HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1635MIRL Report Number 50
Focus on Alaska's Coal '80
Proceedings of the Conference
held at the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
October 21-23, 1980
Editors
P. Dharma Rao and Ernest N. Wolff
School of Mineral Industry
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Division of Minerals & Energy Management
State of Alaska
Division of Energy & Power Development
State of Alaska
Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute
Office of Surface Mining
State of Alaska I DNR
Division of Geological &
Geophysical Surveys
3354 College Road
Fairbanks, AK 99709-3707
ADGGS Library
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE
EARL H. BEISTLINE Dean, School of Mineral Industry
ERNEST N. WOLFF Associate Director, Mineral Industry Research
Laboratory
ROBERT B. SANDERS State Division of Minerals and Energy Manage-
ment
GRED EDBLOM State Division of Energy and Power Development
P. DHARM~ RAO Professor of Coal Technology, Mineral Industry
Research Laboratory, Program Chairman
* * * * * * * * * * *
Publication of this volume is made possible by funds
appropriated by the State of Alaska for coal research
ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
SESSION b OPENING CEREMONIES
Chairman -Earl H. Beistline, Dean, School of Mineral
Industry, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
WELCOME
Howard A. Cutler, Chancellor, University of Alaska, Fair-
banks
COMMENTS FROM STATE DIVISION OF ENERGY AND POWER DEVELOP-
MENT
Clarissa Quinlan, Director, Division of Energy and Power
Development, Anchorage
COMMENTS FROM STATE DIVISION OF MINERALS AND ENERGY MAN-
AGEMENT
Ross Schaff, Acting Director, Division of Minerals and
Energy Management, Anchorage
COAL RESOURCES OF ALASKA
Robert B. Sanders, Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Anchor-
age
SESSION II: NORTHERN ALASKAN COALS
Chairman -Don Triplehorn, Professor of Geology, College
of Environmental Sciences, University of Alas-
ka, Fairbanks
COAL OCCURRENCES OF THE NANUSHUK GROUP, WESTERN ARCTIC
ALASKA--AN UPDATE
James E. Callahan and Gary C. Martin, U.S. Geological
Survey, Anchorage
DELTAIC COALS AND SEDIMENTATION OF THE CRETACEOUS TOROK,
KUKPOWRUK, AND CORWIN FORMATIONS IN THE KOKOLIK-UTUKOK
REGION, NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN ALASKA
Gary D. Stricker and H.W. Roehler, U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, Anchorage
iii
33447000034722
Page
X
3
4
8
11
32
61
GEOLOGIC AND ECONOMICAL EVALUATION OF BITUMINOUS COAL,
KUKPOWRUK RIVER REGION, NORTHERN COAL FIELD, ALASKA
Harold A. Knutson, Chief Geologist, Kaiser Engineers,
Inc.
PALEOGEOGRAPHY AND PALEOCLIMATE OF THE ARCTIC ALASKAN
CRETACEOUS COALS
W.K. Witte and D.B. Stone, Geophysical Institute, Divi-
sion of Geosciences, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
SESSION Ill: BELUGA -YENTNA COAL FIELD
Chairman -Chris Lambert, Department Head, Mineral Engi-
neering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
RECONNAISSANCE ENGINEERING GEOLOGY OF THE BELUGA COAL
RESOURCE AREA, SOUTHCENTRAL ALASKA
Henry R. Schmoll, Alan F. Chleborad, Lynn A. Yehle and
Cynthia A. Gardner, U.S. Geol. Survey, Denver, and Anne
D. Pasch, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
GEOLOGY-COAL RESOURCES AND MINING PLAN FOR THE CHUITNA
RIVER FIELD, ALASKA
John P. Ramsey, C.C. Hawley and Associates, Inc., Anchor-
age
REVIEW OF MOBIL COAL LEASES -YENTNA REGION, ALASKA
John W. Blumer, Coal Exploration Manager, Mobil Oil Cor-
poration, Denver, Colorado
GROUND-WATER RECONNAISSANCE NEAR GRANITE POINT, ALASKA
Gordon L. Nelson, U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
LUNCHEON
Chairman -Ernest N. Wolff, Associate Director, Mineral
Industry Research Laboratory, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Joseph W. Leonard, Dean, College of Mineral and Energy
Resources, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West
Virginia
SESSION IV: RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
AND UTILIZATION
Chairman -P. Dharma Rao, Professor of Coal Technology,
Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Univer-
sity of Alaska, Fairbanks
iv
Page
62
79
92
111
122
127
134
