pyrite Zope) i~4 68.7 27.1
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 7-28-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E. ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) Crushed To
30 Mesh x 0
Product,
Wei ht
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis Weight %
Ash Total Sulfur
28.2
68.
64.
2 .1
Analysis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
44.6
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 7-29-71
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-28-71) Crushed To
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 75.1 21.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 12.8 69.3 39.8
Two Stage Pyrite Product
1.2
65.3
43.8
-------
16.
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
60.2
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No. 2856
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
:~
. - ~Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-mine Coal
11.2
~
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
llJi
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
No. 15-S Table
8.2
~
1.8
1.:.2.
0.6
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
:....2..&
2.:1
No. 15-$
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
h.1
1.8
0.6
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 607604
Figure 4. Sample Flowsheet for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
-------
17.
TABLE 8.
SAMPLE FLOWSHEET FOR PYRITE BENEFICIATION
TEST - BAKERSTOWN SEAM
WP. 0''''+.
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 47.3 10.2 1.23
Zone B 22.0 11.0 1.24
Zone C lS.2 16.1 2.2Q
Zone D 12.1 68.4 8.24
Zone E 1.4 68.7 27.1
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.4 60.3 24.4
Zone B 0.3 60.b 22.7
Zone C 0.1 59.9 22.0
Zone D 1.6 7b.tJ ItJ.6
Zone E 1.0 64.5 44.6
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.4 74.4 20.4
Zone B 0.6 75.3 19.4
Zone C 0.2 76.0 15.b
Zone D 0.2 78.2 17.4
Zone E 0.2 69.1 19.8
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.18
Analysis of Feed
Coal 24.0 2.88
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
-------
18.
Complete analytical data for each Phase II coal, as exemplified
by the foregoing tables, are compiled as Appendix A, Tables Al through
A79.
B.
Summary
1. Coal Cleaning: The samples selected for Phase II research
represent a cross section of the high-sulfur bituminous steam coals
in the United States. Coals from as far west as Kansas and Oklahoma
and as far south as Alabama were included with northern Appalachian
coals in these tests. As shown in Table 9 and illustrated graphi-
cally in Figure 5, this sequence of coals generally resisted benefi-
ciation relative to pyrite removal despite optimistic projections
from earlier Phase I studies. Typical of this discrepancy is the
Western Kentucky No.6 seam (BCR 2847) from Butler County, Kentucky.
Phase I data reported in Table 2 of BCR Final Report L-404 (April
1971) showed a 75.0 percent reduction in total ~ulfur content at a
30 mesh x 0 size consist; but two-stage beneficiation, as shown by
Table 9, produced only 30.8 percent reduction in total sulfur from
a somewhat greater raw coal concentration.
Another example involved the Lower Freeport coal, widely used
for steam generation around Butler County, Pennsylvania. Phase I
research showed 58.2 percent expected sulfur decrease, but two-stage
beneficiation of the same coal produced only 36.6 percent reduction
despite a much higher raw coal sulfur value (3.36 percent versus
2.20 percent from Phase I, Lot 2447).
The average primary (single stage) sulfur reduction for this
suite of eight coals was 23.1 percent, while the two-stage separa-
tion averaged 33.3 percent. Most difficult to beneficiate were the
southern and western coals. As shown in Table 9, the Clements seam
(BCR 2928) from Walker County, Alabama and the Ft. Scott seam (BCR
2889) from Rogers County, Oklahoma, produced only 11.7 percent and
14.7 percent overall sulfur reduction, respectively. These coals,
however, showed the highest relative percentage (of the 8 coals
tested) of their total sulfur content as organic sulfur, which is
essentially not removable.
The Bakerstown coal (BCR 2856) from Grant County, West Virginia
and the Lower Kittanning cQal (BCR 2860) from Westmoreland County,
Pennsylvania, responded most favorably to wet table beneficiation.
Reductions in total sulfur content of 61.8 percent and 54.5 percent,
respectively, were realized from the two-stage washing; however, the
sulfur in these coals was most dominantly pyritic in origin.
A more detailed definition of the effects of "direct" Deister
table cleaning in specific zones is shown in Table 10. Any mention
of "direct" cleaning in the text refers to all material reporting to
Zones A, B, and C, without considering misplaced higher gravity refuse
contaminants.
-------
TABLE 9. TOTAL SULFUR REDUCTION OBTAINED FROM DIRECT TWO-STAGE CONCENTRATING TABLE CLEANING
Percent
Percent Percent Total Sulfur Percent Percent. Total Sulfur Percent Overall
Coal Identification Total Sulfur Clean 3/8 Inch x 0 Primary Clean 30 Mesh x 0 Secondary Sulfur
Lot Seam R.O.M. Feed Composites* Reduction Composites* Reduction Reduction
2847 Western Ky. No.6 5.48 3.89 29.0 3.79 2.6 30.8
2856 Bakerstown 2.88 1.42 50.7 1.10 22.5 61.8
2860 Lower Kittanning 4.18 2.44 41.6 1.90 22.1 54.5
2881 Lower Freeport 1.86 1.44 22.6 1.22 15.3 34.4
2889 Ft. Scott 4.21 3.74 11.2 3.59 4.0 14.7
2900 Lower Freeport 3.36 2.83 15.8 2.13 24.7 36.6
2926 Baxter 4.02 3.62 10.0 3.15 13.0 21.6
2928 Clements 1.96 1.88 4.1 1.73 8.0 11.7
Average Reduction
(8 coals) 23.1 14.0 33.3
* Cleaned Fractions Designated Represent Direct Weight Percent Composites of
Zones A, B, C from the No. 14 Concentrating Table Runs.
......
\D
..
-------
I -
!
20.
TOTAL SULFUR
DRY BASIS, PERCENT
~ 6.0
W. Ky No.6
Lot 2847
,---....
- Raw Coal
I I Zones A,B,C 3/8" x 0
- Zones A,B,C 30 M x 0
5.0
L. Kittanning
Lot 2860
,---....
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
o
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076GS
Figure 5. Total Sulfur Reduction from Direct Two-stage Cleaning
-------
21.
TABLE 10. EFFECTS OF NO. 14 TABLE CLEANING ON PHASE II SEAM COALS (Computed from Table Compoa1 tea)
Kentucky No.6 Bakers town Lower Kittanning Lower Freeport Fort Scott Lower Freeport Baxter Clements
BCR 2847 BCR 2856 BCR 2860 BCR 2881 BCR 2889 BCR 2900 BCR 2926 BCR 2928
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi- Weight Benefi-
percent ciation percent dation percent ciation percent ciation percent ciation percent ciation percent ciation percent ciation
Feed Coal (Composite): '
Recovery 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
Ash 8.63 23.80 29.50 .23.60 12.40 15.20 14;00 24.10
Total Sulfur 5.10 3.12 4.44 2.03 4.16 3.44 4.10 2.01
3/8" x 0 Rough Cleaning: 26.90 47.30 45.90 46.60 43.00 43.90
Zone A - Recovery 27.20 31. 50
Ash 5.98 30.7 10.20 57.1 8.26 72.0 8.21 65.2 6.51 47.5 11. 70 23.0 10.50 25.0 9.99 58.5
Total Sulfur 3.47 32.0 1.23 60.6 1.90 57.2 1.28 36.9 3.44 17.3 2.20 36.0 2.92 28.8 1.40 30.3
Zone B - Recovery 43.20 22.00 17.50 18.20 -- 39.20 42.30 46.00 34.00
Ash 4.88 43.5 13.00 45.4 8-.10 72.5 8.35 64.6 5.12 58.7 11. 80 22.4 9.66 31.0 8.02 66.7
Total Sulfur 3.53 30.8 1.24 60.3 2.09 52.9 1.36 33.0 3.58 13.9 2.22 35.5 3.06 25.4 1.88 6.5
Zone C - Recovery 25.90 15.20 8.40 19.70 10.80 11.10 23 . 50 16.20
Ash 9.50 36.10 31.40 33.10 26.40 31.70 20.00 22.20
Total Sulfur 4.93 3.3 2.29 26.6 6.12 1.90 6.4 5.49 7.67 5.53 2.83
Zone D - Recovery 1.80 12.10 12.10 10.90 4.80 2.10 2.30 14.80
Ash 59.10 68.40 76.10 74.70 66.60 57.80 59.00 79.10
Total Sulfur 28.90 8.24 5.47 3.61 7.17 22 .10 16 . 50 1.97 2.0
Zone E - Recovery 2.20 3.40 16.10 4.60 2.20 0.60 1.00 3.50
Ash 63.20 68.70 77.30 79.00 69.30 60.90 67.80 83.30
Total Sulfur 38.40 27 .10 12.60 9.09 15.30 36.00 21. 90 5.07
Single Stage Washed Composite:* 96.00 84.50 71.80 84.50
Recovery 34.5 93.00 97 .30 96.70 81. 70
Ash 6.44 25.4 15.60 10.90 63.1 14.00 40.7 8.23 33.6 14.00 7.9 12.40 11.4 11. 60 51.9
Total Sulfur 3.89 23.7 1.42 54.5 2.44 45.0 1.44 29.1 3.74 10.1 2.83 17.7 3.62 11.7 1.88 6.5
30M x 0 Deep Cleaning: 83.20 81.80 83.30 80. 20 81.10 78.10 81.40 82.40
Zone A - Recovery
Ash 4.82 44.1 12.00 49.6 7.46 74.7 10.20 56.8 5.38 56.6 11.40 25.0 9.99 28.6 6.92 71.3
Total Sulfur 3.74 26.7 1.09 65.1 1.88 57.7 1.24 38.9 3.56 14.4 2.14 37.8 3.10 24.4 1.66 17.4
Zone B - Recovery 13.70 10.00 10.70 13.10 13.80 13.80 13.90 12.80
Ash 4.84 43.9 15.10 36.6 8.06 72.7 9.50 59.7 5.08 59.0 13.40 11.8 10.40 25.7 7.88 67.3
Total Sulfur 3.92 23.1 1.12 64.1 1.98 55.4 1.08 46.8 3.70 11.1 1.92 44.2 3.08 24.9 1.98 1.5
Zone C - Recovery 1.20 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.50 1.80 2.40 1.10
Ash 8.98 26.00 15.50 47.5 12.30 47.9 9.55 23.0 20.90 17.60 17.40 27.8
Total Sulfur 5.65 1.66 46.8 2.92 34.2 1.46 28.1 4.90 3.09 10.2 5.31 3.89
Zone D - Recovery 1.40 6.60 4.60 5.70 4.50 5.70 2.10 3.20
Ash 30.30 52.80 50.40 51.50 53.80 39.30 50.50 36.60
Total Sulfur 13.20 3.41 7.76 1.76 13.3 7.87 8.91 13 . 50 5.29
Zone E - Recovery 0.50 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.10 0.60 0.20 0.50
Ash 59.00 63.20 64.70 70.80 69.50 62.90 66.60 66.70
Total Sulfur 30.00 38.60 34.60 24.00 16.60 40.80 24.80 11.60
Two Stage Washed Composite:* 94.20 78.40 68.20 79.40 88.70 94.50 78.70
Recovery 91. 20
Ash 4;87 43.6 12.50 47.5 7.61 74.2 10.10 57.2 5.36 56.8 11.90 21.7 10. 20 27.1 7.17 70.2
Total Sulfur 3.79 25.7 1.10 64.7 1.90 57.2 1.22 39.9 3.59 13.7 2.13 38.1 3.15 23.2 1.73 13.9
* Weight Percent Composite of Zones A, B, and C
-------
22.
Most coals realized the greater quantity of sulfur removal in
the 3/8 inch x 0 rough separation but, as shown graphically in
Figure 5, the Lower Freeport seam (BCR 2900) from Butler County,
Pennsylvania, produced a greater reduction during secondary deep-
cleaning. Apparently the finer grinding (30 mesh topsize) is most
critical for sulfur removal from this coal.
2. Coal Utilization Potential: Dnploying the total seam utili-
zation concept inititated in Final Report L-404 (April 1971), 3/8 inch
x 0 coal analytical data were compiled relative to arbitrary two-
split and three-split gravity fractions. For comparison, the "direct"
two-split separation was included. As shown in sample data sheets
from the Bakerstown seam, presented as Tables 11 and 12, three-split
separations were made to obtain three distinct products: a low
sulfur combustor feedstock, a high sulfur combustor feedstock, and
a refuse product.
The low sulfur combustor feedstock ideally should contain a
sulfur content below 1.0 percent in conjunction with a high calorific
content. The high sulfur combustor feedstock may have a higher
sulfur content and lower calorific value while the third product
should contain the high ash, low calorific value refuse material.
As shown in Table 11, a "conventional" three-split separation of the
Bakerstown seam concentrates 89.5 percent of the total calorific
value available in the coal in the low-sulfur combustor feedstock
with a 1.24 percent total sulfur content. In Table 12 the gravity
separations were composited in the "unconventional" manner initiated
in BCR L-404. This composite includes the 1.60 float fraction from
Zone C with the high-sulfur combustor feedstock which insignificantly
altered the ash, sulfur, and calorific value of the low-sulfur coal
but greatly increased the available Btu in the high-sulfur combustor
feedstock.
Composites of the "conventional" and "unconventional" three-split
combinations of each of the Phase II coals are presented in Table 13.
As expected, the "unconventional" gravity separate combinations con-
sistently produced better quality high-sulfur feedstock but did not
essentially change the low sulfur product.
When a low-sulfur combustor product alone is required, a two-
split separation would be utilized. Tables 14 and 15 illustrate
both "direct" and "conventional" two-split methods for compositing
the Bakerstown seam coal. As previously described, the "direct"
composite incorporates all material reporting to Zones A, B, and C
as clean coal, while combining Zones D and E as refuse.
The "conventional" two-split separation produced a cleaner low-
sulfur product by including Zone C 1.60 sink fractions in the refuse
product. This "conventional" composite effected a 4 percent decrease
in ash and a 0.2 percent decrease in total sulfur in the Bakerstown
coal but recovered less of the total coal.
-------
TABLE 11. POTENTIAL CCMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTION FROM BAKERSTOWN COAL
. USING "CONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION OF 3/8 INCH x 0 COAL
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis ......
Product, Calorific Composite wt. % of % of
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
Composite of Fractions 75.3 11.5 1.24 13,774. 89.5 83.6
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 2.1 36.2 1.86 9,4a>
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.4 61.0 38.60 3,870
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
Composite of Fract ions 14.8 50.5 11. 48 6,632 8.5 16.4
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
Composite of Fractions ..:b2 78.0 5.08 2.316 2.0 -
- f\)
LA.>
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.14 11,583 .
-------
TABLE 12. roTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTION FROM BAKERSTOWN COAL
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION OF 3/8 INCH x 0 COAL
~
.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Bas is Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
Composite of Fractions 69.3 11.1 1.23 13,848 82.8+ 76.9
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
Zone C, 1. 90 Sk. 2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 2.1 36.2 1.86 9,426
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.4 61.0 3U.60 3,870
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
Composite of Fractions 20.8 40.5 8.56 8,446 15.2 23.1
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
Composite of Fractions 9.9 78.0 5.08 2,316 2.0
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.14 11,583
-------
25.
TABLE 13.
POTENTIAL THREE-SPLIT COMBINATIONS FOR MAXDroM UTILIZATION OF 3/8 INCH x 0 PHASE II COALS FOR COMBUSTION FEEDSTOCK
W. Ky. No.6 Bakerstown L. Ki ttanning L. Freeport Ft. Scott L. Freeport Baxter Clements
BCR No. 2847 BCR No. 2856 BCR No. 2860 BCR No. 2881 BCR No. 2889 BCR No. 2900 BCR No. 2926 BCR No. 2928
...b!:.. ~ ---&- ~ ~ -1h.. ...blh- .1!&- ---&- ~ --1!:!:. ---&- ~ ~ ~ ...bb... ~ ---&- ..&&.... ~ ---&- .l!&... .J!&.... ---&-
Conventional Three-Split
Percent:
Yield 93.8 5..0 1.2 75.3 14.8 9.9 67.5 8.8 23.7 74.6 12.3 13.1 89.2 5.7 5.1 92.0 6.8 1.2 92.1 6.2 1.7 78.2 5.1 16.7
Ash 5.36 56.38 64.95 11.5 50.5 78.0 8.38 55.93 79.84 8.58 53.69 81.08 6.08 57.60 71. 79 12.00 50.11 63.91 .' 10.18 55.80 68.18 9.36 54.61 83.61
Total Sulfur 3.63 29.96 15.18 1.24 11.48 5.08 2.02 21.19 5.13 1.32 5.35 2.77 3.65 12.01 4.49 2.27 17.39 14.38 , 3.15 17.40 6.58 1.84 6.05 1.57
Calorific Content (Btu) 13,792 4,450 4,085 13 ,774 6,632 2,316 14,383 5,309 1,800 14,177 6,448 1,916 14,004 4,818 1,461 13,038 6,152 4,102 : 13,589 4,699 1,244 13 ,738 5,980 1,114
Percent:
Available Btu 97.9 1.7 0.4 89.5 8.5 2.0 91.6 4.4 4.0 91.0 6.8 2.2 97.3 2.1 0.6 96.2 3.4 0.4 97.6 2.3 0.2 95.6 2.7 1.7
Total Coal 94.9 5.1 83.6 16.4 88.5 11.5 85.8 14.2 94.0 6.0 93.1 6.9 93.7 6.3 93.9 6.1
Unconventional Three-Split
Percent:
Yield 70.1 28.7 1.2 69.3 20.8 9.9 63.4 12.9 23.7 64.8 22.1 13.1 82.2 12.7 5.1 86.2 12.6 1.2 73.2 25.1 1.7 65.5 17.8 16.7
Ash 5.30 14.38 64.95 11.1 40.5 78.0 8.22 41.65 79.85 8.25 34.67 81.08 5.85 30.73 71. 79 11.75 34.31 63.91 9.97 22.06 68.18 8.97 23.78 83.61
Total Sulfur 3.51 8.51 15.18 1.23 8.56 5.08 1.95 15.41 5.13 1.30 3.62 2.77 3.51 8.31 4.49 2.21 10.84 14.38 ~ 3.01 7.09 6.58 1.65 3.74 1.57
Calorific Content (Btu) 13,815 12,109 4,085 13,848 8,446 2,316 14,423 8,000 1,800 14,231 9,719 1,916 14,049 9,593 1,461 13,082 9,018 4,102 I 13,635 11,258 1,?44 13,808 11,257 1,114
Percent:
Available Btu 73.3 26.3 0.4 82.8 15.2 2.0 86.3 9.7 4.0 79.3 18.5 2.2 89.9 9.5 0.6 90.5 9.1 0.4 77.8 22.0 0.2 80.5 17.8 1.7
Total Coal 71.0 29.0 76.9 23.1 83.1 16.9 74.6 25.4 86.6 13.4 87.2 12.8 74.5 25.5 78.6 21.4
Legend
L.S. - Low Sulf'ur Combustor Feedstock
H. S. - High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
R. - Refuse
-------
TABLE 14.
POTmTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM BAKERSTOWN COAL
USING "DmECT" TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
~
.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
Composite of Fractions 84.5 15.6 1.42 13,052 95.2
Refuse
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 2.1 36.2 1.86 9,426
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.4 61.0 38 .60 3,870
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
Composite of Fractions 15.5 6~.5 12.38 3,582 4.8
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.12 ll,584
-------
TABLE 15.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED FRACTIONS FROM BAKERSTOWN COAL
USING "CONVENTIONAL" TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. 10 of
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash SUlfur Btu/lb Calorific Value
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
Composite of Fractions 75.3 11.5 1.24 13,774 89.5
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
Zone D, 1.90 F1. 2.1 36.2 1.86 9,426
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.4 61.0 38.60 3,870
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
Composite of Fractions 24.7 61.5 8.91 4,902 10.5
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23. Ef 3.12 11,584
~
.