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOLOGY AND COAL RESOURCES OF THE LOWER LIGNITE CREEK
AREA
Steve W. Denton, Company Engineer, Usibelli Coal Mine,
Healy, Alaska
REMAINING COAL RESOURCES OF THE MATANUSKA FIELD
Benne J.G. Patsch, Placer Amex, Inc., San Francisco
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FOR COAL NEAR FAREWELL, ALASKA
E.G. Sloan, G.B. Shearer, J.E. Eason and C.L. Almquist
U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
MINING, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING OF COAL FROM JARVIS
CREEK FIELD
Paul A. Metz, Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Uni-
versity of Alaska, Fairbanks
COAL FOR ALASKA VILLAGES
Cleland N. Conwell, Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks and Don M. Triplehorn,
Professor of Geology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
MINING AND CONVERSION OF HOMES TO COAL FOR HOME HEATING
AT ATKASUK, ALASKA
Howard Grey, Moening-Grey & Associates, Anchorage
SESSION V: COAL CHARACTERIZATION
AND UTILIZATION
Chairman -Wyatt Gilbert, Acting State Geologist, State
Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys,
Fairbanks
PALYNOLOGY AND COAL
Rena McFarlane, Graduate Student, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks
PETROGRAPHIC, MINERALOGICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION
OF CERTAIN ALASKAN COALS AND WASHABILITY PRODUCTS
P. Dharma Rao and Ernest N. Wolff, Mineral Industry
Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
ANALYSIS OF COAL SAMPLES FROM THE HEALY, KENAI, SELDOVIA
AND UTUKOK RIVER QUADRANGLES, ALASKA
Ronald H. Affolter, Frederick 0. Simon and Gary D.
Stricker, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver
PROBLEMS AND POTENTIALS FOR THERMAL DRYING OF ALASKAN
LOW-RANK COALS
J.D. Ruby and H. Huettenhain, Bechtel National, Inc., San
Francisco
v
Page
138
144
152
171
172
181
189
194
236
267
STEAM DRYING OF SUBBITUMINOUS COALS FROM THE NENANA AND
BELUGA FIELDS, A LABORATORY STUDY
P. Dharma Rao and Ernest N. Wolff, Mineral Industry
Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
K-AR AND FISSION-TRACK DATING OF ASH PARTINGS IN COAL
Page
278
SEAMS 305
Don Triplehorn, Professor of Geology, University of Alas-
ka, Fairbanks and Donald L. Turner, Geophysical Insti-
tute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
SESSION VI: TRANSPORTATION AND ECONOMICS
Chairman -Pedro Denton, Division of Minerals and Energy
Management, Anchorage
RAILROADS AND COALS
Frank H. Jones, The Alaska Railroad, Anchorage
FAR EASTERN EXPORT MARKET FOR ALASKAN COAL
Steve Perles, Legislative Assistant to Senator Ted
Stevens, R-Alaska
THE FEASIBILITY OF BELUGA COAL AS FUEL FOR THE POWER
INDUSTRIES OF JAPAN AND THE PRESENT STATUS OF RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT ON BELUGA COAL IN JAPAN
Y. Nakabayashi, Electric Power Development Company, Ltd.,
Japan
INDUSTRIAL FUEL GAS DEMONSTRATION PLANT
Robert W. Gray, Memphis Light, Gas and Water
BELUGA COAL EXPORT MARKET STUDY
W.H. Swift, M.J. Scott and J.P. Haskins Battelle, Paci-
fic Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington
A PREVIEW OF THE BELUGA METHANOL PROJECT
Noel W. Kirshenbaum, Placer Amex, Inc., San Francisco
ALASKAN COAL TO WEST COAST KILOWATTS
Jack B. Robertson, Regional Representative of the Secre-
tary, U.S. Department of Energy, Seattle
SESSION VII: COAL MINING METHODS
AND REGULATIONS
Chairman -Howard Grey, Moening-Grey & Associates, An-
chorage
MINING METHODS AT USIBELLI COAL MINE USING DRAGLINE
Joseph Usibelli, President, Usibelli Coal Mine, Healy,
Alaska
vi
312
315
319
331
358
374
387
392
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COAL MINING AND EXPLORATION UNDER PERMAFROST CONDITIONS
AT SPITZBERGEN, 78°N
Alv Oreheim, Geologist, Store Norske, Spitzbergen, Norway
SOIL CHARACTERTIZATION OF ALASKAN COAL MINE SPOILS
G.A. Mitchell, W.W. Mitchell, and J.D. McKendrick, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, University of Alaska, Palmer
ALASKA SURFACE COAL MINING STUDY -PUBLIC LAW 95-87
Earl H. Beistline, Dean, School of Mineral Industry,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
OVERVIEW -ABANDONED MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Hugh B. Montgomery, Asst. Regional Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Denver
ALASKA SURFACE COAL MINING PROGRAM
Pedro Denton, Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Anchorage
ALASKA'S COAL-LEASING PROGRAM
Laurel A. Murphy, Division of Minerals and Energy Manage-
ment, Anchorage
LUNCHEON
Chairman -J.P. Tangen, President, Alaska Miners Associa-
tion, Juneau
LUNCHEON SPEECH
Honorable Terry Miller, Lt. Governor of Alaska
Page
398
412
418
427
436
446
452
SESSION VIII: FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES
CONCERNING COAL DEVELOPMENT
Chairman -Senator Don Bennett, Vice Chairman, Senate
Resources Comm~ttee, Juneau
COAL TASK-FORCE POLICIES OF THE STATE OF ALASKA FOR COAL
DEVELOPMENT 455
Richard Eakins, Director, Division of Economic Enter-
prise, Juneau
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS TO COAL DEVELOPMENT
Dave Sturdevant, Alaska Department of Environmental Con-
servation, Juneau
COAL PROGRAM OF THE ALASKA DIVISION OF GEOLOGICAL AND
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEYS
Gilbert R. Eakins and Cleland N. Conwell, Alaska Division
of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
vii
460
464
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF COAL DEVELOPMENT ON FISH AND WILD-
LIFE IN ALASKA
Elizabeth B. Speer, National Wildlife Federation, Anchor-
age
COAL DEVELOPMENT: WHAT IS AND WHAT SHOULD BE THE ROLE OF
THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Frederick H. Boness, Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis and
Holman, Anchorage
SESSION IX: PANEL DISCUSSION
Moderator -William R. Wood, Mayor, City of Fairbanks and
President Emeritus, University of Alaska
COAL RESEARCH NEEDS
Earl H. Beistline, Dean, School of Mineral Industry,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
TRANSPORTATION AND MARKET ANALYSIS FOR ALASKA COAL
Jack Robertson, U.S. Department of Energy, Seattle
COAL FOR POWER GENERATION
Robert Hufman, General Manager, Golden Valley Electric
Association
PAST AND FUTURE COAL MINING
Cole McFarland, Vice President Operations, Placer Amex,
Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Ernest Mueller, Commissioner, Alaska Department of En-
vironmental Conservation, Juneau
COAL FOR CENTRAL HOME HEATING IN FAIRBANKS
Bob Sundberg, Councilman, City of Fairbanks
CURRENT AND FUTURE MINING ACTIVITIES AT USIBELLI COAL
MINE
Joseph Usibelli, President, Usibelli Coal Mine, Healy,
Alaska
DISCUSSION
Moderator -Dr. Wood
BANQUET
Master of Cermonies -Earl H. Beistline, Dean, School of
Mineral Industry, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks
viii
Page
466
472
476
477
480
481
483
485
487
491
493
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BANQUET SPEECH
Congressman Nick J. Rahal!, D-West Virginia
FIELD TRIP
Usibelli Coal Mine, Healy
List of Participants
ix
Page
501
507
508
Preface
Earl H. Beistline
Dean, School of Mineral Industry, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
The importance of Alaska's large coal resources to the Nation's
and World's energy need is becoming more obvious as time passes.
In addition, Alaska's coal is of major significance to the State's
and community's economy, as well as being an important facet in
developing a balanced diversification of energy sources.
Because of the continued and increasing interest in Alaska's coal
resources, the second of a series of conferences was held on the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks campus during October 21-23, 1980.
This conference, "Focus on Alaska's Coal 1980" followed an earlier
conference "Focus on Alaska's Coal 1975". For the 1980 Confer-
ence, 227 people registered for the meetings, including 63 from
out of state.
Sponsors of the 1980 conference were: Division of Mineral and
Energy Management State of Alaska, Division of Energy and Power
Development State of Alaska, Mining and Mineral Resources Research
Institute, Office of Surface Mining, and the School of Mineral
Industry, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
The principal objectives of the conference were to bring together
current knowledge on Alaska's coal resources, mining methods,
utilization and marketing, and every interested party to share
this knowledge. The excellent papers presented and the large
number of participants indicates that the objectives were accom-
plished.