-------
28.
The two-split composites of all Phase II coals are presented in
Table 16. While quality of low sulfur combustor products was some-
what improved in the "conventional" composites, none of these eight
coals could be cleaned below the 1.0 percent total sulfur level
using the concentrating table.
Table 10 shows high percentages of beneficiation relative to
raw coal sulfur content but, even in the Zone A deep cleaned separ-
ations, sulfur content for these coals did not fall below the 1.0
percent standard.
It should be mentioned that the combination of the various
gravity separation fractions is by no means a standard method.
Instead, it is merely meant to be a very general guideline. In
most cases, the optimum combination of these fractions will vary
from coal to coal, depending on whether quantity or quality of feed
material for the combustor is stressed. Also, the terms "conven-.
tional," "unconventional," and "direct" are used merely to distin-
guish between possible methods of combining the fractions.
The complete sulfur combustor data for the eight Phase II coals
are shown in Appendix B, Tables Bl through B32.
3. Power Generation Potential: This evaluation of Phase II
coals deals with their potential for po",er generation. Toward this
end, ash fusion and ash composition analyses were completed on the
3/8 inch x 0 feed coal as well as the gravity-separated zone
samples.
Most of the high capacity furnaces in use today are the So-
called dry bottom type. These furnaces are designed to permit ash
to cool and solidifY before it comes into contact with boiler sur-
faces. Therefore, coals with relatively high ash fusion tempera-
tures are preferred. Ash fusion temperatures, and particularly the
IIsof'tening temperature," reflect, to some degree, the refractory
properties of the ash.
Higher softening temperatures generally indicate higher rela-
ti ve percentages of silica and aluminum oxides, particularly when
concentrations of fluxing iron and calcium and magnesium oxides are
low.
From ash composition analyses, an estimate of the raw coal
potential and that of the washed composite may be derived. Addi-
tional information relative to slagging in the radiation section,
or fouling in the convection pass of a boiler may be estimated,
using calculated indices developed from ash composition analyses.
These indices, designated as the Rs (slagging index) and Rf
(fouling index) respectively, represent the product. of the basel
acid ratio with the sulfur-and with the sodium content in the coal
ash.
-------
29.
TABLE 16. POTENTIAL '!WO-SPLIT COMBINATIONS FOR MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF 3/8 INCH x 0 PHASE II COAIB FOR COMBUSTION FEEDSTOCK
w. Ky. No.6 Bakers town L. Ki ttanning L. Freeport Ft. Scott L. Freeport Baxter Clements
BCR No. 2847 BCR No. 2856 BCR No. 2860 BCR No. 2881 BCR No. 2889 BCR No. 2900 BCR No. 2926 BCR No. 2928 .
~ Clean Ref'use ~ Clean Ref'use ..1!!'!- Clean Ref'use Raw Clean Ref'use Raw Clean Ref'use Raw C1ean ~, ~ CLean Refuse ~ lli!!L Ref'use
Direct 'I'Vo-Split
Percent:
Yield 100.0 96.0 4.0 100.0 84.5 15.5 100.0 71.8 28.2 100.0 84.5 15.5 100.0 93.0 7.0 100.0 97.3 2.7 100.0 96.7 3.3 100.0 81.7 18.3
Ash 10.1 6.42 61. 44 24.0 15.6 68.5 26.4 10.90 76.89 19.9 14.04 75.92 13.3 8.24 67.26 15.0 14.03 57.71 14.8 12.39 60.87 25.3 11. 57 79.89
Total Sulfur 5.48 3.89 33.74 2.88 1.42 12.38 4.18 2.44 9.54 1.86 1.44 5.09 4.21 3.74 9.89 3.36 2.84 25.33 4.02 3.62 17.97 1.96 1.88 2.56
Calorific Content (Btu) 12 ,772 13,616 3,433 11,604 13,052 3,582 11,198 13,908 2,186 12 , 294 13,251 2,728 12,882 13,622 2,464 12,576 12,683 4,512 12,826 13,159 3,123 11,044 13,362 1,731
Percent:
Available Btu 100.0 99.0 1.0 100.0 95.2 4.8 100.0 94.2 5.8 100.0 96.4 3.6 100.0 98.7 1.l 100.0 99.0 1.0 100.0 99.2 0.8 100.0 97.2 2.8
Conventional Two-Split
Percent:
Yield 100.0 93.8 6.2 100.0 75.3 24.7 100.0 67.5 32.5 100.0 74.6 25.4 100.0 89.2 10.8 100.0 92.0 8.0 100.0 92.1 7.9 100.0 78.2 21.8
Ash 10.1 5.36 58.04 24.0 11.5 61.5 26.4 8.38 73.37 19.9 8.58 67.82 13.3 6.08 64.30 15.0 12.00 52.18 14.8 10.18 58.46 25.3 9.36 76.82
'rotal Sul.f'ur 5.48 3.63 'Z7 .10 2.88 1.24 8.91 4.18 2.02 9.48 1.86 1.32 4.02 4.21 3.65 8.46 3.36 2.27 16.94 4.02 3.15 15.07 1.96 1.84 2.61
Calorific Content (Btu) 12,772 13 ,792 4,380 11,604 13,774 4,902 11,198 14,383 2,750 12,294 14,177 4,1ll 12,882 14,004 3,233 12,576 13,038 5,845 12,826 13,589 3,956 11,044 13,738 2,252
Percent:
Available Btu 100.0 97.9 2.1 100.0 89.5 10.5 100.0 91.6 8.4 100.0 91.0 9.0 100.0 97.3 2.7 100.0 96.2 3.8, 100.0 97.6 2.4 100.0 95.6 4.4
-------
30.
These values are included in Table 17, Sunnnary Data Sheet, which
details the ash fusion and has composition characteristics of the
Phase II coals.
The Rs (slagging index) value has been used to identity the
slagging tendency of coals as follows:
Slagging Tendency Rs
Low <0.6
Medium 0.6-2.0 ( Rs = Ba~e (Sulfur) )
High 2.0-2.6 ACJ.d
Severe >2.6
Table 17 indicates the Western Kentucky No.6, the Ft. Scott, and
the Baxter coals fall in the "severe" slagging range. Each of these
coals showed softening temperatures (under reducing conditions) less
than 200 F with low silica, and high iron and calcium-magnesium per-
centages. Cleaning moved the slagging index of these three coals in
the right direction; however, only the Baxter was improved to the
point where it fell in the next lowest category (3.48 "severe" to
2. 30 "high").
The Rf (fouling index) value is computed as the product of the
base/acid ratio and the sodium content.
r
This is an indication of the tendency of coal ash to form high
sintered-strength deposits on convection pass surfaces. A useful
relation between this index and fouling has been found to be as
follows:
Fouling Tendency Rf
Low <0.2
Medium 0.2-0.5 (R - Base (Sodium) )
High 0.5-1.0 f - Acid
Severe >1.0
-------
31.
TABLE 17. EFFECTS OF DIRECT CLEANING 3/8 INCH x 0 COAL RELATIVE TO ITS POWER GENERATION POTENTIAL
Chemical Ana~sis Ash Fusibility, or Ash Composition Combustion
Percent, Dry Basis Reducing Atmosphere OXidizing Atmosphere Percent, - Dry Basis Indices
Lot Total
No. Coal Fraction Weight Ash Sul:f'ur IDT ST FT IDT ST FT ~ A 1a O:! Feo Os !!s.Q CaO ~ !!!aQ !a.Q ...1!s.... .1!L
- -
2847 Western Kentu~ No.6
As Received 100.0 10.1 5.5 1990 2000 2000 2485 2595 2610 33.0 13.0 48.0 0.4 1.3 0.6 0.2 1.0 6.01 0.22
Washed Composite 96.0 6.4 3.9 1975 1995 2385 2485 2570 2605 30.8 15.9 45.1 0.4 1.7 0.7 0.3 1.3 4.02 0.31
2856 Bekerstown 275(/
As received 100.0 24.0 2.9 2095 2440 2718 2515 2605 53.5 23.0 16.4 1.1 1.5 1.2 0.3 2.8 0.82 0.09
Washed Composite 84.5 15.5 1.4 2370 2605 275(/ .2665 2725 275(/ 57.5 24.9 9.6 0.9 2.2 1.5 0.4 1.9 0.27 0.02
2860 Lower Kittanning
As received 100.0 26.4 4.2 2140 2460 2700 2570 2650 275(/ 50.0 24.6 18.7 0.4 ,0.9 1.5 0.3 1.7 1.21 0.09
Washed Composite 71.8 19.9 2.4 2145 2470 2655 2555 2640 2750+ 45.5 24.2 21.0 0.4 2.2 1.5 0.3 1.6 0.90 0.11
2881 Lower Freeport
As received 100.0 19.9 1.9 2500 2630 2750+ 275(/ 275(/ 275ct 55.0 27.6 10.8 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.2 3.2 0.36 0.04
Washed Composite 84.5 14.0 1.4 2545 2665 2750+ 2735 2750+ 2750+ 50.6 30.1 12.1 0.6 1.2 1.4 0.3 2.7 0.29 0.06
2889 Ft. Scott
As received 100.0 -13.3 4.2 1890 1970 2065 2115 2135 2270 38.6 9.5 27.3 0.8 20.2 0.5 0.7 2.0 4.40 0.74
Washed Composite 93.0 8.2 3.7 1915 1930 2180 2320 2440 2540 35.7 12.4 37.5 0.8 9.2 0.6 0.8 0.6 3.80 0.82
2900 Lower Freeport
As Received 100.0 15.0 3.4 2120 2340 2540 2560 2620 2700 45.0 25.0 23.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.2 2.2 1.30 0.08
Washed Composite 97.3 14.0 2.9 2460 2520 2665 2670 2725 2735 48.1 27.1 19.2 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.2 2.1 0.90 0.06
2926 Baxter
As received 100.0 14.8 4.0 1930 1970 2300 2260 2340 2505 38.1 15.3. 29.1 0.8 12.5 0.7 0.4 1.6 3.48 0.30
Washed Composite 96.7 12.4 3.6 1935 1975 2370 2315 2430 2565 43.5 17.3 26.1 0.8 7.4 0.8 0.4 2.6 2.30 0.25
\
2928 Clements 2750+
As Received 100.0 25.3 2.0 2700 2750+ 275ct 275ct 275ct 55.0 30.5 7.7 0.8 1.0 1.3 0.3 2.1 0.28 0.04
Washed Composite 81.7 11.7 1.9 2445 2610 2750+ 275d' 2750+ 2750+ 47.9 29.6 14.0 0.9 1.7 1.1 0.6 2.2 0.46 0.14
Washed Composite = Zones A, B, and C
IDT = Initial Deformation Temperature
ST s:: Softening Temperature
FT = Fluid Temperature
Rs = ~::: (Sulfur %)
Base
RF == Acid (Sodium %)
-------
32.
None of the coals used in this sequence produced coal ash having
"severe" fouling characteristics but the "bad actors" relative to
slagging showed the greatest tendency for fouling. The Ft. Scott
seam from Rogers County, Oklahoma (BCR 2889) in particular, produced
the highest Rf. As shown in Table 17, this condition was not
essentially changed by washing.
IV.
CONCLUSIONS
Comprehensive two-stage concentrating table cleaning is one of
the most effective means for removing pyrite from fine sized coal.
This particular sequence of coals, however, did not respond in the
manner expected from previous Phase I washability analyses.
Since the 1.60 float composite was consistent with the ABC Zone
composite, the table was apparently operating properly. The sulfur
reductions projected from Phase I results, however, were not realized.
In the 3/8 inch x 0 run, high quantities of fine clay tended to
obstruct efficient zone classification but the secondary pulverization
and recleaning should have facilitated sulfur release.
The Bakerstown and Lower Kittanning coals showed the most favor-
able potential for wet table beneficiation. Sulfur reductions
achieved would greatly alleviate the load placed on boilers and
stack scrubbers in plants using these coals for power generation.
Power plants presently burning raw coals would benefit by wash-
ing, not only from the decided decrease in sulfurous emittants but
also in the higher Btu/1b calorific content and substantially reduced
slagging potential.
-------
Appendix A
CONCENTRATING TABLE AND PYRITE BENEFICIATION DATA
Tables Seam BCR Lot No.
Al - AlO Western Ky~ No.6 2847
All - A20 Bakerstown 2856
A21 - A30 L. Kittanning 2860
A31 - A40 L. Freeport 2881
A41 - A50 Ft. Scott 2889
A51 - A60 L. Freeport 2900
A61 - A70 Baxter 2926
A71 - A80 Clements 2928
,
Moisture as reported on all Tables
is the moisture of the sample as
received in the analytical laboratory.
This value is used to place other
analyses on a dry basis.
A-33.
-------
Tab Ie Al
Screen Analysis
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
BCR Sample No.
2847
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4 inch 12.3 12.3
1/4 Inch x 6 M 30.8 43.1
6 M x 12 M 21.3 64.4
Minus 12 M 35.6 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C From 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-18-71) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M li.1 11.1
30 M x 50 M 31.9 43.0
50 M x 100 M 23.7 66.7
Minus 100 M 33.3 100.0
Total 100.0
A-35.
-------
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
11(
Sieve opening in mm
.
:>
I
W
0\
.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
100
30
6
1/4
U. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G6
Figure A-l. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating
Table Feed for No.6 Seam, ,utler Coun If, Kentucky, BCR Sam de No. 28~ 7
-------
A-37.
Tab le A2
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Precleaning
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentuckv
Raw Run-ot-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2847
Product Wei~ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Tab le Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 26.9 2.02 5.98 3.47
Zone B 43.2 2.20 4.88 3.53
Zone C
Float at 1.60 2~.7 91.3 1.52 , 5.52 3.ge
1.60 by 1.90 0.8 3.3 1.66 29.2 10.9
Sink at 1. 90 1.4 5.4 0.77 164.8 17.4
Composite 25.9 100.0 9.5C 4.93
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 0.2 11.4 1.50 15.4 9.32
1.90 by 2.95 0.7 3e.3 0.66 167.2 15.6
Sink at 2.95 0.9 50.3 0.36 162.9 4~.4
Composite 1.8 100.0 59.1 28.9
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.5 20.8 0.96 61.8 14.6
Sink at 2.95 1.7 7g.2 0.~4 6~.6 44.6
Composite 2.2 100.0 6~.2 ~8.4
Composite of 6.41,
Zones A. B. C g6.0 ~.8g
Composite of 1.60 5.3E ~.6~
Float Fractions 9~.8
Composite of 2.95 63.4
Sink Fractions 2.6 44.2
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 8.6 5.10
Ana:qsis of
Feed to Table 1.~6 10.1 5.48
Chemical Ana:qsis, Dry Basis,
Run Date: 6-18-71
-------
A-38.
Table A3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-18-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2847
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 83.2 2.41 4.8~ ~.74
Zone B 13.7 1.51 4.8~ 3.92
Zone C
Float at 1.60 1.1 94.9 1.73 6.5E 4.94
Sink at 1.60 0.1 5.1 1.00 54.0 18.9
Composite 1.2 100.0 8.9E 5.65
Zone D
Float at 1.60 0.7 53.0 2.32 14.1 9.16
1. 60 by 2.95 0.6 41.1 1.04 46.5 14.4
Sink at 2.95 0.1 5.9 0.46 63.6 41.8
Composite 1.4 100.0 30.3 1~.2
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.21) 49.7 0.80 55.0 17.5
Sink at 2.95 0.25 I)O.~ 0.~4 6i.0 42.4
Composite 0.5 100.0 1)9.0 30.0
Composite of 98.1 4.8"
Zones A. B. C 3.79
Composite of 1.60 4.91 3.82
Float Fractions 98.7
Composite of 2.95 63.2 42.2
Sink Fractions 0.35
Composite of 5.5C 4.05
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 5.98
Feed to Table 1. 76 4.09
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date: 6-25-71
-------
A-39.
Table A4
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-18-71) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (6-25-71)
BCR Sample No. 284 7
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 79.9 4.8~ 3.74
Zone B 13.2 4.81 3.92
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 1.0 94.9 6.5~ 4.94
... Sink at 1.60 0.1 5.1 54.0 18.9
COMPosite 1.1 100.0 8.9~ 5.65
Zone D
Float at 1. 60
1.60 by 2.95 2.1 67.7 ~9.8 12.6
Sink at 2.95 1.0 32.3 :>3.0 43.2
COmDosite 3.1 100.0 7.3 22.5
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.75 27.8 59.5 15.6
Sink at 2.QI) 1. 91) 72.2 6'i.5 44.3
COmDosite 2.7 100.0 62.4 36.3
Composite of 94.2 4.87 3.79
Zones A. B. C .
Composite of 1.60 94.1 4.84 3.78
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 63.3 4'i.9
Sink Fractions 2.95
Composite of 7.74 5.25
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of 5.48
Feed to Table 1.36 10.1
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
-------
A-40.
Table A5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (6-18-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2847
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 7.7 0.74 55.0 27.8
Zone B 7.4 0.76 55.1 27.2
Zone C 4.5 0.88 51.0 23.7
Zone D 11.5 0.39 61.8 11.4
I
Zone E 48.9 0.26 64.7 44.9
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 62.3 37.7
Analysis of 62.8 38.4
Feed to Table 0.32
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
7-1-71
-------
A-41.
Table A6
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-1-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2847
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 15.5 0.42 61.4 2g.4
Zone B 39.1 0.60 61.0 28.2
Zone C 15.8 0.61 58.8 27.7
Zone D 15.5 0.~4 73.0 20.8
Zone E 14.1 0.18 65.2 44.0
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 63.2 29.4
Analysis of 63.4
Feed to Table 0.30 30.5
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
7-7-71
-------
,- -
A-42.
Table A7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
BCR Sample No.
2847
Pyrite Prec1eaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Te$t Run Date 6-18-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 10.1 5.48
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 2.2 63.2 38.4
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test . Run Date
Feed to Concentrating Table:~one ~ 8 Inch x 0 Run 6-18-
30 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis. Dry Basis. Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 62.8 38.4
"
zone E (Pyrite Zone) 48.9 64.7 44.9
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 7-7-71
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D. 30 M x 0 Run (7-1-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 63.4 30.5
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 14.1 65.2 44.0
Two Stage Pyrite Product
1.2
64.7
44.8
-------
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
102.0
A-43.
Table A8
A
B
10.4
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
18.6
30.4
25.6
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
16.7
No. 15-$ Table
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
9.7
4.7
0.9
. 0.9
0.5
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
10.6
4.1
No. 15-$ Table
0.9
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.5
0.6
.b.2.
0.6
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
BCR Sample No. 2847
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-mine Coal
-------
A-44.
Table A9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
F1awsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
BCR Sample No.
2847
Y.Y. . -'..L .
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 26.9 5.98 3.47
Zone B 43.2 4.ee 3.53
Zone C 25.9 9.50 4.9~
Zone D 1.e 59.1 28.q
Zone E c.c 6~.2 ~8.4
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.2 55.0 27.8
Zone B 0.1 55.1 27.2
Zone C 0.1 51.0 23.7
Zone D 0.7 63.e 33.4
Zone E 1.1 64.7 44.q
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.11 61.4 29.4
Zone B 0.27 61.0 28.2
Zone C 0.11 58.8 27.7
Zone D 0.11 73.0 20.8
Zone E 0.10 65.2 44.0
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 8.61 5.06
Analysis of' Feed
Coal 10.1 5.48
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
-------
Table
~.."ducts
Zone A
Zone B
~nne C
1.60 Float
1.60 by 1.90
1.90 Sink
Composite
Zone D
.. ,90 Float
1.90 by 2.95
2.95 Sink
Composite
Zone E
2.95 Float
2.95 Sink
COiiiPOsite
I
Composite of
Table
Products
Analysis of
Feed to
l'f'R't)le
A-45.