Interest in Alaska coal is evident from these activities, such as:
1. Shipment of 30,000 tons of coal from Usibelli Coal Mine to
Korea in December 1980;
2. Announcement of an agreement by Usibelli Coal Mine to sell 7.1
million metric tons over a 10 year period to Sun Eel Shipping Co.,
Ltd. for shipment to Korea;
3. Acquiring of Bass-Hunt-Wilson lease holdings by Diamond Sham-
rock;
4. Exploration core drilling activities by Canadian Superior
Exploration for Doyan at Little Tonzona coal field, Korean inter-
ests in cooperation with Chugach Native Association in Bearing
River coal fields, and Chignik coal field by Resources Associates
of Alaska for Bristol Bay Native Corporation;
X
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. There has been an enormous number of inquiries by coal compa-
nies from the lower 48 states looking into the possibility of
investing in Alaska's coal.
All in all, the future of Alaskan coal appears very bright. Anti-
cipated is that Alaska will have an increasing opportunity to
serve the energy needs of the Pacific Rim nations, and to supply
coal and/or its conversion products to the West Coast markets of
the United States.
The success of this conference is due to the excellent efforts of
many individuals. Special thanks are due to: Mary Langan, Con-
sulting Editor, Louella Finch for typing the final manuscript,
Jane Smith for her assistance in compiling the final manuscript,
the State of Alaska for coal research funding, the University's
Office of Conferences and Institutes for making numerous arrange-
ments for the meeting, and to Dr. P.D. Rao and his associates who
coordinated the numerous major and minor details of the overall
conference.
I express sincere thanks and appreciation to the conference com-
mittee members, the speakers and the participants for valuable
contributions made to "Focus on Alaska's Coal 1980".
The intent of the sponsoring units is to have another coal confer-
ence in the future and to update current coal resource knowledge
and production activities.
September 1, 1981 Earl H. Beistline
xi
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Opening Ceremonies
Chairman: Earl H. Beistline
Dean, School of Mineral Industry, Unlv. of Alaska, Fairbanks
The conference this year is sponsored by a number of units and
this is well spelled out in the program you have. The sponsors
are, first of all, the State Division of Minerals and Energy
Management, the State Division of Energy and Power Development,
the Mining and Mineral Resources Research Institute, which is out
of the Federal Office of Surface Mining, and the School of Mineral
Industy of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
The organizing committee is also stated in the program, and the
members of that committee that put this together were Dr. Ernest
N. Wolff, who is the associate director of the University's Min-
eral Industry Research Laboratory, Bob Sanders, formerly of the
State Division of Minerals and Energy Management, but now with
Diamond Shamrock Corp., and Greg Edblom with the State Division of
Energy and Power Development. These three people were members of
the committee that helped to put this together, and there were
others. There is one other person on the committee who really was
the guiding light for preparing the program and for arranging the
many details of the conference, and that is Dr. P.D. Rao, who is
the Professor of Coal Technology in our Mineral Industry Research
Laboratory. P.D. knows what it is to put on a Coal Conference,
because this is his second one. Let's give them all a big hand.
Now the objectives of the Conference, again, are stated in the
program and can be further summarized as a look at what is known
about Alaska coal at the present time. What activities are under-
way, and what are future directions to pursue in utilizing
Alaska's large resources for the benefit of the State, the nation,
and really. the world. Last night, in the Fairbanks Daily News-
Miner, there was an editorial pertaining to the conference. One
paragraph stated, "With its vast coal resources, Alaska can be in
the forefront of our nation's drive to become less dependent on
foreign sources of energy. Here we have only begun to tap this
resource, but it promises to supply an abundant energy source for
decades to come. And it also appears likely, that Alaska coal
will come to be a valuable export, as well as creating jobs here
and helping to trim our national balance of payments". I think
that fairly well sums up the objective.