Table AlO
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic SUlfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
No.6 Seam, Butler County, Kentucky
1
I
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2847
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, i,
Product Weip:ht Percent Ash Fusibility I
,
Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic Reducing: Atmosphere Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Percent Sink Weight 'to MoiSture Ash SuJ.fur SUlfur Sulfur SuJ.:f'ur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT .1SiOc ~ 03 Fe..a 0:3 MgO CaO T1~ NaaO KgO
26.9 2.02 5.98 I 3.47 -- 2.61 0.86 13.685 1945 1970 2400 2460 2560 2580 ,34.5 17.0 40.0 0 .,6 1. 8" 0.76 o. 34 1.7
43.2 2.20 4.88 3.53 -- 2.62 0.91 13.896 1995 2020 2460 2495 2580 2635 ',26.5 16.3 49.0il 0.442.00 0.70 0.24 1.2
9.54 I
1.65 4.94 -- 4.24 0.70 13.078 1965 1975 2240 2495 2570 2590 ~4.o 14 0 l.dJ. n () 2C' " " h ~ () , 7 71.0
23.6 91.3 1.52 I .52 3.98 -- 3.09 0.89 1~. 725 2000 2030 2530 2560 2680 2750+ ,21.1 15.8 55.0~ 0.4€: 1.80 0.72 0.22 0.8
0.9 3.3 1.66 2<.2 10.9 0.07 10.3 0.54 9.,92 1975 2000 2420 2540 2565 251j5 ;29.5 18 .0 I. ~ ,,~ () I:\f 0.,8 0.60 0.1 ~ 1.5
1.1 5.4 .0.77 i6l.8 17.4 0.11 17.1 0.22 4.104 1960 1980 2320 2520 2575 2620 '1,48.0 10.0 ~7" ,,~;: 0.48 0.68 0.10 1.5
25.9 100.0 < .50 4.93 0.01 4.08 0.84 1~ 060 I
0.45 58.4 29.6 0.16 29.1 0.~4 4.706 207, 208, 2170 2615 2635 2650 127.5 , .0 6 ~ . ~ ~o.~ 0.41 () ~~ 0, (), 1 2
0.2 11.4 1.50 1,.4 9.32 0.04 8:sG 0.69 11.956 2050 2061) 2165 2610 2750+ 2750+ 117.0 10 . 8 ~Q ,,~ o. ~~ 0.71 n hR () ()Q () Q
0.7 ~8.~ 0.66 67.2 15.6 0.1~ 15.~ 0.17 ~.6S1 106, 200' 2465 2500 257'1 2625 I'll .0 1() 4 ~~" 0 . ~E 0.6 () 70 (), ()O 1, R
0.9 50.3 0.36 62.9 43.4 0.28. 42.9 0.18 2.510 24,0 24~5 2440 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ I &:).~ , (} CV\ "" () ~~ () ~ ", ... :() ()~ 1.8 14.6 0.13 14.2 0.24 4.692 1970 1995 2485 2500 2585 2635 154.0 o. ~ ~~.O (). ~/ () i;, 0.70 () ()8 1.4
1.7 79.2 0.34 :>3.6 44.6 0.39 44.0 0.22 2.460 2420 2435 2450 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ .~ 4.6 l.Qi QO.OiI o.~ () ...1:\ () ,... ~.02"" ().1
2.2 100.0 :>3.2 38.4 0.34 37.8 0.22 2,924
.
,
100.0 8.63 5.10 0.01 4.23 0.85 13,206
1.36 110.1
5.48
4.66
12.772 19QO
2485
.~~ ,()
1 ~ .0 hA m () ':tF 1.~::: 0.61 0.20 , ()
2610
2595
0.80
2000
0.02
2200
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature, Spherical
Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
* Extrapolated Value
Run Date: 6-18-71
-------
A-47.
Table All
Screen Analysis
Coal Identification Bakerstown Seam, Grant-County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2856
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed To 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4 II 9.3 9.3
1/4 II x 6 M 23.5 32.8
6 M x 12 M 21.2 54.0
Minus 12 M 46.0 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C From 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) Crushed To 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M 6.6 6.6
30 M x 50 M 29.3 35.9
50 M x 100 M 24.5 60.4
Minus 100 M 39.6 100.0
-------
r uR" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
811(
Sieve opening in mm
.
:x:-
I
.r=-
eo
.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
400 325 270
200190140
100
30
6
1/4
96
u. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G7
Figure A-2. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating
a de eed for Bakers own, Grant County, West Viq inia, I: ~ Sample o. 2 56
-------
Table A1.2
A-49.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Precleaning
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed To 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2856
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei~ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Perc~nt Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 47.3 0.34 10.2 1.23
Zone B 22.0 0.28 13.0 1.24
Zone C
Float at 1.60 6.0 39.7 0.34 .15. e 1.35
1.60 by 1.90 6.6 4 .4 0.45 145.2 2.02
Sink at 1.90 2.6 l~ .9 0.44 160.5 5.22
Composite 15.2 100.0 36.1 2.29
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 2.1 17.3 0.22 36.2 1. 36
1.90 by 2.95 8.6 71.2 0.16 7.e . 39
Sink at 2.95 1.4 11.5 0.20 1.0 3~.
Composite 12.1 100.0 )8.4 (.24
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1.3 39.1 0.80 79.2 6.34
Sink at 2.95 2.1 60.9 0.22 62.0 40.5
Composite 3.4 100.0 68.7 27.1
Composite of 84.5 1.42
Zones A. B. C 15.6
Composite of 1.60 1.24
Float Fractions 71).~ 11.5
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions ~.5 61.6 ~g.7
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 23.8 3.12
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.66 24.0 2.88
Run Date: 7-16-71
Coal Identification
-------
A-50.
Table Al3
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) Crushed To 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2856
, a ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Wei&l:ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 81.8 0.61 12.0 1.09
Zone B 10.0 0.47 15.1 1.12
Zone C
L Float at 1.60 0.7 71.3 0.47 18.9 1.14
Sink at 1.60 0.3 28.7 0.42 43.1:3 2.94.
COMPosite 1.0 100.0 26.0 1.66
Zone D
Float at 1.60 0.6 9.4 0.92 27.3 1.16
1.60 by 2.95 1).8 87.4 0 68 55.2 2.20
Sink at 2.95 0.2 ~.2 0.18 161.0 4~.1
COIIIPosite 6.6 100.0 52.(3 ~.41
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 17.8 0.69 168.2 13.0
Sink at 2.QI) 0.1) 1:32.2 0.22 62.1 44.1
COMPosite 0.6 100.0 63.2 38.6
Composite of 92.8
Zones A. B. C 12.5 1.10
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 9~.1 12.5 1.09
Composite of 2.95 61.8 43.8
Sink Fractions 0.7
Composite of 1.48
Table Products 100.0 15.5
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.50' 16.4 1.65
Chemical Analysis Dry B sis
Run Date:
7-27-71
-------
r
Table Al4
A-51.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7~27-71)
BCR Sample No 0 2856
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weiaht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 69.1 12.0 1.09
Zone B 8.5 15.1 1.12
Zone C
.Float at 1.60 0.6 71. ~ 18.<; 1.14
Sink at 1.60 0.2 28.7 4~.8 2.94
Composite 0.8 100.0 26.c 1.66
Zone D
Float at 2.95 16.1 q1.0 6~.'i ~,s6
Sink at 2.95 1.6 9.0 61.C ~q.2
Composite 17.7 100.0 . 6~.!: 6,77
Zone E
Float at 2. gS 1.4 ~I).q 78.~ 6.81
Sink at 2.gl) 2.1) 01+.1 62,r 41.1
CODIDosite ~.q 100.0 67.c 28.8
Composite of 78.4 12.1i
Zones A. B. C 1.10
Composite of 1.60 78.2 l2.~
Float Fractions 1.09
Composite of 2.95 4.1 61.E 40.4
Sink Fractions
Composite of 23. ~ 3.18
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.66 24.( 2.88
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
'-
I
A-52.
Table Al5
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) Crushed To 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2856
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 11.0 0.49 60.3 24.4
Zone B 9.9 0.47 60.8 22.7
Zone C 3.9 0.50 59.9 22.0
Zone D 47.0 0.50 76.8 18.6
Zone E 28.2 0.18 64.5 44.6
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 69.3 27.1
Analysis of
Feed to Table 68.7 27.1
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
7-28-71
-------
A-53.
Table A16
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-28-71) Crushed To 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2856
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 24.0 0.43 74.4 20.4
Zone B ~1).4 0.64 71).~ 19.4
Zone C 11.8 0.~8 76.0 15.8
Zone D 14.0 0.68 78.2 17.4
Zone E 12.8 0.26 69.3 39.8
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 74.8 21. I)
Analysis of
Feed to Table o. ~4 75.1 21.2
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
7 -29-71
-------
A-54.
Table Al7
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2856
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed To
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 24.0 2.88
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) ~.4 68.7 27.1
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 7-28-71
Feed to Concentra~ing Table: Zone E. ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (7-16-71) Crushed To
30 Mesh x 0
Product,
Wei ht 0
Chemical Analysis
Ash
Dry Basis Weight %
Total Sulfur
28.2
68.
64.
2 .1
Analysis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
44.6
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 7-29-71
Feed to Concentrating Table:Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (7-28-71) Crushed To
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 75.1 21.2
Zone E ( Pyrite Zone) 12.8 69.3 39.8
Two stage Pyrite Product
1.2
65.3
. I
43.8
-------
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
A-55.
I
60.2
Table Al8
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
17.
~
11.2
~
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
17.8
No. 15-5 Table
8.2
Pyrite Con centrate
30 mesh x 0
5.7
1.8
...L..2
0.6
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
9.6
5.7
No. 15-5 Table
1.4
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.6
1.3
1.8
0.6
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No. 2856
Pounds of' Total Sulfur/Ton of'
Run-of'-mine Coal
-------
A-56.
Table Al9
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Sample No.
2856
T.7......; ~'L.~
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 47.3 10.2 1.23
Zone B 22.0 1~.0 1.24
ZoneC 111.2 ~6.1 2.2q
Zone D 12.1 68.4 8.24
Zone E ~.4 68.7 27.1 .
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.4 60.3 24.4
Zone B 0.3 60.e 22.7
Zone C 0.1 59.9 22.0
Zone D 1.6 7b.t5 1t5.b
Zone E 1.0 64.5 44.6
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.4 74.4 20.4
Zone B 0.6 75.3 19.4
Zone C 0.2 76.0 l5.e
Zone D 0.2 78.2 17.4
Zone E 0.2 6q.1 ~9.8
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.18
Ana~sis of Feed
Coal 24.0 2.88
Chemical Ana~sis, Dry Basis
-------
A-57.
Table A2.0
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Bakerstown Seam, Grant County, West Virginia
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed To 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2856
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei~ht Percent Ash Fusibility .
'.I.'ab1e Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Reducing Atmosphere Oxidizing Atmosphere I Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ Moisture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur. Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT ~iOa Ale ~ Fea 0.. MgO Cao TiOa Baa c 1/'"8 n
Zone A 47. ~ 0.34 10.2 1.23 0.71 0.52 14.014 2305 2580 2750 2610 2705 2750+ 57.5 24.2 9.80 0.84 2.75 1.52 0.43 1.6
Zone B 22.0 0.28 13.0 1.24 0.64 0.60 13.490 2410 2620 2750+ 2705 2750+ 2750+ 5.8.0 25.9 9.20 0.87 1.8~ 1.60 0.38 1.9
?nne C 0.24 ~5.6 2 46 2.01 0.45 9.576 2520 2670 2750+ 2705 2750+ 2750+ ci7.0 21:; a 0 8t" 1.06 0.80 1.52 0.2Q 2.6
1.60 Float 6.0 19.7 0.14 15.8 1.35 o. 0 0.45 12.921 2660 2750 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 5:6.0 28.5 9.20 0 .76 1. 25 1. 56 o. M ,. 7
1.60 by 1.90 6.6 41.4 0.45 j~5.2 2.02 1.1 0.41 7.8q1 2665 27'10+ 27'10+ ~2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 58.0, 27 . '1 7. 70 1 22 0.1:\' '.47 0 ~I:\ ,. ~
1.90 Sink 2.6 16.q 0.44 10.5 5.22 4. n 0.25 5.144 2175 2465 2680 2560 2670 2750+ 5'4. I) 24.0 1~.8 1. 40 L 21:\ 1, ~ ~ I 0 , 6 ,. ~
Composite 15.2 100.0 ~6.1 2.29 1.8q 0.40 q.424 i
Zone D 0.30 6q.8 8.80 8.66 0.14 3.656 2060 2160 26'~1) 2460 2555 2665 I);~. 5 20.9 1q.7 1.0511 1h 1.000.14 1 6
1.90 Float 2,' 17. ~ 0.22 ~6.2 1 86 1.50 0.~6 9.426 26,0 2 750+ 2710+ 2' 0+ 2750+ 2 '50+ 5,~.0 28.5 I 7 40 1.1'1 0.1:\7 1.1:\~ 0.22 1 6
'.90 by 2.95 8.6 71.2 0.~6 77.8 4.8Q 4.82 0.07 2.354 2240 2115 2710 21 0 2615 2 '50+ 59.0 2~ . 1:\ 11. I:) 1.28 1.~, 1.11 0.17 2 0
2.95 Sink 1.4 11.1:) 0.20 61.0 ~8.6 0.08 38.4 0.12 3.870 2440 2450 2+60 2 0+ 2750+ 2 50+ q;, 60* 1 6o~ Ac;.O* 0.20 0.1:)4 0.07 0.10 0 6
Composite 12.1 68.4 8.24 8.11 ~ .752 "
100..0 0.01 0.12 ,
I
~.one E 0.17 6Q.0 27.8 0.08 27.5 0.22 ~.0~2 20,0 2050 2150 2580 2650 2665 26.5 10.8 '18 0* 0.5~ 1.25 0.46 0.12 1.1:)
2.95 Float 1.3 ~9.1 0.80 70 2 6 ~4 0.02 6.25 0.07 2.0:>7 2170 22~5 2715 2400 2565 2750+ 56.5 210,." 1.18 1. 81 0.98 0 ~~ ~ ~
2.95 Sink 2.1 60.0 0.22 62.0 40.5 0.13 40.2 0.15 3,5:>5 2400 2415 2440 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ q;.60* ~ .1o-M 84.0* 0.20 0.47 0.07 n no () a
Compos! te 3.4 100.0 68.7 27.1 0.09 26.9 0.12 2,979 ,
Composite of ,
Table
~..~ducts 100.0 21.8 ~.12 2.66 0.46 11,584
Analysis of
l'-eed to
'.L.ble 0.66 24.0 2.88 2.42 0.46 11.604 2095 2440 2715 2515 2605 2750+ ,q 1:\ ~~ () '6 4 1.08 1.52 1.24 0.31 2.8
Run Date: 7-16-71 IDT Initial Deformation Temperature
ST,S - Softening Temperature, Spherical
ST,H - Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
FT Fluid Temperature * Extrapolated Values
-------
A-59.
Table A21
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pa.
BCR Sample No.
2860
Raw Run-ot-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size
Weight Percent
Cumulative
Plus 1/4"
1/4" x 6 M
7.4
21.8
7.4
6 M x 12 M
22.0
29.2
51.2
Minus 12 M
48.8
100.0
Total
100.0
Zones A, B, and C trom 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-3-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M 4.0 4.0
30 M x 50 M 24.4 28.4
50 M x 100 M 24.8 53.2
Minus 100 M 46.8 100.0
Total 100.0
-------
r uR" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1.
1
II(
Sieve opening in mm
:.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
40
6
1/4
400 325 270
200190140
100
60 50
30
U. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G9
Figure A-3. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table Feed
or .ower Ci anning Seam, Westmorelanc :ou, y, )enns' vania, :R Sample No. 2860
>
I
0'\
o
.
-------
Table P22
A-61.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Prec1eaning
Coal Identification Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2860
Product Wei~ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 45.9 0.50 8.26 1.90
Zone B 17.5 0.35 8.1C 2.09
Zone C
Float at 1.60 4.1 48.5 0.28 ,11.0 i.OO
1.60 by 1.90 1.7 20.0 0.98 31.2 8.42
Sink at 1.90 2.6 31.5 0.72 62.8 9.46
Composite 8.4 100.0 i1.4 6.12
Zone D
Float at 1.90 0.5 4.6 0.35 27.8 6.87
1.90 by 2.95 11.4 94.1 0.52 78.6 5.07
Sink at 2.95 0.2 1.3 0.38 67.0 29.1
Composite 12.1 100.0 76.1 5.47
Zone E
Float at 2.95 12. ~ 76.2 0.74 81.0 5.18
Sink at 2.95 i.8 23.8 0.48 65.4 36.4
Composite 16.1 100.0 77.3 12.6
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 71.8 10.9 2.44
Composite of 1.60 67.5 8.3~
Float Fractions 2.02
Composite of 2.95 4.0 65.5 36.0
Sink Fractions
Composite of 4.44
Table Products 100.0 29.5
Analysis of 0.40 26.4 4.18
Feed to Table
Chemical Analys is, Dry Bas is,
Run Date:
8-3-71
-------
A-62.
Table A23
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Ki ttanning SealIl ~ Westmoreland County ~ Pennsylvania
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-3-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2860
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 83.3 0.50 7.lK 1.88
Zone B 10.7 0.42 8.oE 1.'18
Zone C
Float at 1.60 0.9 90.7 0.58 11.5 2.16
Sink at 1.60 0.1 9.3 0.46 54.5 10.~
Compos i te 1.0 100.0 l'5,S 2,q2
Zone D
Float at 1.60 1.1 22.9 0.'5'5 20.4 3.14
1.60 bv 2.qr; 3.3 72.2 0.52 59.2 7.10
Sink at 2.95 0.2 4.Q 0~4 )0 2 ~q.O
Composite 4.6 100.0 0.4 7.76
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 23.1 0.60 72.8 11.8
Sink at 2.QI) O,'~ 76.Q 0,.~4 ;2, ~ 41.4
Composite 0.4 100 0 4.7 ~4.6
Composite of 95.0 7.6] 1.90
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 95.9 7.65 1.91
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 o.~ JO.9 ~9.8
Sink Fractions
Composite of 9.8~
Table Products 100.0 2.33
Analysis of 0.44 0.2 2.32
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
8-10-71
-------
A-63.
Table A24.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests-~fects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Ki ttanning Seam, Westmoreland County , Pennsylvania
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-3-71) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-10-71)
BCR Sample No. 2860
. y , a ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weiaht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 59.8 7.4E 1.88
Zone B 7.7 8.oE 1.98
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 0.6 qo.? 1.5 2.16
Sink at 1.60 0.1 q.~ 54.5 10.3
Composite 0.7 100.0 5.5 2.92
Zone D
Float at 2.95 14.3 q2.q 0.5 5.'17
Sink at 2.95 1.1 7.1 5.8 30.9
Composite 1').4 100.0 0.2 7.18
Zone E
Float at 2.95 12.4 75.6 jo.q 5.2~
Sink at 2.q, 4.0 24.4 51) 2 ~6.7
Composite 16.4 100.0 77.1 12.q
Composite of 68.2 7.61
Zones A. B C 1.90
Composite of 1.60 68.1 7.56 1.89
Float Fractions
Composite of 2.95 5.1 p5.3 35.4
Sink Fractions
Composite of ~8.6 4.52
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of eE;. 4
Feed to Table 0.40 4.18
Chemical Anal sis Dry B sis
-------
A-64.
Table A25
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-3-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2860
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 9.1 0.40 67.4 11.8
Zone B 9.1 0.38 68.7 10.8
Zone C 5.0 0.43 69.4 9.86
Zone D 68.5 0.38 80.9 10.5
Zone E 8.3 0.14 68.6 37.4
Composite of 12.8
Table Products 100.0 77.0
Analysis of 12.6
Feed to Table 77.3
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
8-11-71
-------
A-65.
Table A26
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-11-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2860
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 7.3 0.48 80.6 7.22
Zone B 17.2 0 40 80.8 7.00 -----
Zone C 20.5 0.28 80.8 6.44
Zone D 45.3 0.30 82.2 6.98
Zone E 9.7 0.24 80.1 1q.8
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 81.4 8.13
Analysis of
Feed to Table .40 82.1 7.74
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
8-12-71
-------
A-66.
Table A27
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2860
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 8-3-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 26.4 4.18
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 16.1 77.3 12.6
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 8-11-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-3-71) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Product,
Wei ht
Chemical Analysis
Ash
Dry Basis Weight %
Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table
12.6
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
8.3
68.6
37.4
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 8-12-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (8-11-71) Crushed to
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 82 1 7.74
J
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 9.7 80.1 19.8
Two stage Pyrite Product
02.4
73.9
29.3
-------
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
88.8
A-67.
Table A28
Pyrite Preclean ing
No. 14 Table
40.6
.l::hE
17.4
7.4
10.2
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
40.6
No. 15-$ Table
9.8
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
22.
3.4
3.1
h2
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
14.0
17.6
No. 15-$ Table
4.2
Pyrite Concentrate J
60 mesh x 0
6.8
1.1
2.6
2.9
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2860
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of
Run-of-mine Coal
-------
A-68.
Table A29
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur fr~ Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2860
U1~; n'h+.
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 45.9 8.26 1.90
Zone B 17.5 b.l0 2.09
Zone C 8.4 31.4 6.12
Zone D . 12.1 76.1 5.47
Zone E Ib.l 77.3 12.6
Table No.. l5-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 1.5 67.4 11.8
Zone B 1.5 6b.7 10.b
Zone C 0.8 69.4 9.86
Zone D 11.0 bO.9 10.5
Zone'E 1.i 6b.6 i7.4
Table No. 15-8
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.8 80.6 7.22
Zone B 1.9 bO.b 7.00
Zone C 2.2 bO.b 6.44
Zone D 5.0 82.2 6.9b
Zone E 1.1 801. 19.8
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 29.5 4.22
Ana~sis of Feed
Coal 26.4 4.18
Chemical Ana4'sis, Dry Basis
-------
A-69.
Table A30
EValuation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests-.3/8 'Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Lower Kittanning Seam, Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania
!
Raw Run-ot-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2860
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product Wei~t Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Reducing Atmosphere Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ MoiSture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/1b IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT SiQa Ala ~ Fea o.s MgO Cao TiO:a N&:;, n Tl""'IiJ n
;
Zone A 45.9 0.50 8.26 1.90 0.01 1.14 0.75 p.4,428 2160 2495 2685 2550. 2645 2750+ ~.O 26.5 20.0 0.44 2.43 1.57 0.36 1.7
Zone B 17.5 0.35' 8.10 2.09 0.02 1.35 0.72 tL4.408 2120 24~5 2600 2560 2640 2750 45.0 25.9 21.8 0.40 2.22 1.44 0.34 1.3
Zone C 0.30 1~1.2 6.24 0.02 5.74 0.48 h n, ~R 2100 2420 2620 2C;C;C; 262C; 2740 44:.0 26.1. 25.0 0 ~8 0.71 1.25 0 26 1,7
1.60 noat 4.1 48.5 0.28 11.0 3.00 - 2.44 0.56 tI.3. 776 '18.5 26.6 28.5 0.20 1.1~ 1.2~ 0.23 1.2
1.60 by 1.90 1.7 20.0 0.98' D..2 ).42 0.02 .00 .0.40 c .912 ~8.c; 2~..C; ~'5.0 0.25 0.41 CQn 0.22 1.~
.. ,90 Sink 2.6 31.5 0.72 1F2.8. ~.46 0.02 .28 0.16 4.186 4q 5 25.0 20.0 0.28 0.59 1 ~5 0.24 1.8
Composite 8.4 100.0 1.4 .12 0.01 .80 0.40 C I .982
.
Zone D 0.55 177.1 5. ~l 0.02 5.15 0.14 2.Qq7 21)61) 27Ql) 27'50+ 27,0+ 27,0+ "''7'''''''' 58.0 26.5 10.6 0.50 0 ~8 1.7~ O.~O 2.0
1.90 Float 0.1) 4.6 0.'15 27.8 6.87 0.02 6.4~ 0 42 10.604 40.5 25.5 30.7 0.280,46 1.01 0 24 1 6
1.90 by 2.95 11.4 94.1 0.52 7tj.b 5.07 0.01 5.00 0.06 1. q44 '57.0 28.5 9.10 0 hn n ~" 1.65 0 2Q 1 6
2.95 Sink 0.2 1.~ 0.'18 67.0 29.1 0.10 28.9 0.10 1.284 24.8 11.6 60.0~ o. ~1 0,74 0.49 0.18 1 6
Composite 12.1 100.0 176.1 5.47 0.01 5.38 0.08 2.360
----, E 0.48 177. ~ 12.8 0.04 12.6 0.15 2.008 2060 2180 2560 2540 2600 12720 49.0 22.5 24.0 0.50 0.48 1. 2' 0.28 2.5
2.95 Float 12.3 76.2 0.74 81.0 5.18 0.02 5.08 0.08 1.666 2460 26QO 27'50+ 27c;n+ 27C;0+ 1/Y7~I'\. 55.5 25.7 9 .20 0 1)2 0.54 1. 5~ 0 221 ,Q
2.95 Sink ~.8 23.8 0.48 . ~5.4 36.4 0.21 36.0 0.20 3.428 2070 2120 2Q20 2750+ 2750+ 127C;0+ 14.0 7.50 7'5 . ~ 0 2~ 0.47 O. 2' 0.11 1.0
site 16.1 100.0 177. ~ 12.6 0.07 12.4 0.11 2.08'5
Composite of
~- "11e ,
- - ~ucts 100.0
~8i8 of
.reed to
.....,)1e 0.40 26.4 4.18 0.02 3.64 0.52 11,198 2140 2460 2700 2570 2650 2750+ 50.0 24.6 18.7 0 44 0.84 1.50 0.28 1.7
ID'l' Initial Deformation Temperature
Run Date: 8-3-71 ST,S - Softening Temperature, Spherical.
ST,H - Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
FT Fluid Temperature * Extrapolated Values
-------
A-71.
Table A31
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County , Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2881
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4" 14.8 14.8
1/4" x 6 M 30.7 45.5
6 M x 12 M 20.7 66.2
Minus 12 M 33.8 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-19-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent CUmulative
Plus 30 M 6.7 6.7
30 M x 50 M 24.4 31.1
50 M x 100 M 22.4 53.5
Minus 100 M 46.5 100.0
Total 100.0
-------
r uRn oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
I
<
Sieve opening in mm
~
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
6
400 325 270
200190140
100
60 50
40
30
1/4
U. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076Gl0
Figure A-4. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table
Fee ( for 0 w err e e port S e ( , , n C I a n a : 0 u ny, I e I IS Y If ani a, I C R Sam pie No. ~ I 81
:x:-
I
-..J
I\)
.
-------
A-73.
Table A32
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning & Pyrite Precleaning
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County , Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No 0 2881
Product Wei~ht Percent
Weight Float and. Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 4606 0045 8021 1.28
Zone B 1802 0046 8035 1.36
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 9A8 49~8 0..72 10,,8 1.. 44
1.60 by 1.90 5.5 2707 0,,60 46,,1 1.94
Sink at 1.90 404 22,,5 0,,74 66,,4 2,,88
Composite 1907 10000 qq"l l.qo
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 1..4 l2"q 0060 q7~6 2..06
1.90 by 2.95 9..2 84..6 0..78 80,,6 2..62
Sink at 2.95 OAq q 1 0"q6 62,,4 q6..8
Composite 10~9 100nO 74..7 ~.6l
Zone E
Float at 2.95 3.9 84,,2 0,,68 82.2 3.14
Sink at 2.95 0.7 1508 0034 6108 40..8
Composite 4..6 100 0 79,,0 9..09
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 84.5 14..0 1044
Composite of 1.60 7406 8058 1.32
Float Fractions
Composite of 2095 39.6
Sink Fractions 100 62..0
Composite of
Table Products 10000 ' 2306 2,,03
Ana1¥sis of
Feed to Tab Ie 0050 1909 1.86
Chemical Ana1¥sis, Dry Basis,
Run Date: 8-19-71
-------
I-~
A-74.
Table A33
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County, Pennsylvania
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-19-71) Crushed to
:)0 Mesh x 0
2881
BCR Sample No.
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 80.2 0.58 tLO.2 1.24
Zone B 13.1 0.62 9.5e 1.08
Zone C
.Float at 1.60 0.156 q~.q 0,156 9..8e 1..22
Sink at 1.60 0.04 6.1 o.so 150.~ S..l~
Composite 0..6 100..0 12..~ 1..46
Zone D
Float at 1. 60 1 01) 18 4 0 66 ::>1 6 1. ~I)
1.60 bv 2.95 4 61 8o.q 0.78 Sq 2 1.152
Sink at 2..95 0.04 0..7 0..41 611 ~q..8
Composite 15,,7 100.0 151.1) 1..76
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0..2 150.7 0..60 79..0 6..q6
Sink at 2.95 0..2 4a..~ 0 .'~() h? L. L.l h
COIIIPosite 0.4 100.0 70..8 ~4.0
Composi te of 93.9 10.1
Zones A. B.. C 1.22
Composite of 1.60 94.9
Float Fractions 10.2 1.22
Composite of 2.95 62..2
Sink Fractions 0..24 41..3
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 2..7 1.. q4
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.44 .~..2 1..46
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date: 8-31-71
-------
Table A34
A-75.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests-- Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 67.8 10 2 1.24
Zone B 11.1 9.5< 1.08
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 0.47 9:1.9 9.8< 1.22
Sink at 1.60 O..o~ 6 1 tjo.~ tj.l~
Composite 0.5 100.0 12.:1 1.4E
Zone D
Float at 2.95 15 . 37 97.9 67.8 2.22
Sink at 2.95 o. 33 2.1 62.3 37.1
Composite 15.~ 100.0 67.7 2.Qtj
Zone E
Float at 2.95 4.05 82.7 82.1 3.2c
Sink at 2.95 0.8s 17.~ b1.Q 4O.Q
Composite 4.9 100.0 78.6 9.7q
Composite of 79.4 1.2~
Zones A. B. C 10.1
Composite of 1.60 79~37 1.2~
Float Fractions 10.1
Composite of 2.95 1.18 62.0 39.8
Sink Fractions
Composite of 1.91
Table Products 100.0 22.5
Analysis of 1.8E
Feed to Table 0.50 19.9
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
A -76 .
Table A35
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam.. Indiana County, Pennsylvania
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-19-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2881
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 7.5 0.62 72.4 6.00
Zone B 8.0 0.63 73.0 5.78
Zone C 4.5 0.62 73.4 4.88
Zone D 74.4 0.66 81.8 8.26
Zone E 5.6 0.20 67.1 43.8
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 79.2 9.73
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.78 80.8 10.8
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
9-3-71
-------
A-77.
Table A36
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam. Indiana County. Pennsylvania
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-3-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2881
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.4 0.64 81.3 5.01
Zone B 23.6 0.55 82.0 4.42
Zone C 21.1 0.59 82.4 3.46
Zone D 45.5 0.54 85.0 4.52
Zone E 6.4 0.24 7~.4 ~.5
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 82.9 6.02
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.62 83.0 6.30
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
9-7-71
-------
A-78.
Table A37
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seamt Indiana CountYt Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2881
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentratin~ Table No. 14 Test Run Date 8-1-
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 19.9 1.86
Zone E ( Pyrite Zone) 4.6 79.0 9.09
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 9-3-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E, ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (8-19-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
I
Chemical Analysis
Ash
Dry Basis Weight %
Total Sulfur
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
.6
80.8
6 .1
10.8
4 8
Analysis of Feed to Table
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 9-7-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-3-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product,
Weight %
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Ash Total Sulfur
Anal sis of Feed to Table
8
6 0
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
6.4
.4
.
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.5
69.6
38.9
-------
Table A38
A-79.
Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County,
Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2881
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
40.6
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of Run-of-mine Coal
A
B
7.8
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
12.0
-2.&
~
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
8.4
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
2.1
5.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
'i.4
..3.,.9
No. 15-5 Table
1.3
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh. x 0
1.3
0.1
0.7
0.5
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
-------
A-80.
Table 1\39
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Indiana County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2881
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E 0
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Cam,positeof
Fractions 23.7 1.
Analysis of Feed
Coal
-------
Table A40
A-81..
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic SUlfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam~ Indiana County ~ Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
I
BCR Sample No.
2881
Chamical Analysis» Dry Basis»
Product Weiaht Percent Ash Fusibility ,
,
Table Weight Float and TotaJ. Sultat@ Pyritic Organic Reducina Atmos'Phere Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ Moisture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/lb IDT ST,S ST»H FT IDT ST»S ST,H FT SiCa Ala 03 Feao.s MgO Cao T10a NasO Ke0
Zone A 46.6 0045 8021 1028 - 0074 0054 l4a2~1 2520 2635 2750-1 2720 2750+ 2750+ 47ll:i 31.0 l~.q 0.58 1.52 1.40 0.30 3.0
"-,e B 18.2 0,,46 8035 1036 - 0078 0058 14a2~0 2550 2680 2750-1 2750+ 27'50+ 2750+ 48~5 31.5 12.4 0.62 1.43 1.42 0.30 2.3
Zone C 0040 ~400 2000 - L60 0040 9a948 2600 2720 27'50+ 27'50+ ~'7C;;(,\~ 27'i()+ 60;0 26.5 7.40 0.8~ () c:;n 1.64 0.24 2. ~
1.60 Float Q~8 4Q,,8 0_72 0-8 1-44 - 0-q6 0 48 1~ 824 2635 2740. ,..,......." ?7'i0+ ~7C;:(,\- 27Ci()+ 4qlo 31.0 12.7 0.60 0.Q6 1.43 In ":!~ 2.8
r "HH
1.00 by 1.90 5,,5 27,,7 On60 4-6n1 1.04 - 1-68 0 26 7..7R' 2660 2750 -_...,.., 27Ci()+ ~7C." ~'7c;n~ 6?() 25.3 6.00 0.67 0.27 1 ,7 I() 2, ~ 0
1.90 Sink 4,,4 22~'5 0_74 ~6_4 2-88 - 2_76 0.12 4.~g 2580 ?hhC:; ,..,....;..." ~'72n~ ~'7c.f'\ ".......,.., 6~' n 2~ 'i 7.00 0.86 o.~~ 1.5~ 0.2'5 2.'5
Composite 19,,7 100,,0 ~~,,1 1.00 1.'i6 0 .'~4 , n n~: .,
-
Zone D 0061 4G8 2085 0001 2,,72 0,,12 2 a 984 2580 2640 ,..,....,..,.., 27,0+ 27'50+ :27'i()+ 60~0 24.5 h Q() 1.04 0.50 1 .4~ 0.25 2.7
r' -1\ H-
1.90 Float 1.4 12.3 O"I )() ~7 0) 2"Ob - L'6 On30 9 a 271 2695 2750-+ 27'50+ 27'50+ 271:)()+ 27Ci()+ 61.0 26. c5 7 g() 0.74 o. ~6 , un 0.26 2.8
1.90 by 2.95 9.2 84,,6 00' 8 00) 2062 - 2"t 6 0,,06 L997 2540 -:>hO('\ 2750+ 274'5+ 27'50+ 27c:;n+ 64;0 21:).~ 6,0 1.12 0.42 1 .4~ 0.25 2.7
2.95 Sink 0.3 3.1 00 ~6 20 3608 0020 ~601 On18 3a 76q 2070 2~L.() ~';1h(,\ 27'i0+ 271:)0+ 27'i()+ 1~~~ 6.20* 7B.~ 0 ..~8 0.35 n ~n 0.08 0.7
Composite 10.9 100,,0 r407 3061 0001 3051 0009 2a947 :
Zone E 0064 r903 9026 0006 9007 001.2 2a054 2160 2220 2440 2'540 2600 2680 c:;u:c:; 22.0 16.q 1.04 0.50 1.14 0.21 2.1
2.95 Float ~.9 84.2 0,,68 202 ~014 - ~,,06 0,,08 1n726 2~8Cj g6(), 2750+ 2710 271:)0+ 27C:;0+ 6~.0 24.0 7.1 () 1.12 0.40 l.:2R 0.17 2.1
2.95 Sink 0,,7 15..8 0034 108 4008 002~ 4002 00~8 4a392 2~80 24~0 ?44() . 2750+ 271:)0+ 271:)0+ 9.4~ 4.15* Ac; f'\4j 0.24 0.29 () .12 0.06 0.6
Compos! te 4,,6 100.0 r900 9009 0003 809~ 0013 20147 I
I
Composite of
Tat", .'
~...)ducts 100.0 2306 2003 0000 1059 0044 lla 617
..
Analysis of
Feed to
Table 0,,50 tL9n9 1086 On02 L42 0,,42 12 2q4 2500 2630 2750+ 271:)0+ 27c:;n+ 27c:;n+ I:)c:;i.o 27.6 , n A 0.8~ 0.80 1.59 0.2~ 3.2
Run Date:
8-19-71
IDT
ST~S -
ST»H -
FT
Initial Deformation Temperature
Softening Temperature» Spherical
Softening Temperature» Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
* Extrapolated Values
-------
A-83.
Table A41
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
BCR Sample No. 2889
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4" 12.5 12.5
1/4" x 6 M 27.1 39.6
6Mx12M 20.6 60.2
Minus 12 M 39.8 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C From 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-17-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size
Plus 30 M
Weight Percent
10.4
Cumulative
10.4
30 M x 50 M
28.7
39.1
62.1
50 M x 100 M
23.0
Minus 100 M
37.9
100.0
Total
100.0
-------
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
..:
Sieve opening in mm
.
>
1
ex>
+="
.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
100
60 50
40
30
18 16 14 12
6
1/4
U. S. standard sieve series
~tJlminous _Coal Research, Inc. 6076Gl1
Figure A-5. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating
Table Feed or 'or Scott Seam, togers Cou , y, : c ahoma, : t Sample 10. 2 9
-------
Table A42
A-85.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests~-3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Precleaning
Coal Identification
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
Raw. Run-of'-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No 0 . 2889
Product Weil2:ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 4'1.0 1.60 6.5] 3.44
Zone B '19.2 1.42 5.1~ 3.58
Zone C
Float at 1.60 7.0 64.) 0.ge . 8.81: 5.30
Lbo by 1. 90 1.3 12.) 1.07 34.7 7.02
Sink at 1.90 2.5 22. 0.64 71.J 5.20
Composite 10.8 100.0 26.J 5.49
Zone D
Float at 1.90 0.6 12.0 1.46 15.1 5.12
1.90 by 2.95 ~.7 7e.0 0.64 ~. 4.53
Sink at 2.95 0.5 10.0 0.38 7 . I 30.2
Composite 4.8 100.0 61 . 7.17
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1.4 64.5 0.33 67.0 4.37
Sink at 2.95 0.8 35.5 0.26 173.4 35.2
Composite 2.2 100.0 69.3 15.3
Composite of' 8 2~
Zones A. B. C qq.o q.74
Composite of' 1.60 89.2 6.0c 3.65
Float Fractions
Composite of' 2.95 73.4
Sink Fractions 1.3 33.3
Composite of' 12.4
Table Products 100.0 4.16
Ana3¥sis of
Feed to Table 1.22 13.3 4.21
Chemical Ana3¥sis, Dry Basis,
Run Date: 9-17-71
-------
A-86.
Table A43
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal '
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-17-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2889
, ,
Produ~t Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 81.1 1.91 5.3t ~.56
Zone B 13.8 1.24 5.0E 3.70
Zone C
.Float at 1.60 0.46 92.6 0.94 5.5C 4.48
Sink at 1.60 0.04 7.4 0.20 60.2 10.1
Composite 0.5 100.0 9.5t 4.90
Zone D
Float at 1.60 1.9 4~.~ 0.92 11~.2 8.~8
1.60 by 2.95 2.5 54.7 0.42 158.2 7. 1)4
Sink at 2.95 0.1 2.0 0.~6 68.4 ~4.0
Composite 4.'5 100.0 1~8.9 8.4~
Zone E
Float at 2.95 o.o~ 27.4 0.10 BO.7 2.42
Sink at 2,QI) 0.07 72.b 0.15 167.6 42.2
Composite 0.1 100.0 171.2 31.3
Composite of 95.4 3.58
Zones A. B. C 5.~~
Composite of 1.60 5.4c 3.68
Float Fractions 97.~
Composite of 2.95 0.17 68.1 37.4
Sink Fractions
Composite of 6.9~
Table Products 100.0 3.8~
Analysis of 7.2E
Feed to Table 1.09 3.86
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date: 9-23-71
-------
Table A44
A-87.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-17-71) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-23-71)
BCR Sample No 0 2889
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weip:ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zon~ A 75.4 5.1t 1.56
Zone B 12.8 5.0t 3.70
Zone C
.F1oat at 1.60 0.46 92.6 5.5C 4.48
Sink at 1.60 0.04 7.4 bO.2 10.1
CODIPosite 0.5 100.0 9.5~ 4.90
Zone D
Float at 2.95 8.4 91.1 f52.4 6.22
Sink at 2.95 0.6 6.7 172.6 30.8
Comoosite 9.0 100.0 51.8 7.87
Zone E
Float at 2.95 1.4 60.9 >7.~. 1 . I~
Sink at 2.QI) O.Q ~9.1 2.9 3' .1
Comoosite 2.~ 100.0 )9.5 11 ).)
Composite of 88.7 5.3E
Zones A. B C 3.59
Composite of 1.60 5.3~
Float Fractions 88.66 3.59
Composite of 2.95 72.8 33.8
Sink Fractions 1.5
Composite of tJ.1.2 4.27
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 1.22 tL3.3 4.21
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
A-88.
Table A45
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Technj,ques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
Zone E, ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-17-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2889
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A ~.5 0.70 67.1 7.96
Zone B 6.0 0.71 68.5 7.89
Zone C 6.7 0.66 62.8 7.74
Zone D 72.0 0.31 73.8 12.2
Zone E 11.8 0.17 70.0 44.1
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 72.1 15.3
Analysis of 0.49
Feed to Table 72.2 15.5
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
9-27-71
-------
A-8g.
Table A46
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-STests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-27-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
288<;1
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 4.8 o. 68.
Zone B 24.6 o. 0
Zone C 22.3 .06
Zone D 42.2 0.14 .0 6. 2
Zone E 6.1 0.16 .8
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 O. 10.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.26 o. 12.0
Run Date:
9-28-71
-------
A-90.
Table A47
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
BCR Sample No.
2889
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 9-17-71
Feed to Concentrating Table:~aw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to ~/8 Inch x 0
Product,
Weight %
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table
1 .
4.21
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
2.2
6 .
1 .
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 9-27-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (9-17-71) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
Product,
Wei ht
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis Weight %
Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table
2.2
1 .
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
11.8
0.0
44.1
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 9-28-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (9-27-71) Crushed to
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %.
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 70.3 12.0
Zone E ( Pyrite Zone) 6.1 73.2 39.8
Two stage Pyrite Product
0.36
70.9
42.9
-------
Table A48
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
~
A-91.
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
BCR Sample No. 2889
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of ROM Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
6.8
.LSL
~
28.0
11.8
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
6.8
Pyrite Con centrate
30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
4.0
0.1
~
.Q.&2
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
3.1
3.3
No. 15-5. Table
0.8
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.9
0.1
0.8
0.7
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
-------
A-92.
Table A49
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
F10wsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Fort Scott Seam, Rogers County, Oklahoma
BCR Sample No.
2889
W",i u'h+. - .
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 43.0 6.51 3.44
Zone B 39.2 5.12 3.5e
Zone C 10.e 26.4 5.49
Zone D 4.8 66.6 7.17
Zone E 2..2 69.3 15.3
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.08 67.1 7.96
Zone B O.l'~ 68.5 7.ti9
Zone C 0.15 62.8 7.74
Zone D 1.58 71.8 12.2
Zone E 0.26 70.0 44.1
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.07 68.5 =1.5
Zone B 0.19 69.0 1.7J
Zone C 0.15 70.7 1.06
Zone D 0.67 71.0 6.52
Zone E 0.10 73.2 39.8
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 12.4 4.12
Analysis of Feed
Coal 13.3 4.21
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
-------
Table
Products
Zone A
Zone B
f7l)ne C
1.60 Float
1.bO by 1.90
1.90 Sink
Composite
Zone D
1.90 Float
1.90 by 2.95
2.95 Sink
Composite
--"1e E
2.95 Float
2.95 Sink
Composite
Composite of
Table
Products
Analysis of
Feed to
Table
Run Date: 9-17-71
A-93.
Table A50
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic SUlfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Fort Scott Seam. Rogers County, Oklahoma
Raw Run-of-mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
J.
BCR Sample No.
2889
I
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, I
Product Weia:ht Percent Ash Fusibility I
j.
Weight Float and Total SUlfate Pyritic Organic Reducinp; AtmoS1)here Oxidizing Atmosphere i' Ash Spectrography *
Percent Sink Weight ~ Moisture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/lb IDT ST,S ST,H Fl' IDT ST,S ST,H FT S!1Oa ~ 0:3 Fea ~ MgO Cao T1~ N8:a0 KgO
4~.0 1.60 6.51 ~.44 0.02 2.10 1.32 13.962 1915 1920 2200 2240 2440 2540 39.1 14.1 34.1 1.01 8.26 0.74 0.94 2.2
~9.2 1.42 5.12 ~.C)8 0.04 2.26 1.28 14.144 1910 1925 2180 2460 2520 2580 ~0.4 11.5 45.5 0.79 7.12 0.66 0.81 0.9
I
0.99 27.5 5.38 0.06 4.44 0.88 10. ':n2 1920 1995 2110 2120 ::>14n 2~7C; 11.'.0 8.71 21,910 64 20.4 0.490.75 2.0
7.0 64.6 0.98 8.85 5.30 0.04 4.10 1.16 13 .482 1860 1865 2060 2505 2680 27C;0 ~h 11.2 56.1~ 0.67 9.06 0.50 0.38 1.0
1.3 12.6 1.07 1~4. 7 -7. 02 O.oE 6.44 0.50 8. 718 2140 2~10 2370 2180 22~5 2~OC; ~~ '?, 011.7 QA c: 0.74 34.4~k>. ~6 0.26 1.2
2.5 22.8 0.64 71.4 5.20 0.1-= -4.91 0.16 2.532 2040 2120 2200 2140 2160 2440 C:;~ () 0 L.~ 12 2 0.81 ~, 0 0.51 0.76 1.7
10.8 100.0 26.4 5.49 o.o~ 4.58 0.85 10.385
0.46 65.8 6.93 0.11 6.61 0.21 2.920 2060 2100 2140 2140 2160 2170 40.6 8.56 17.3 0 71 29. 7 ~() ~ u () 1I.c:; 0.9
0.6 12.0 1.1.6 .1.5.4 5.12 0.0~ l .06 1.02 12.549 2240 2~00 2~40 2240 2260 2~40 20.4 8.71 36.7 0,58120.40.'140.14 1.7
3.7 78.0 o.~ ,4 7~.6 4.53 0.08 l . ~4 0.11 1. 462 2180 2280 2340 2150 2160 2~0() 4~.0 7.~8 8.50 0.70 1 ~~ .1 0.'" 3 O. ~2 1.7
0.5 10.0 o. 8, 7.5 30.2 0.36 2( .7 0.10 1.823 2095 2100 210'5 2280 2740 2750+ 12 .7JA ~ . 2Qi1 60.1 JA o. 36 11 q .8 0.25 0.08 <0. 3
4.8 100.0 6L6 7.17 0.10 C84 0.22 2.829
0.28 72.4 14.6 0.18 14.3 0.12 1.440 2100 2140 2180 2140 2160 2200 ~s h h 7' JA ~l.O 0.47132 .2~.17 0.24 0.4
1.4 64.5 0.33 67.0 4. ~7 0.06 4.19 0.12 1.41)9 2245 2270 2~20 2200 2200 2240 ~'.2 I. ~~ F hO 0.72Ih~.qlK>.22 0.29 0.4
0.8 35.5 0.26 73.4 35.2 0.32 34.8 0.09 1.696 2080 2090 2095 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 1.~ Q O~ ~), ~ 0..~6 I,h a 0.15 0.08 <0.4
2.2 100.0 69.3 15.3 0.15 15.0 0.11 1.512
;
100.0
112.4
1.17 12.839
4.16
0.04
2.94
1. 22 .1..3 . 3
4.21
1970
2270 ~A r:.. (1 I,~ 27.3 0.79 20.20.540.74 2.0
2.96
206'5 211 C;
21~C;
0.08
1.17 12.882 1890
IDT
ST,S -
ST,H -
Fr
Initial Deformation Temperature
So:f'tening Temperature, Spherical
So:f'tening Temperature, Hemispherical
Fluid Temperature
* Extrapolated Values
* Calculated to moisture and ~-free basis
-------
A-95.
Table A51
SCREEN ANALYSIS
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2900
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4" 10.5 10.5
1/4" x 6 M 28.8 39.3
6Mx12M 23.3 62.6
Minus 12 M 37.4 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C From 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M 10.2 10.2
30 M x 50 M 27.6 37.8
50 M x 100 M 20.8 58.6
Minus 100 M 41.4 100.0
Total 100.0
-------
r uR" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
<
Sieve opening in mm
.
>
1
~
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
400 325 270
200190140
100
60 50
40
30
6
1/4
96
u. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G12
Figure A-6. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating Table
Feed for .ower Free )O~t Seam, utler :oun y! Pennsyl~ania, BCR Sample t o. 2900
-------
A-97.
Table A52
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur fram Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and PYrite Prec1eaning
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam. Butler County, Pennsylvania
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ~/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sa.mp1eNo.
2900
Product WeiQ:ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 4~.g 1.20 117 2 20
Zone B 42.3 1.15 11 8 2 22
Zone C
Float at 1.60 5.8 52.3 0.92 .15.8 3.16
1.60 by 1.90 2.2 20.2 1.26 ~~.8 9.10
Sink at 1.90 3.1 27.5 0.94 60.4 15.2
Composite 11.1 100.0 31.7 7.67
Zone D
Float at 1.90 0.3 11.8 1.02 18.8 4.41
1.90 by 2.95 101 54.5 o.gO 64.6 14.2
Sink at 2.95 0.7 33.7 0 27 60 4 41.0
Composite. 2.1 100.0 '>78 22.1
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 24.2 0078 56.3 16.4
Sink at 2.95 0.5 7'>.8 0,18 6~,,4 4::>..~
Composite 0.6 10000 60g '~6.0
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 97.3 14.0 2.83
Composite of 1.60 92.0
Float Fractions 12.0 2.27
Composite of 2095
Sink Fractions 1.2 61.2 41.5
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 15.2 3.44
Analysis' of 1.96 3.36
Feed to Table 1500
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Run Date: 10-18-71
-------
A-98.
Table A53
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, PennsYlvania
Zones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No. 2900
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Wei~t Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 78.1 1.16 11.~ 2 14
Zone B 13.8 1.10 13.~ 1.92
Zone (!
Float at 1.60 1.6 90.9 0.94 18.E 2.06
Sink at 1.60 0.2 9.1 0 6'5 44,::= 1~,4
Composite 1.8 100.0 20. <; ~,09
Zone D
Float at 1.60 2.5 42.9 0.75 25.~ 2.70
1.60 bv 2.qr; 2.8 49.6 0.72 48.( 9.26
Sink at 2.95 0.4 7. '5 0,18 61.~ 42,1
CODIPosite 5.7 100.0 39. ~ e.91
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 13.7 0.56 60.t 17.2
Sink at 2.QI:) 0.5 86.3 0.17 63.~ 44.6
CODIPosite 0.6 100.0 62.<; 40.8
Composite of 93.7
Zones A. B. C 11.<; 2.13
Composite of 1.60 96.0
Float Fractions 12.2 2.12
Composite of 2.95 0.9 62.Q 43.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of 13./ 2.74
Table Products 100.0
Analysis of
Feed to Table 1.21 14.J 2.84
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
10-28-71
-------
A-99.
Table A54
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of TWo-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, Pennsylvania
ComDosite of ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-71) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (10-28-71)
BCR Sample No. 2900
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weip;ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 76.0 11 4 2.14
Zone B 13.4 13.4 1.92
Zone C
Float at 1.60 1 6 909 18.6 2 06
Sink at 1.60 1.2 9.1 44 2 1~.4
COMPosite 1.8 . 100.0 20.9 ~.09
Zone D '
Float at 2.95 6.5 85.5 41.6 7.57
Sink at 2.95 1.1 14.5 60.7 41.4
Composite 7.6 100.0 44.4 12.5
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.2 16.7 58.6 16.8
Sink at 2.91) 1.0 tn.~ 62.8 4~.4
COJIIPosite 1.2 100.0 62.1 ~9.0
Composite of 91.2 11.9 2.1~
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 91.0 11.8 2.11
Composite of 2.95 61.7 42.4
Sink Fractions 2.1
Composite of 3.36
Table Products 100.0 15.0
Analysis of 3.36
Feed to Table 1.96 15.0
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
A-lOO.
Table A55
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, Pennsylvania
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (10-18-71) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2900
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.8 0.76 38.9 18.4
Zone B 5.~ 0.76 ~qo 178 ---
Zone C 4.6 0.72 36.2 16.0
Zone D 29.8 0.48 57 2 21.6
Zone E 56.5 0.12 64.0 45.1
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 58.4 34.3
Analysis of
Feed to Table 60.9 36.0
Chemical Analysis
Dry Basis
Run Date:
10-29-71
-------
A-lOl.
Table A56
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal .
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, Pennsylvania
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (10-29-71) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2900
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 14.6 o.~o 5~.2 20.0
Zone B 27.2 0.21 52.5 18.0
Zone C 17.8 0.17 50.8 16.0
Zone D 2q.6 0.26 66.4 18.8
Zone E 10 8 0 Og 66.1 46.0
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 57.9 21.2
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.46 57.4 22.4
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
11-10-71
-------
A-102.
Table A57
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Lower Freeport Seam. Butler County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2900
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 10-18-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to '1/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 15.0 3.36
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 0.6 60.9 ~6.0
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test
Feed to Concentrating Table: 7Dne F., 3/8
30 Mesh x 0
Product,
Wei ht
Run Date 10-29-71
Inch x 0 Run (10-29-71) Crushed to
Chemical Analysis
Ash
Dry Basis Weight %
Total Sulfur
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
6.
60.
64.0
6.0
4 .1
Analysis of Feed to Table
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Test Run Date 11-10-71
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (10-28-71) Crushed to
60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table '17.4 22.4
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 10.8 66.1 46.0
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.36
64.1
45.2
-------
Table A58
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
68.8
A-103.
Lower Freeport Seam, Butler County, Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No. 2900
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of ROM Coal
A
B
..2..£.
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
12.r..i
18.8
17.0
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
li..£
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
0.79
9..r..Q9
0.11
~
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
3.30
.M7
No. 15-5 Table
0.18
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.20
Q..lJ.
JW.8 ~
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
-------
A -104 .
Table A59
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
F1awsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification
Lower Freeport Seam, Butler CountYf Pennsylvania
BCR Sample No.
2900
.. .. .
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 43.9 11. 7 2.20
Zone B 42.~ 11.8 2.22
Zone C 11.1 31.7 7.b7
Zone D 2.1 57.8 22.1
Zone E 0.6 60.9 ~6.0
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.02 38.9 18.4
Zone B o.o~ ~9.0 17.8
Zone C 0.03 36.2 16.0
Zone D 0 18 57.2 21.6
Zone E 0.~4 64.0 45.1
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0 01 '5~.2 20.0
Zone B 0.05 52.5 18.0
Zone C 0.03 50.8 16.0
Zone D 0.05 66.4 18.8
Zone E 0 02 661 46 0
Composite of
Fractions 1'5.2 ~.4~
Ana~sis of Feed
Coal 15.0 ~.36
Chemical Ana~sis, Dry Basis
-------
A-l05.
Table A60
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Rem9v1ng Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification T.nw'p-'r' 'F'r'P-P-po1"'t SP-Am, 'RU'tlp-'r' County, pp-nnf:lyl van" a
Raw Rl1n-of'-Mine Crushed to 3/8 inGh x 0
.
BCR Sample No.
2900
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, ,
Product Weiaht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total SuJ.fate Pyritic Organic ReducilUl: AtmoS"Dhere Oxidizing Atmos~here Ash Spectrograp~
~4,)ducts Percent Sink Weight j MoiSture Ash Sulfur SuJ.:fUr Sulfur Sulfur Btu/lb IDT ST,S ST,H FT IDT ST,S ST,H FT Sic.. ~0:3 Feao., MgO Cao Ti <>:a NaaO KgO
Zone A h~Q 1.20 11.7 2.20 -- 1.64 0.56 139073 2500 2580 2720 2700 2750+ 2750+ 49.0 27.0 17.5 0.58 0.7f 1.1'" 0.1Q 2.2
Zone B 4~..~ 1.15 11.8 2.22 0.01 1.61 0.60 13.092 2540 2580. 2700 2680 2740 2750+ ;49.0 28.3 17.9 0.58 0.8~ 1.1'" 0.18 2.0
:
--'"1e C 0.t=;4 ~~.4 8.41 0.06 7.8~ 0.52 9.560 1qBO 2060 2~00 25~0 2570 2600 ;41.0 2~.0 'U.O 0.'58 0.4' 0.7C; 0.17 2.1
.. ,60 Float "A ,,~ ~ O_Q~ '- r:; 'S ~ ,i,.. -- 2.t=;r:; 0.51 12.~77 2460 2'500 2680 2640 2680 ~'50+ ;47.0 26.8 19.Q O. '51 O. '51 1.0 0.18 2.2
.. ,60 by 1.90 I.) I.) '.)01.) ,~ ~~ a 1('\ nnL. A~~ 0.40 a , An lQt=;O roho ~4r:;0 ~r:;40 ~r:;t=;0 ~I ~OO ;~7.r:; ~~ '5 ~4.'5 o,~r:; O. ~l oA n'lh ~.O
.. ,90 Sink ~ , ~7 " o,alL t;.t ,~ I.) o.n~- ,r:;.o 0 1'5 it t. ':)A lQt=;O ?020 ~~~o ~"ho ~'580 ?/ ~~O i~r:;.O ~, n ~QI:) 0 I:)r:; o. ~I ot=; 0.14 ~.o
Composite ", ,nn n '2' 7 7.~7 n nl.) 7 I.)~ O. ~Q n t. (\':)
Zone D 0.46 '57.8 2~.0 0.08 22.4 0.48 4.88~ 2000 2040 2180 2600 2620 2640 I~.I:) 1,.6 52.~ 0.4-= o. 'i: 0.4f 0.1~ 1.8
1.90 Float o..~ 11. A 1.02 18.8 4.41 -- ~.Q1 0.50 11.874 2040 2160 2l:iOO 21:)40 2r:;80 ~20 ;42.0 21:).'5 28.0 o. iE 0.51 1.0 0.16 1.Q
1.90 by 2.95 , , "it." nan ~it ~ ,it I.) n~ '~ a n~ ~ aah I.)nnn I.)I.)'.)n I~it~n ~"itn ~"~n -~'XI- ;~o n I.)lL () ~" o{,f () lL( (). 7~ () '.)IJ I.) 7
2.95 Sink 0.7 ~~.7 0 27 ho.4 41.0 0.14 40.6 o. ':2n .:;j''.)':2h ~':2An ~lLM I~h~n '.)~() --...- i: 7 '7I' !If. '.) c::.r I..AA n:! ......n I.) n ':2/ k'n 1( Io--() ne; /"'() ':)
CaDposite I.) , ,nn n r:;7A 00' nOA :~'.7 o. ~O h . t:.t:.P.
Zone E n ':)n ~o n ':)A () n on .':)7 it O.~{, ~.""A ~~40 ~~t=;0 1~4ho o~lLn ~r:;o+ 'Y7"1"\.a i, ~ . (}M 7 1( ~7A ,0:1 0 .~~ o. <~ O'~ I.--n ()' n,A
2.95 Float () , '.)h '.) ();;A r::.t:. ':) 1t:. h n ()7 ,~ () () ':2n c::.'oAt:. ,Q{,n lOAn I~~oo ~,,~ '.)c:~n ~ !~"." lQn hnn n h, n h- n"~ n ,1= ~ n
",95 Sink () " 7r::. A (),A t:o r. ),~ 0 (),A IlL 1 7 o. ':2~ ~.A70 ~
-------
A-107.
Table A61
Screen Analysis
Coal Identification
Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
BCR Sample No.
2926
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4" 10.3 10.3
1/4" x 6 M 25.9 36.2
6Mx12M 23.5 59.7
Minus 12 M 40.3 100.0
Total 100.0
Zones A, B, and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-21-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M 7.9 7.9
30 M x 50 M 25.7 33.6
50 M x 100 M 21.3 54.9
Minus 100 M 45.1 100.0
Total 100.0
-------
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
1
II(
Sieve opening in mm
:.
:x>
1
I-'
o
0>
.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
so
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
400 325 270
200 190 140
100
60 SO
40
30
6
1/4
96
u. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G13
Figure A-7. Size Distribution Curves of 30.Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating
Table Feed for Bax er Seam, Crawford County, Kansas, B :R Sc de No. 2926
-------
Table A62
A-109.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite
Prec1eaning
Coal Identification
Baxter Seam. Cra.wford County. Kansas
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2926
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 27.2 0.60 10.5 2.92
Zone B 46.0 0.46 9.66 ~.06
Zone C
Float at 1.60 18.9 . 80.4 0.70 11.0 ~.71
1.60 by 1.90 1.1 4.6 0.46 ~5.5 10.4
Sink at 1'.90 ~.5 15.0 0.28 6~.4 1~.8
Composite 23.5 100.0 20.0 5.53
Zone D
Float at 1. 90 0.4 115.2 1.10 14.6 4.40
1.90 by 2.95 1.2 1)~..4 0 .~o 68.0 7..~6
Sink at 2.95 0..7 ~1 .4 O?~ hl:i.? ~7.B
Composite ?~ ]00.0 '10.0 lh.1:i
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.5 51.0 0.23 68.6 4.72
Sink at 2.95 0.5 49.0 0.25 67.0 39.8
Composite 1.0 100.0 67.8 21.9
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 96.7 12.4 ~.62
Composite of 1.60
Float Fractions 92.1 10 2 ~..11)
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 1.2 66 0 ~8 6
Composite of 14.0 4.10
Table Products 100.0
Ana.~sis of
Feed to Table 2.69 14.8 4.02
Chemical Ana~sis, Dry Basis,
Run Date: 1-21-72
-------
A-110.
Table A63
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Baxter Seam, Crawford County. Kansas
~ones A, B, and C, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-21-72) Crushed to
30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2926
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Wei~t Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 81.4 0_52 IQ..QQ ~.10
Zone B 13.9 0.~8 10.4 ~.08
Zone C
Float at 1.60, 2.2 92.4 0.04 1,4,0 4.22
Sink at 1.60 0.2 7.6 0.30 51.0 18.6
Composite 2..4 ' 00 . 0 117.6 Ij..~l
Zone D
Float at 1.60 0.6 27.~ 0.49 22.1 7.48
1.60 by 2.95 1.2 57.4 0.28 60.0 9.57
Sink at 2.95 0.3 15.3 0.20 65.8 39.0
COJlIPosite 2.1 100.0 150.5 13.5
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.1 45.8 0.12 67.6 5.87
Sink at 2.Q5 0.1 1)4.2 0.14 165.8 40.8
Composite 0.2 100.0 66.6 24.8
Composite of
Zones A. B C Q7.7 10.2 ~.15
Composite of 1.60 98.1
Float Fractions 10.2 3.15
Composite of 2.95 0.4 65.8 ~9.5
Sink Fractions
Composite of ~.41
Table Products 100.0 11.2
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.21 11.8 3.50
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date: 1-31-72
-------
Table A64
A -111.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-21-72) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (1-31-72)
BCR Sample No.
2926
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 78.7 19.99 3.10
Zone B 1~.5 10.4 ~.08
Zone C
Float at 1. 60 2.1 92.4 4.9 4.22
-- Sink at 1.60 7 6 51 0 18.6
0 2
COIIIDosite 2-~ 100.0 L7 6 I) . ~l
Zone D
Float at 2. ql) ~.~ 76.7 )1.8 7.83
Sink at 2.95 1.0 2~.~ 65.4 ~8.2
COIIIDosite 4.~ 100.0 51),0 14.q
Zone E
Float at 2.95 0.6 50.0 68 4 4.ql
Sink at 2.q5 0.6 '50.0 b6 8 40.0
COIDDosite 1.2 100.0 57,6 22..1)
Composite of 94.5 0.2 3.15
Zones A. B. C
Composite of 1.60 94.3
Float Fractions 0.2 3.12
Composite of 2.95 1.6 J5.9 38.9
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 2 8 ~8g
Analysis of 4.8 4.02
Feed to Table
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
A-112.
Table A65
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
Zone E, 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-21-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2926
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.1 0.18 56.4 19.9
Zone B g.'5 0.16 57.6 18.6
Zone C 4.g 0.17 58.2 17.2
Zone D 58.6 0.06 67.8 13.8
Zone E 2~.g OaO~ 66.0 44.g
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 65.6 22.0
Analys is of
Feed to Table 0.18 66.2 21.9
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
2-4-72
-------
A-113.
Table A66
'-
EvaJ.uation of CoaJ. Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine CoaJ.
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests -Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (2-4-72) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2926
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight TotaJ. Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 4.~ 0.10 64.6 1"5 O
Zone B 35.7 0.06 65.0 14.3
Zone C 27.9 0.08 66.0 12.8
Zone D 27.9 0.01 6~.2 8.q()
Zone E 4.2 0.02 66.6 ~2.'5
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 64.8 13.2
AnaJ.ysis of
Feed to Table 0.04 64.9 13.2
ChemicaJ. AnaJ.ysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
2-7-72
-------
A-1l4.
Table A67
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Baxter Seam, Crawford County, Kansas
BCR Sample No.
2926
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 14 8 4002
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 1.0 67.8 21.9
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 2-4-72
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone E, ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (1-21-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 66.2 21.9
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 23.9 65.6 22.0
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 2-7-72
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone D. 30 Mesh x 0 Run (2-4-72) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 64.9 13.2
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 4.2 64.8 13.2
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0.27
66.1
43.5
-------
Table A68
A-115.
BAXTER SEAM. CRAWFORD COUNTY, KANSAS
BCR Sample No. 2926
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
82.0
Pounds of TotaJ. Sulfur/Ton of Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
4.4
7.6
15.8
28.2
26.0
Crushed to, 30 mesh x 0
4.4
No. 15-5 Table
2.14
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
1.62
0.12
Qill
0.17
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
2 . :10
h2?
No. 15-5
0.16
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.29
0.08
0.60
0.42
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
-------
A-ll6.
Table A69
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flowsheet Data for pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Baxter Seam
Crawford County. Kansas
BCR Sample No.
2926
T.T. -"..1. .
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulfur
Table No. 14
Zone A 27.2 10.5 2.92
Zone B 46.0 9.66 ~.06
Zone C ?~.I:) 20.0 I:) ~~
Zone D 2.~ 59.0 16.5
Zone E 1.0 b7.~ 21.9
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0.03 56.4 19.9
Zone B O.Og 57.6 H3.6
Zone C 0.05 58.2 17.2
Zone D 0.59 67.e 13.~
Zone E 0.24 66.0 44.9
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0 O~ 64.6 15.0
Zone B 0.21 65.0 14.3
Zone C 0.16 66.0 12.8
Zone D 0.16 63.2 8.90
Zone E 0.03 66.6 32.5
Composite of
Fractions 100.0 14.0 4.10
Analysis of Feed
Coal 14.8 4.02
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
-------
A-117.
Table A70
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification
Baxter Seam
Crawford County Q Kansas
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2926
Chemical Analysisp Dry Basis~
Product Weip;ht Percent Ash Fusibility ,
Table Weight Float and Total Sulfate Pyritic Organic Reducing Atmosphere Oxidizing Atmosphere .. Ash Spectrography
Products Percent Sink Weight ~ MoiSture Ash Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Sulfur Btu/lb IDT STpS STpH FT IDT STpS ST,R FT SiQa Ala Os Fe:a 0.. MgO Cao T10a Naa 0 Kg 0
,.
Zone A 27.2 0.60 1005 2..92 2000 0092 13,,544 1955 2000 24~5 2~20 2450 2'56'5 !'4803 18..8 23..1 0,,88 B..29 0.97 0.37 2.6
,
Zone B 46.0 0.46 9.66 3.06 2026 0080 13,,68q 1940 1965 2370 2365 2495 2595 :46..4 18.5 25.0 0.82 2.40 0.94 0.48 3.1
Zone C 0.31 21.1 5.78 0,,02 4~QQ On77 lL 62' 1890 lQ65 2~05 2205 2275 2510 132..3 13.1 31.9 O. 7~ tJ.. 7.~ 0.58 0.2~ 1.7
.. ,60 noat 18.9 80.4 0.70 11.0 3.71 0001 2083 0087 13041( 1925 1945 2360 2390 2520 2590 :44..8 16..6 31..0 0,,8~ 2.1'5 0.87 o.~o 2.1
.. ,60 by 1.90 1.1 4.6 0.46 135.5 10.4 0.07 Q.Q 0~47 Q.261 2150 2255 2410 2290 2370 2400 J16.1* 7.99* 44.4 0.67 27.?!4" ~, 0.07 0.6
1.90 Sink 3..5 1'5.0 0,,28 163.4. 1~.8 0..08 1~..6 0..14 ~:.07~ 2080 2120 2240 2220 2230 2300 J2~.8 lL~ ~2 ~ I) O. 7~ ~c All ('\ . ~6 :) ..10 "l. "I
Composite 23.5 100.0 20.0 5.53 0.02 4.77 0.74 1L 66q
61.1 0.06 1607 0026 3p548 I
Zone D 0.15 17.0 2130 .2160 2210 2215 2350 2405 115.9~ 7.91* 39.0 0.59 33.6M0.27 b.10 0.8
.. ,90 Float 0.4 15.2 1.10 14.6 4.40 0..01 ~06~ 0076 12.87' lQOO lQ70 2201) 2220 2~~0 2560 ;35..1 13.2 34.6 1.0L 1~.2 0.76 b.18 1.4
.. ,90 by 2.95 1.2 5~.4 o.~o 68.0 7.~6 o.o~ 7023 0010 10271 2400 2515 2570 2415 2485 2610 125..7 11.4 20.1 0.9~ 38.2*0.45 b.10 0.8
2.95 Sink 0.7 31.4 0.2~ 65.2 ~7.8 On1~ ~7.'5 0.18 t;) L.AJ 2~10 2~10 2~0 22QO 2~21) 2620 :6069~ 1.73* 77,,7"'Oo3~ 13.5 0.09 b.~ :::0 . 3
Composite 2.3 100.0 59.0 16,,5 0.,06 16.2 0.2~ ~~41<;
Zone E *1 I
2.95 Float 0.5 51.0 0.2~ 68.6 4.72 0,,03 4,1)8 On11 Ll6E 2570 2685 270'5 21)'51) 2660 2735 121,,2 9.68 13..6 0.76 51.6M 0.~6 b.OQ 0.6
"',95 Sink 0.5 4Q_0 0..2'5 67,,0 3Q.8 0.14 ~9..4 0.26 2.601 2410 2410 2410 2750+ 2750+ 2750 i5.44~ 1.71* 80.0"'0.~~ 10.0 0.07 0 O~ o.~
Composite 1.0 100.0 67.8 2109 0008 21n6 0.18 L87C
Composite of .
...."able
:"-...>ducts 100.0 14.0 4,,10 0001 3029 0080 12 P 82C '.1
Ana.1ysis of -
Feed to
Table 2..69 14..8 4002 0001 3023 0078 12082~ 1930 1970 2300 2260 2340 2505 :3801 15..3 29..1 0,,76 2.5 0.75 0.35 1.6
Run Date: 1-21-72 IDT Initial Deformation Temperature
.ST,S - Softening Temperature, Spherical * Extrapolated Values
*1 Analyses Unavailable, Insufficient Sample STpH - Softening Temperature, Hemispherical
FT Fluid Temperature
-------
A-119.
Table A71
SCREEN - ANALYSIS'
.Coal Identification Clements Seam, Walker County, Alabama
BCR Sample No.
2928
Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
Screen Size Weight ,Percent Cumulative
Plus 1/4" 8.5 8.5
1/4" x 6 M 26.5 35.0
6 M x 12 M 23.3 58.3
Minus 12 M 41.7 100.0
Total 100.0
. Zones A, B, and C from 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (2-23-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Screen Size Weight Percent Cumulative
Plus 30 M 8.5 8.5
30 M x 50 M 24.7 33.2
50 M x 100 M 21.0 54.2
Minus 100 M 45.8 100.0
Total 100.0
-------
r "R" oversize percentage
by weight 0.1
I
<
Sieve opening in mm
.
>
I
I-'
I\)
o
.
1.0
10
3
5
7
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
82
85
87
90
92
94
96
100
60 50
40
30
18 16 14 12
6
1/4
u. S. standard sieve series
Bituminous Coal Research, Inc. 6076G8
Figure A-8. Size Distribution Curves of 30 Mesh x 0 and 3/8 Inch x 0 Concentrating
Table Feed for Clements Seam, Walker County, Alabama, BCR Sample No. 2928
-------
Table A72
A-l21.
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur fram Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning and Pyrite Pre-
cleaning
Coal Identification
Clements Seam. Walker County. Alabama
Raw Run-or-Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No.
2928
Product WeiQ:ht Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weight Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 31.5 0 .156 q..q( 1.40
Zone B 34.0 0.52 8.0~ 1.88
Zone C
Float at 1.60 12.7 7e.2 0.61 .11.4 2.81
1.60 by 1.90 1.6 10.0 0.68 41.2 3.8~
Sink at 1.90 1.9 11.8 0.68 77.3 2.10
Composite 16.2 100.0 22.2 2.83
Zone D
Float at 1.90 1.1 7.3 0.78 28.~ ~.5~
1.90 by 2.95 13.5 91.6 0.67 8~.3 1.50
Sink at 2.95 0.2 1.1 0.~7 70.~ ~0..6
Composite 14.8 100.0 79.1 1..97
Zone E
Float at 2.95 ~.2 qQ.S 1.04 84.q 1.84
Sink at 2.95 O.~ 9.5 0.20 68.'5 ~'5.8
Composite 3.5 100.0 8~.~ 5..07
Composite of
Zones A. B. C 81.7 11.2 1.88
Composite of 1.60 78.2
Float Fractions 9.3E 1.84
Composite of 2.95
Sink Fractions 0.5 69.2 ~~.7
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 24.1 2.01
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.52 25.~ 1.96
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis,
Run Date: 2-23-72
-------
A-122.
Ta.ble A73
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--30 Mesh x 0 Deep Cleaning
Coal Identification Clements Seamg Walker County 9 Alabama
Zones A, B, and Cg 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (2-23-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sam,p1e No 0
2928
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weip:ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 8204 0036 6092 1066
Zone B 1208 0027 7088 1..98
Zone C
.Float at 1.60 LO q()~q 0,:~2 1307 ~ ..~4
Sink at 1060 Oh1 . qh1 0038 5402 qa40
Composite L1 10000 17..4 ~.8q
Zone D
Float at 1..60 106 SOnq 0 14 22~0 4 04
1. 60 bv 20 qr; 1 ., 47.~ 0~80 I)L2 1)~4
Sink at 2095 001 In8 O~~O 6404 ~qar;
Composite ~.? 100 0 ~6~6 I) 2q
Zone E
Float at 2.qS 004 82.~ 0~62 6704 5,.78
Sink at 2~q5 001 1707 Oole 6~.4 ~e.q
COIIIDosite 005 10000 6607 11.6
Composite of 7016 1.73
Zones A. B. C q60~
Composite of 1060 1.76
Float Fractions 9708 7035
Composite of 2.95 630q ~q.2
Sink Fractions Oh2
Composite of 8041
. Table Products 100nO 1.89
Analysis of 8.44
Feed to Table 0052 1.90
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date: 3-1-72
-------
A-123.
Table A74
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table Tests--Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification Clements Seam, Walker County, Alabama
Composite of 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (2-23-72) and 30 Mesh x 0 Run (3-1-72)
BCR Sample No.
2928
, ,
Product Weight Percent
Weight Float and Sink Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Weie:ht Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 67.3 6.92 1.66
Zone B 10.5 7.88 1.98
Zone C 0.8 90.9 13.7 3.34
Float at 1.60 0.1 9.1 54.2 9.40
Sink at 1.60 0.9 100.0 17.4 3.89
Composite
Zone D
Float at 2.95 17..15 98..6 72.8 2..10
Sink at 2.95 0.25 1.4 69.1 32.4
Composite 17..40 100.0 72.7 2.52
Zone E
Float at 2.95 3.5 89.7 83.4 2.18
Sink at 2.q5 0..4 10..~ 67..2 ~6..6
COIIIPosite ~..9 100.0 81.7 5.73
Composite of 78.7
Zones A. B. C 7.17 1.73
Composite of 1.60 7806
Float Fractions 7.12 1.72
Composite of 2.95 0.65 67.9 35.0
Sink Fractions
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 21.5 2.02
Analysis of
Feed to Table 25.~ 1.96
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
-------
A-124.
Table A75
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. 15-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Clements Seam. Walker County. Alabama
Zone E. 3/8 Inch x 0 Run (2-23-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2928
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 4.6 0.56 78.5 3.21
Zone B 10 2 064 79.2 3.16
Zone C 7.1 0.70 79.2 3.64
Zone D 74.4 0.66 84.4 4.06
Zone E 3.7 0.12 70.4 40.8
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 I 82.7 5.26
Analysis of
Feed to Table 1.28 83.0 5.26
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
3-2-72
-------
A-125.
Table A76
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Tests - Pyrite Beneficiation
Coal Identification
Clements Seam. Walker County, Alabama
Zone D, 30 Mesh x 0 Run (3-2-72) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
BCR Sample No.
2928
, ,
Product, Weight Percent
Weight Total Ultimate
Table Products Percent Moisture Ash Sulfur Carbon
Zone A 3.1 0.59 83.8 2.(n
Zone B 36.5 0.37 84.0 2.72
Zone C 27.4 0.34 83.9 3.09
Zone D 29.0 0.26 85.5 4.10
Zone E 4.0 0.10 69.4 42.0
Composite of
Table Products 100.0 83.8 4.80
Analysis of
Feed to Table 0.44 83.8 5.16
Chemical Analysis Dry Basis
Run Date:
3-8-72
-------
A-l26 .
Table A77
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Pyrite Beneficiation - Effects of Two-stage Cleaning
Coal Identification
Clements Seams> Wa.lker County, Alabama
BCR Sample No.
2928
Pyrite Precleaning
Concentrating Table No. 14 Test Run Date 2-23-72
Feed to Concentrating Table: Raw Run-of-Mine Coal Crushed to ~/8 Inch x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 2 1 6
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 30 68. 8
Pyrite Cleaning
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 3-2-72
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone Es> ~/8 Inch x 0 Run (2-23-72) Crushed to 30 Mesh x 0
Chemical Analysis
Ash
Dry Basis Weight %
Total Sulfur
o
0.4
.26
40.8
Analysis of Feed to Table
Zone E (Pyrite Zone)
8 .0
Concentrating Table No. l5-S Test Run Date 3-8-72
Feed to Concentrating Table: Zone Dp ~O Mesh x 0 Run (~-2-72) Crushed to 60 Mesh x 0
Product, Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis, Weight %
Weight % Ash Total Sulfur
Analysis of Feed to Table 83.8 5.16
Zone E (Pyrite Zone) 400 69.4 42.0
Two Stage Pyrite Product
0024
69.9
41.3
-------
Table A78
Raw R.O.M. Coal Crushed
to 3/8-inch x 0
I
40.2
A-127.
Clements Seam, Walker County, Alabama
BCR Sample No. 2928
Pounds of Total Sulfur/Ton of Run-of-Mine Coal
Pyrite Precleaning
No. 14 Table
5.8
8.8
12.8
9.2
Crushed to 30 mesh x 0
3&..
Pyrite Concentrate
30 mesh x 0
No. 15-5 Table
2.07
0.10
0.22
0.18
High Grade
Pyrite
30 mesh x 0 Zone D
Crushed to 60 mesh x 0
1.75
. 2.07
No. 15-5 Table
0.72
Pyrite Concentrate
60 mesh x 0
0.51
0.04
0.43
~7
Flowsheet for Pyrite Benefication Tests
-------
A-128.
Table A79
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Flawsheet Data for Pyrite Beneficiation Tests
Coal Identification Clements Seamg Walker County, Alabama
BCR Sample No. 2928
Chemical Analysis, Dry Basis
Fraction Weight Percent Ash Total Sulf'ur
Table No. 14
Zone A
Zone B
Zone C
Zone D
Zone E
Table No.. 15-S
(30 Mesh x 0)
Zone A
Zone B 0
Zone C 0025
Zone D 20
Zone E 0 1
Table No. 15-S
(60 Mesh x 0)
Zone A 0008
Zone B 00 5
Zone C 00 1
Zone D 0075
Zone E 0011 .
Composite of
Fractions 10000 '24.1 2 04
Analysis of Feed
Coal 25.3 1. 6
-------
A-l29.
Table ABo
Evaluation of Coal Cleaning Processes and Techniques
for Removing Pyritic Sulfur from Fine Coal
Concentra.ting Table Tests--3/8 Inch x 0 Rough Cleaning
Ash Characteristics
Coal Identification Clements Seamg W~er County 9 Alabama.
Raw Run=of=Mine Coal Crushed to 3/8 Inch x 0
BCR Sample No. 2928
Chemical AnalYsisp Dry Basis»
Product Wei@:ht Percent Ash Fusibility
Table Weight Float and Total Sulf'&t~ Pyritic Organic Reducing Atmosph~re Oxidizing Atmosphere Ash Spectrography
:.c..~ducts Percent Sink Weight.~ MoiSture Ash Sulfur Sulfur SUlfur Sulfur Btu/lb IDT STpS STpH FT IDT STpS STpH FT SiCa ~0:3 FeaO:s MgO Cao T1O:a NasO KgO
Zone A 31.5 0..56 9099 1040 0074 0066 13,,659 2620 2705 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 5LO ~O,,~ 10..2 0 ~ Q7' L86 1.18 0.'57 2.0
".,ne B 34.0 0.52 8.02 1088 1015 0073 1~"q46 2245 2520 2700 26q5 2740 2750+ :44,,1) 2903 17.5 0,,90 2..30 l..lC 0.70 1.8
Zone C 0..48 20..4 2..90 2,,24 0,,66 lln 8~8 25~0 2625 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ '4q,0 28..7 14..1 0..Q7 1.01:) 1.1 0..~1 2.7
" ,60 Float 12.7 78.2 0..61 11..4 2,,81 LCI O)~O 1~,~76 2100 21:)11:) 2620 264'5 2700 27110+ :40.0 ?ELo ?411 CL 7'1 1..30 1.lE 0.42 2.4
" ,00 by 1.90 1.6 10.0 0.68 4L2 30~3 30 2 0051 8,,262 2710 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 49,,0 ~2..0 12..~ 1.06 0,,45 LIt 0.2'"' ~.2
1.90 Sink 1,q n.8 0.68 77..~ 2,,10. 0,,03 loCI 0016 2,,207 2740 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 57,,0 ~0,,8 4,,40 LOI 0..49 1.~l 0.28 3.1
Composite 16.2 100.0 ~2.2 2..83 0000 2005 0077 lla 547
Zone D o. 4 '904 2008 1095 0,,13 19770 2750i 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ ,5605 31.'= 4..40 0078 0.66 1.2€ 0.2t; 2.2
" ,90 Float 1.1 7.~ 0.. 8 80'= 3,,5~ 2,,8q 0..64 10,,'504 2570 2660 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 146.'5 2q"f 1 '1 .? 0.00 n..a!:) 1 r; 0..~1 ?.a
" ,90 by 2.95 1~.5 91.6 o.~ 57 13. l.. 50 L42 0,,08 L167 ,..,.,"'" 27'50+ 27'50+ 27110+ 27110+ :110,0 ~Lf ~.711 0..77 0.112 L :j.( 0.20 L~
L':f ")u"t it'"f'")U"t'
2.95 Sink 0..2 1.1 O. ~7 0,,'= ~0..6 0..18 ~o..o 0 47 ~,,~~6 2O~1) 20'50 2180 21)qo 2700 20,0 "\~.? ~~ (H n.?7 n..M 0..1 ~'j 0.,' ~ , ,?
Composite 14 8 100,,0 '9,,1 1097 0000 1084 0013 1.,872
Zone E 0.54 13..4 4..qo 0..08 4,,70 0,,12 In 100 2640 2750 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 55..5 29,,7 9..80 0.78 0.64 1.2~ 0.21 2.2
2.95 Float 3.2 90.5 1..04 l4"q l..84 0,,02 L7~ On09 888 2741) 27'50+ 271)0+ ' 27'50+ 271)0+ 271)0+ 'I)q. 0 ~1 2 4.40 0.85 0.60 L~J 0.21 l.q
2~95 Sink 0.3 9.5 0,,20 8..5 35.8 0013 34.3 1033 2,,876 2~20 2420 2500 2750+ 2750+ 2750+ 8n50-ll 7n~0~ 82nO~ On20 0.~8 O..~C o.oc:; 0.4
~~site ~.11 100.0 I~.,~ 5,,07 OOO~ 4.82 0021 1,,077
Composite of'
Table
Products 100.0 2401 2.01 0000 1040 0061 11»230
~s1s of'
Feed to
Table 0052 2503 L96 L42 0..54 lln 044 2700 27110+ 27'50+ 27'50+ 27'50+ 27'50+ :'1'1. 0 ~0,'5 7,.70 0.82 0.q6 1.2f 0 ,~1 2.1
Run Date:
2-23-72
1M
STpS ""
STpH ""
FT
Initial Dafo~tion Temperature
So:rtening TemperatUX'fl p Spherical
So:rtening Temperature j) HemisphericeJ.
Fluid TemperatuN
* Extrapolated values
-------
B-13l.
Appendix B
FUEL AND PYRITE CONCENTRATE EVALUATIONS
Tables Seam BCR Lot No.
Bl -134 Western Ky. No.6 2847
B5 - B8 Bakerstown 2856
B9 - Bl2 L. Ki ttanning 2860
Bl3 - Bl6 L. Freeport 2881
Bl7 - B20 Ft. Scott 2889
B21 - B24 L. Freeport 2900
B25 - B28 Baxter 2926
B29 - B32 Clements 2928
-------
TABLE B-1. POTENTIAL COMBUfrl'ION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: W. Kentucky No.6 Seem, Butler County, Ky.
BCR Lot No. 2847
Composite of Fractions
Chemical An~sis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite Wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value
26.9 5.98 3.47 13,685
43.2 4.88 3.53 13,896
23.7 5.52 3.98 13,725
0.8 29.20 10.90 9,592
1.4 64.80 17.40 4,104
.22..:.Q 6.42 ~ 13,616 ~
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 F1.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
0.2 15.4 9.32 11,956
0.7 67.2 15.60 3,651
0.9 62.9 43.40 2,510
0.5 61.8 14 .60 4,692
1.7 63.6 44.60 2,460
4.0 61.44 33.74 3,433+ 1.0
100.0 8.62 5 . 08'" 13,209 tx:!
I
I-'
w
w
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-2. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL '!WO-SPLIT SEPARATION
tx:I
I
.....
W
+:-
.
Coal Identification: W. Kentucky No.6 Seam, Butler County, Ky.
BCR Lot No. 2847
Composite of Fractions
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent. Dry Basis Composite Wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
26.9 5.98 3.47 13,685
43.2 4.88 3.53 13,896
23.7 5.52 3.98 13 ,725
2l& ~ ~ 13,792 ~
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Zone D, 1. 90 F1.
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95
Zone D, 2.95 Sk.
Zone E, 2.95 F1.
Zone E, 2.95 Sk
Composite of Fractions
0.8 29 . 20 10.90 9,592
1.4 64.80 17.40 4,104
0.2 15.40 9.32 11,956
0.7 67.20 15.60 3,651
0.9 62.90 43.40 2,510
0.5 61. 80 14.60 4,692
1.7 63.60 44.60 2,460
6.2 58.04 27 .10 4,380 2.1
100.0 8.63 5.09 13,208
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-3. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF. SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL 'l:'HREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: W. K~ntucky No.6 Seam, Butler County, Ky.
BCR Lot No. 2847
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent; Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 26.9 5.98 3.47 13,685
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 43.2 4.88 3.53 13,896
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 23.7 5.52 3.98 13,725
Composite of Fractions 93.8 5.36 3.63 13,792 97.9 94.9
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 0.8 29.20 10.90 9,592
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.4 64.80 17.40 4,104
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.2 15.40 9.32 11,956
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.9 62.90 43.40 2:,510
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.7 63.60 44.60 2,460
Composite of Fractions 5.0 56.38 29.96 4,450 1.7 5.1
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 0.7 .67.20 15.60 3,651
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.5 61.80 14.60 4,692 td
I
64.95 15.18 4,085 0.4 I-'
Composite of Fractions 1.2 w
\J1
.
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 8.63 5.09 13,208
-------
TABLE B-4. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USmG "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: w. Kentucky No.6 Seam, Butler County, Ky.
BCR Lot No. 2847
'Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. % of % of
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 25.9 5.98 3.47 13,685
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 43.2 4.88 3.53 13,896
Composite of Fractions 70.1 5.30 3.51 13,815 73.3 71.0
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 23.7 5.52 3.98 13,725
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 0.8 29.20 10.90 9,592
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.4 64.80 17.40 4,104
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.2 15.40 9.32 11,956
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.9 62.90 43.40 2,510
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 1.7 63.60 44.60 2,460
Composite of Fractions 28.7 14.38 8.51 12,109 25.3 29.0
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 0.7 67.20 15.60 3,651
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.5 61. 80 14.60 4,692
Composite of Fractions 1.2 64.95 15.18 4,085 0.4
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 8.62 5.09 13, 209
tx:t
I
I-'
VA
.
-------
TABLE B- 5.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Bakerstown, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Lot No. 2856
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1.60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
2.6 60.5 5.22 5 , ~44
84.5 15.6 1.42 13,052 95.2
. Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
2.1 36.2 1.86 9,426
8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
1.4 61.0 38.60 3,870
1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
15.5 6C$.5 12.38 3,582 4.8
100.0 23.8 3.12 11,584
tJ:I
I
I--'
W
~
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-6.
POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
b:I
I
I-'
tAl
(»
.
Coal Identification:
Bakerstown, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Lot No~ 2856
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 Fl.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. % of
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
75.3 11.5 1.24 . 13,774 89.5
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone C,
'Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1. 90
1.90 Sk.
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
2.1 36.2 1.86 9,426
8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
1.4 61.0 38.60 3,870
1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
24.7 61.5 8.91 4,902 10.5
100.0 23. ft 3.12 11, 584
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-7. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING. CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Bakerstown, Grant County, West Virginia
BCR Lot No. 2856
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite Wt. ofo of ofo of
Product, Calorific
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
Composite of Fractions 75.3 11.5 1.24 13,774 89.5 83.6
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
Zone D, 1.90 F1. 2.1 36.2 1.86 9,425
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.4 61.0 38.60 3,870
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 2.1 62.0 40 . 50 3,565
CompOsite of Fractions 14.8 50.5 11. 48 6,632 ~ 16.4
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067 b:I
I
Composite of Fractions ~ 78.0 5.08 2.316 2.0 j-J
- w
- '-0
CompOsite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.14 11,583
-------
TABLE B-8. rorENTIAL COMWSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS tP
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" TIffiEE-SPLIT SEPARATION I
~
o
Coal Identification: Bakerstown, Grant County, West Virg :inia .
BCR Lot No. 2856
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
-
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 47.3 10.2 1.23 14,014
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 22.0 13.0 1.24 13,490
Composite of Fractions 69.3 11.1 1.23 13,848 82.8+ 76.9
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 6.0 15.8 1.35 12,921
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 6.6 45.2 2.02 7,891
Zone C, 1. 90 Sk. 2.6 60.5 5.22 5,144
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 2.1 36.2 1.86 9,426
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 1.4 61.0 3t\.60 3,870
Zone E, 2.95 Sk.. 2.1 62.0 40.50 3,565
Composite of Fract ions 20.8 40.5 8.56 8 446 15.2 23.1
,
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 8.6 77.8 4.89 2,354
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.3 79.2 6.34 2,067
Composite of Fractions 9.9 78.0 5.08 2,316 2.0
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.8 3.14 11,583
-------
TABLE B-9. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification:
Lower Kittanning, Westmoreland County, Pa.
Composite of Fractions
BCR Lot No. 2860
Chemical ~sis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite Wt. 10 of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
45.9 8.26 1.90 14,428
17.5 8.10 2.09 14,408
4.1 11.00 3.00 13,776
1.7 31. 20 8.42 9,912
2.6 62.80 9.46 4,186
71.8 10.90 2.44 13 ,908 2t.:.g
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1.60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 Fl.
2.95 Sk.
0.5 27.80 6.87 10,604
11.4 78.60 5.07 1,944
0.2 67 . 00 29 .10 3,284
12.3 81.00 5.18 1,666
3.8 65.40 36.40 3,428
28.2 76.89 .2:.2t 2,186 H
100.0 29.5 4.44 10,602 tx:t
I
~
I-'
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-I0. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRAc-rIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLrl' SEPARATION
tx:I
I
I-'
+
I\)
.
Coal Identification: Lower Ki ttanning, Westmoreland CountY', Pa.
BCR Lot No. 2860
Chemical Ana:l¥sis, Weight
Product, Perce~t. Dry Basis Composite Wt. 10 of .
Calorific
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available
Low SulfUr Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash SulfUr Btu/lb Calorific Value
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 45.9 8.26 1.90 14,428
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 17.5 8.10 2.09 14,408
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 4.1 11. 00 3.00 13 ,776
Composite of Fractions 67.5 8.38 2.02 14.383 91.6
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.7 31. 20 8.42 9,912
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 62.80 9.46 4,186
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.5 27.80 6.87 10,604
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 11.4 78.60 5.07 1,944
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.2 67.00 29.10 3,284
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 12.3 81. 00 5.18 1,666
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 3.8 65.40 36.40 3,428
Composite of Fractions .1&.2 73.37 9.48 2.750 8.4
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 29.5 4.44 10,602
-------
. :"'.
TABLE B-ll. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
"., , USING CONVENTIONAL T1IREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Lower Kittanning,Westmoreland County, Pa.
BCR Lot No. 2860
."
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis' Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
'Conventional or Weight Total VaJ.ue' Available Total Usable
Low'Sulfur, Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific' Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 45~9 8.26 1.90 14,428
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 17.5 8.10 2.09 14,408
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 4.1 ll.OO 3.00 13,776
Composite of Fractions 67.5 8. 3s+ 2.02 14,383 91.6 88.5
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone c", 1.60 x 1.90 '1.7 31.2 8.42 9,912
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 62.8 9.46 4,186
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.5 27.8 6.87 10,604
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.2 67.0 29.10 3,284
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 3.8 65.4 36.40 3,428
Composite of Fractions 8.8 55.90 21.19 . 5,309 4.4 ll.5
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 ll.4 78.6 5.07 1,944
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 12.3 81.0 5.18 1,666 b:1
I
Composite of Fractions 23.7 79.84 5.13 1,800 . 4.0 ~
w
.
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 29.5 4.44 10,602
-------
TABLE B-12. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS b:1
VSING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION I
I-'
:g:
Coal Identification: Lower Kittanning, Westmoreland County, Pa.
BCR Lot No. 2860
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
vleight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value Product
Zone A ~assumed 1.60 Fl.) 45.9 8.26 1.90 14,428
Zone B assumed 1.60 F1.) 17.5 8.10 2.09 14,408
Composite of Fractions 63.4 8.22 1.95 14,423 86.3 83.1
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 4.1 11.0 3.00 13,776
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.7 31.2 8.42 9,912
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.6 62.8 9.46 4,186
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.5 27.8 6.87 10,604
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.2 67.0 29 .10 3,284
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 3.8 65.4 36.40 3,428
Composite of Fractions 12.9 41.65 15.41 8 ,000 9.7 16.9
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 11.4 78.6 5.07 1,944
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 12.3 81.0 5.18 1,666
Composite of Fractions 23.7 79.85 . 5.13 1,800 4.0
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 29.5 4.44 10,603
-------
I'
TABLE B-13. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USmG DIRECT TWO-SPLrr SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Lower Freeport, Indiana County, Pa.
BCR Lot No. 2881
Composite of Fractions
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sul:f'ur Btu/lb Calorific Value
46.6 8.21 1.28 14,231
18.2 8.35 1.36 14,230
9.8 10.80 1.44 13,824
5.5 46.10 1.94 7,785
4.4 66.40 2.88 4,388
84.5 14.04 1.44 13,251 96.4
Conventional or
Low Su.lf'u.r Combustor Feedstock
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
1.4 37.60 2.06 9,271
9.2 80.60 2.62 1,997
0.3 62.40 36.80 3,769
3.9 82.20 3.14 1,726
0.7 61.80 40.80 4,392
15.5 75.92 5.09 2,728 ~
100.0 23.6 2.01 U,620 tJj
I
I-'
+:'"
\J1
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-14. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USmG CONVENTIONAL NO-SPLIT SEPARATION
tx1
I
~
.
Coal Identification:
Lower Freeport. Indiana County. Fa.
BCR Lot No. 2881
Composite of Fractions
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent. Dry Basis Composite Wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value
46.6 8.21 l.28 14,231
18.2 8.35 l.36 14,230
9.8 10.80 l.44 13,824
74.6 8.58'" l.32 14.177 9l.0
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed l.60 Fl.)
Zone C, l. 60 Fl.
Refuse
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
Zone E,
l.60 x l.90
l.90 Sk.
l. 90 Fl.
l.90 x 2.95
2.95 Fl.
2.95 Sk.
2.95 Sk.
5.5 46.10 l.94 7,785
4.4 66.40 2.88 4,388
l.4 37.60 2.06 9,271
9.2 80.60 2.62 1,997
0.3 62.40 36.80 3,769
3.9 82.20 3.14 1,726
0.7 6l.80 40.80 4,392
25.4 67.81 4.02 4.111 2:.Q
100.0 23.6 2.01 11,620
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
,:)T
TABLE B-15. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE:-SPLrr SEPARATION
Coal Identification:
Lower Freeport, Indiana County, Penna.
BCR Lot No. 2881
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
ZoneB (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
ZoneC, 1.60 F1.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent ,Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Avai1.ab1e Total Usable
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value Product
46.6 8.21 1.28 14,231
18.2 8.35 1.36 14,230
9.8 10.80 1.44 13,824
74.6 8 . 58'" 1.32 14,177 91.0 85.8
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1.90
1.90 Sk.
1. 90 F1.
2.95 Sk.
2.95 Sk.
5.5 46 .10 1.94 7,785
4.4 66.40 2.88 4, 388
1.4 37.60 2.06 9,271
0.3 62.40 36.80 3,769
0.7 61.80 40.80 4,392
12.3 53.69 5.35 6,448 6.8 14.2
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95
Zone E, 2.95 F1.
9.2 80.60 2.62 1,997
3.9 82.20 3.14 1, 72f) t:tI
- I
13.1 81.08 2.77+ 1,916 2.2 ~
~
.
100.0 23.6 2.01 11,620
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-16. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
b:I
I
....
+'"
ex>
.
Coal Identification: Lower Freeport, Indiana County, Penna.
BCR Lot No. 2881
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of . % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 46.6 8.21 1.28 14,231
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 18.2 8.35 1.36 14,230
Composite of Fractions 64.8 8.25 1.30 14,231 79.3 74.6
High SulfUr Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 9.8 10.80 1.44 13,824
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 5.5 46 .10 1.94 7,785
Zone C, 1. 90 Sk. 4.4 66.40 2.88 4,388
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.4 37.60 2.06 9,271
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.3 62.40 36.80 3,769
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.7 61.80 40.80 4,392
Composite of Fractions 22.1 34.67 3.62 9,719 18.5 25.4
RefUse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 9.2 80.60 2.62 1,997
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 3.9 82.20 3.14 1,726
Composite of Fractions 13.1 81.08 2.77 1,916 2.2
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 23.6 2.01 1l,621
-------
TABLE B-17. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLrr SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Fort Scott, Rogers County, Oklahoma
BCR Lot No. 2889
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1.60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
43.0 6.51 3.44 13,962
39.2 5.12 3.58 14,144
7.0 8.85 5.30 13,482
1.3 34.70 7.02 8,718
2.5 71. 40 5.20 2,532
93.0 8.24 3.74 13,622 98.7
Conventional or
Low SUlfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
0.6 15.40 5.12 12,549
3.7 73.60 4.53 1,462
0.5 73.50 30 . 20 1,823
1.4 67.00 4.37 1,459
0.8 73.40 35.20 1,696
7.0 67.26 9.89 2,464 1.3
100.0 12.37 4.17 12,841
tx:t
I
I-'
+"
\0
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-18. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLrr SEPARATION
Coal Identi~ication:
Fort Scott, Rogers County, Oklahoma
tP
I
~
\J1
o
.
BCR Lot No. 2889
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % o~
Product, Calori~ic
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calori~ic Value
43.0 6.51 3.44 13,962
39.2 5.12 3.58 14,144
7.0 8.85 5.30 13,482
89.2 6.08 3.65 14,004 97.3
Conventional or
Low Sul~ur Combustor Feedstock
Composite o~ Fractions
Refuse
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1.90
1.90 Sk.
1.90 Fl.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
1.3 34.70 7.02 8,718
2.5 71.40 5.20 2,532
0.6 15.40 5.12 12,549
3.7 73.60 4.53 1,462
0.5 73.50 30. 20 1,823
1.4 67.00 4.37 1,459
0.8 73.40 35.20 1,696
10.8 64.30 8.46 3,233 2.7
100.0 12. 37 4.17 12,841
Composite o~ Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-19. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING, CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Fort Scott, Rogers County, Oklahoma
BCR Lot No. 2889
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. 10 of 10 of
Conventional or Weight Total Value Avai1ab;Le Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 43.0 6.51 3.44 13,962
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 39.2 5.12 3.58 14,144
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 7.0 8.85 5.30 13,482
Composite of Fractions 89.2 6.08 3.65 14,004 97.3 94.0
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1. 90 1.3 34.70 7.02 8,718
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 2.5 71. 40 5.20 2,532
Zone D, 1.90 Fl. 0.6 15.40 5.12 12,549
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 73.50 30. 20 1,823
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.8 73.40 35 . 20 1,696
Composite of Fractions 5.7 57.60 12.01 4,818 2.1 6.0
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 3.7 73.60 4.53 1,462
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 1.4 67.00 4.37 1,459 b:I
I
.....
Composite of Fractions 5.1 71.79 J.j..49 1,461 0.6 \J1
.....
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 12.37 4.17 12,841
-------
TABLE B-20. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS td
US!ID "UNCONVmTIONAL" THREE:-SPLIT SEPARATION I
I-'
VI
I\)
Coal Identification: Fort Scott, Rogers County, Oklahoma .
BCR Lot No. 2889
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. ufo of ufo of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 43.0 6.51 3.44 13,962
Zone B (assumed l.60 Fl.) 39.2 5.12 3.58 14,144
Composite of Fractions 82.2 5.85 3.51 14,049 89.9 86.6
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, l. 60 Fl. 7.0 8.85 5.30 13,482
Zone C, l.60 x l.90 l.3 34.70 7.02 8,718
Zone C, l.90 Sk. 2.5 7l. 40 5.20 2,532
Zone D, l. 90 Fl. 0.6 15.40 5.12 12,549
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 73.50 30. 20 1,823
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.8 73.40 35 . 20 1,696
Composite of Fractions 12.7 30.73 8.31 9,593 9.5 13.4
Refuse
Zone D, l.90 x 2.95 3.7 73.60 4.53 1,462
Zone E, 2.95 Fl. l.4 67.00 4.37 1,459
Composite of Fractions 5.1 71.79 4.49 1,461 0.6
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 12. 37 4.17 . 12,841
-------
TABLE B-2l. roTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification:
Lower Freeport, Butler County, Penna.
BCR Lot No. 2900
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite Wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value
43.9 11.7 2.20 13,073
42.3 li.8 2.22 13,092
5.8 15.8 3.16 12,377
2.2 33.8 9.10 9,180
3.1 60.4 15.20 4,638
97.3 14.04 2.84 12,683 99.0
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
0.3 18.8 4.41 11,874
1.1 64.6 14.20 3,994
0.7 60.4 41.00 3,234
0.1 56.3 16.40 5,286
0.5 62.4 42.20 2,870
2.7 57.71 25.33 4,512 1.0
100.0 15.22 3.45 12,462
b:I
I
I-'
\Jl
LA)
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-22. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification:
Lower Freeport, Butler County, Penna.
td
I
I-'
\Jl
.f:7
.
BCR Lot No. 2900
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
43.9 11.7 2.20 13,073
42.3 11.8 2.22 13,092
5.8 15.8 3.16 12,377
92.0 12.00 2.27 13,038 96.2
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1.90
1.90 Sk.
1.90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
2.2 33.8 9.10 9,180
3.1 60.4 15.20 4,638
0.3 18.8 4.41 11,874
1.1 64.6 14.20 3,994
0.7 60.4 41.00 3,234
0.1 56.3 16.40 5,286
0.5 62.4 42.20 2,870
8.0 52.18 16 .94 5,845 3.8
100.0 15 .21+ 3.44 12,463
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-23. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification: Lower Freeport, Butler County, Penna.
BCR Lot No. 2900
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. ~ of % of
Product, Calorific
Conventional or Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 43.9 11.7 2.20 13,073
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 42.3 11.8 2.22 13,092
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 5.8 15.8 3.16 12,377
Composite of Fractions 92.0 12.00 2.27 13,038 96.2 93.1
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 2.2 33.8 9.10 9,180
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 3.1 60.4 15.20 4,638
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.3 18.8 4.41 11,874
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.7 60.4 41.00 3,234
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 62.4 42.20 2,870
Composite of Fractions 6.8 50.11 17.39 6,152 ~ 6.9
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 1.1 64.6 14.20 3,994
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.1 56.3 16.40 5,286
tJ::I
I
Composite of Fractions 1.2 63.91 14.38 4,102 0.4 ~
VI
VI
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 15.21+ 3.44 12,463
-------
TABLE B-24. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS tJj
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION I
~
VI
0\
Coal Identification: County ,Penna. .
Lower Freeport, Butler
BCR Lot No. 2900
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 43.9 11.7 2.20 13,073
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 42.3 11.8 2.22 13,092
Composite of Fractions 86.2 11.75 2.21 13,082 90.5 87.2
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 5.8 15.8 3.16 12,377
Zone C, 1.60 x 1. 90 2.2 33.8 9.10 9,180
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 3.1 60.4 15.20 4,638
Zone D, 1. 90 Fl. 0.3 18.8 4.41 11,874
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.7 60.4 41.00 3,234
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 62.4 42.20 2,870
Composite of Fractions 12.6 34.31+ 10.84 9,018 9.1 12.8
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 1.1 64.6 14.20 3,994
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.1 56.3 16.40 5 , 286
Composite of Fractions 1.2 63.91 14.38 4,102 0.4
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 15.22 3.44 12,462
-------
TABLE B-25. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identi~ication:
Baxter, Crawford County, Kansas
BCR Lot No. 2926
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, 1.90 Sk.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % o~
Product, Ca1ori~ic
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sul~ur Btu/1b Calori~ic Value
ZT.2 10.50 2.92 13,544
46.0 9.66 3.06 13,689
18.9 11.00 3.71 13,410
1.1 35.50 10.40 9, 266
3.5 63.40 13.80 3,072
96.7 12.40 3.62 13,159 99.2
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite o~ Fractions
Re~use
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
0.4 14.60 4.40 12,877
1.2 68.00 7.36 1,ZT6
0.7 65.20 37.80 2,484
0.5 68.60 4.72 1,168
0.5 67.00 39.80 2,601
~ 60.87 17.97 3,123 0.8
100.0 14.00 4.09 12,828
tD
I
.......
\Jl
-::J
.
Composite o~ Fractions
Composite o~ Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B-26. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
txI
I
I-'
\J1
ex>
.
Coal Identification: Baxter, Crawford County, Kansas
BCR Lot No. 2926
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Conventional or We :i.ght Total Value Available
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b ~alorific Value
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 27.2 10.50 2.92 13,544
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 46.0 9.66 3.06 13,689
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 18.9 11.00 3.71 13,410
Composite of Fractions 92.1 10.18 3.15 13,589 97.6
Refuse
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.1 35.5 10.40 9,266
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 3.5 63.4 13.80 3,072
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.4 14.6 4.40 12,877
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 1.2 68.0 7.36 1,276
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.7 65.2 37.80 2,484
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.5 68.6 4.72 1,168
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 67.0 39.80 2,601
Composite of Fractions 7.9 58.46 15.07 3,956 2.4
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 13.99+ 4.09 12,828
-------
TABLE B-27. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF' SELECTED. COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification:
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1.60 F1.
Composite of Fractions
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1.90
1.90 Sk.
1. 90 F1.
2.95 Sk.
2.95 Sk.
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95
Zone E, 2.95 F1.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
Baxter, Crawford County, Kansas
BCRLot No. 2926
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. % of % of
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
27.2 10.50 2.92 13,544
46.0 9.66 3.06 13,689
18.9 11. 00 3.71 13,410
92.1 10.18 3.15 13,589 97.5 93.7
1.1 35.5 10.40 9,266
3.5 63.4 13.80 3,072
0.4 14.6 4.40 12,877
0.7 65.2 37.80 2,484
0.5 67.0 39.80 2,601
6.2 55.80 17.40 4,699 2.3 6.3
1.2 68.0 . 7.36 1,276
0.5 68.6 4.72 1,168
t:II
I
1.7 68.18 6.58 1,244 0.2 I-'
\J1
\.0
100.0 13.99 4.09 12,828
-------
".
TABLE B-28. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
t:xI
I
~
o
.
Coal Identification: Baxter, Crawford County, Kansas
BCR Lot No. 2926
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 'Z7.2 10.50 2.92 13,544
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 46.0 9.66 3.06 13,689
Composite of Fractions 73.2 9.97 3.01 13,635 77.8 74.5
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1. 60 F1. 18.9 il.O 3.71 13,410
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.1 35.5 10.40 9,266
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 3.5 63.4 13.80 3,072
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 0.4 14.6 4.40 12,877
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.7 65.2 37.80 2,484
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.5 67.0 39.80 2,601
Composite of Fractions 25.1 22.06" 7.09 11,258 22.0 25.5
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 1.2 68.0 7.36 1 , 'Z76
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 0.5 68.6 4.72 1,168
Composite of Fractions 1.7 68.18 6.58 1,244 0.2
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 13.99+ 4.09+ 12,828
-------
TABLE B- 29. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING DIRECT TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
Coal Identification:
Clements, Walker County, Alabama
BCR Lot No. 2928
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, L 60 FL
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90
Zone C, L90 Sk.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. % of
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value
3L5 9.99 L40 13,659
34.0 8.02 L88 13,946
12.7 lL 40 2.81 13, 376
L6 4L 20 3.83 8,262
L9 77.30 2.10 2,207
8L7 11.57 L88 13,362 97.2
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
L 90 FL
L90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 FL
2.95 Sk.
Ll 28.3 3.53 10,504
13.5 83.3 L50 1,167
0.2 70.3 30.60 3,336
3.2 84.9 1,84 888
0.3 68.5 35.80 2,876
18.3 79.89 2.56 1,731 2.8
100.0 24.07 2.00+ 11,234
tJj
I
~
I-'
.
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B- 30. rorENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL TWO-SPLIT SEPARATION
b:I
I
~
I\)
.
I
Coal Identification:
Clements, Walker County, Alabama
BCR Lot No. 2928
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/1b Calorific Value
31.5 9.99 1.40 13,659
34.0 8.02 1.88 13,946
12.7 11.40 2.81 13,376
78.2 9.36 1.84 13,738 95.6
. Conventional or
Low SulfUr Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
RefUse
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1.90
1.90 Sk.
1. 90 F1.
1.90 x 2.95
2.95 Sk.
2.95 F1.
2.95 Sk.
1.6 41.2 3.83 8 262
,
1.9 77.3 2.10 2, 207
1.1 28.3 3.53 10,504
13.5 83.3 1.50 1,167
0.2 70.3 30.60 3,336
3.2 84.9 1.84 888
0.3 68.5 35.80 2,876
21.8 76.82 2.61+ 2,252 4.4
100.0 24.07 2.01 11,234
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
"-
"
>
"
TABLE B- 31. rorENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING CONVENTIONAL THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
Clements, Walker County, Alabama
Coal Identification:
BCR Lot No. 2928
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.)
Zone C, 1. 60 F1.
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis Composite wt. % of % of
Product, Calorific
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
31.5 9.99 1.40 13,659
34.0 8.02 1.88 13,946
12.7 11. 40 2.81 13,376
78.2 9.36 1.84 13,738 95.6 93.9
Conventional or
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Composite of Fractions
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C,
Zone C,
Zone D,
Zone D,
Zone E,
1.60 x 1.90
1. 90 Sk.
1.90 F1.
2.95 Sk.
2.95 Sk.
1.6 41.2 3.83 8,262
1.9 77.3 2.10 2,207
1.1 28.3 3.53 10,504
0.2 70.3 30.60 3,336
0.3 68.5 35.80 2,876
5.1 54.61 6.05 5,980 2.7 6.1
Composite of Fractions
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95
Zone E, 2.95 F1.
13.5 83.3 1.50 1,167
3.2 84.9 1.84 888 tJj
I
16.7 83.61 1.57 1,114 1.7 I-'
0'\
W
100.0 24.07 2.01 11, 234
Composite of Fractions
Composite of Table Fractions
-------
TABLE B- 32. POTENTIAL COMBUSTION USE OF SELECTED COAL FRACTIONS
USING "UNCONVENTIONAL" THREE-SPLIT SEPARATION
~
I
b\
+'
.
Coal Identification: Clements, Walker County, Alabama
BCR Lot No. 2928
Chemical Analysis, Weight
Percent, Dry Basis
Product, Calorific Composite wt. % of % of
Weight Total Value Available Total Usable
Low Sulfur Combustor Feedstock Percent Ash Sulfur Btu/lb Calorific Value Product
Zone A (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 31.5 9.99 1.40 13,659
Zone B (assumed 1.60 Fl.) 34.0 8.02 1.88 13,946
Composite of Fractions 65.5 8.97 1.65 13,808 80.5 78.6
High Sulfur Combustor Feedstock
Zone C, 1.60 F1. 12.7 11.4 2.81 13,376
Zone C, 1.60 x 1.90 1.6 41.2 3.83 8,262
Zone C, 1.90 Sk. 1.9 77.3 2.10 2,207
Zone D, 1. 90 F1. 1.1 28.3 3.53 10,504
Zone D, 2.95 Sk. 0.2 70.3 30.60 3,336
Zone E, 2.95 Sk. 0.3 68.5 35.80 2,876
Composite of Fractions 17.8 23.78 3.74 11,257 17.8 21.4
Refuse
Zone D, 1.90 x 2.95 13.5 83.3 1.50 1,167
Zone E, 2.95 F1. 3.2 84.9 1.84 888
Composite of Fractions 16.7 83.61 1.57 1,114 1.7
Composite of Table Fractions 100.0 24.07 2.01 11, 234
-------
EPA Ubrary
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
T 12969
~ .jOt"'"
\
"
April 1972
BCR Report L-464
------- |