As you can see, there is a considerable amount of information that
will be presented in the program. We have a very tight schedule
and we're going to have to move along. But as we get into the
program and you start to hear a lot of facts and a lot of informa-
tion, it reminds me of a story. I have one story that I use, a
1
,---
year at a time, so this will be about the last time that I'll use
this story. I think I've spoken to every audience, so maybe a
number here have heard it. This sort of emphasizes the difference
between fact and opinion; this is something that you folks will
probably be doing throughout the entire conference. It goes like
this:
You have to have a setting, first. The setting is a railroad car,
with four seats in a particular section. Now, a Colonel and a
Sergeant are sitting on one side and facing them is a young woman,
blond, and an elderly matron. Now the train enters a tunnel; the
car is completely dark. There is the sound of a kiss and the
resounding sound of a slap. When the car emerges, one fact is
certainly well-known. The Colonel has been slapped pretty hard on
the cheek. Now, the elderly woman thinks she knows what has
happened. The Colonel has leaned over and kissed the blonde and
has been slapped for his insolence. The blonde is of the opinion
that the Colonel intended to kiss her, but in the darkness kissed
the matron and got slapped for his trouble. The Colonel assumes
that the Sergeant kissed the blonde, that the blonde thought it
was the Colonel and slapped him by mistake. The Sergeant has all
of the facts. He knows that he kissed his own wrist and slapped
the Colonel just as hard as he could.
So much for fact and opinion; I'm sure as we go through the papers
you will discern in your own opinion what is fact and what, per-
haps, is the opinion of the speaker. Also, I want to congratulate
you folks who have gotten here at this time of the day. Especial-
ly if you drove out on Airport Road when the lights were on
earlier this morning, or maybe last night as you went in. Because
by the Goldstream Theater there is an advertisement, and the name
of the show, coincidentally, happens to be "The Coal Miner's
Daughter". Don't know any more about it, but you didn't stop
there, you came out here, and I think this is fine. Sometime
we'll all have to find out just what that show is about.
Now, to welcome you to the campus today, is Dr. Howard Cutler.
Dr. Cutler is an outstanding educator. He's had a long career in
academic institutions, both as an administrator and as a teacher.
He's held positions at Pennsylvania State University, University
of Illinois, Chicago, Iowa and Minnesota. He's been Academic
Vice-president at the University of Alaska and then Chancellor of
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. In addition, for ten years
he was Executive Vice-president of the Institute of International
Education, in Washington, D.C. He has also served on the National
Advisory Coal Research Board of the U.S. Dept. of Interior, during
the years 1960 to 1964. Dr. Cutler has certainly been an excel-
lent friend of our School of Mineral Industries, as we pursue our
objectives of teaching, research and public service activities.
At this time, it is certainly my pleasure to present to you the
Chancellor of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Dr. Howard
Cutler.
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Welcome
Howard A. Cutler
Chancellor. University of Alaska. Fairbanks
The human brain is a marvelous instrument. It begins operating
from the very moment one is born and continues without stopping
until one gets up to make a public address.
It is my great pleasure to welcome you, once again, to a Coal
Institute on the Fairbanks Campus. The function of the University
is to maintain sustained interest in those values and concerns of
man in which we put great stock. For, if in any single generation
we fail to pass those values on to you, they are lost forever.
The University has had a long and sustained interest in coal. We
are blessed with untold resources. But we have also had the
wisdom to continue to support this interest when it has not been
as strong as it is now. Just as now the University must be strong
in supporting the interest in such things as foreign languages,
which don't always have the current popularity. For we know that
our coal markets will depend on the international markets and our
international markets will depend on our ability to communicate
with our fellow world citizens.
It is this sustained interest in the area of coal that has brought
us here today. For without it we would not be in the important
position that the University finds itself at this time. There is
a national interest in coal, and when they went to select the
centers of intellectual interest in coal, they selected the Uni-
versity of Alaska, Fairbanks, as one. Now, we don't have all the
solutions and we hope that you are here to help us in that. We
hope to bring you some of the information and some of the prob-
lems. It has been said, "If you think the problem is bad now,
just wait until we solve it".
I hope that your conference will be a successful one in helping
all of us come to a solution of not only a local and national, but
an international problem--that of energy, in particular its rela-
tionship to the extraction of coal.
Welcome ••• and best wishes for a good conference.
3
Comments from State Division of Energy
and Power Development
Clarissa Quinlan
Director, Division of Energy and Power Development, Anchorage
Thank you very much. By the way, the "Coalminer's Daughter" is a
great movie with Loretta Lynn. If any of you are country-western
fans, I highly recommend it.
Thank you very much Dean Beistline, and particularly Dr. Rao.
It's a pleasure to be here. The last major conference addressing
Alaskan coal took place some three years ago, and there certainly
have been important developments since that time. One of those
changes has been an increased level of interest as evidenced by
the number of participants attending the conference today.
The topic of energy has become increasingly commonplace in all of
the media. Energy is recognized as an essential component in both
government and private planning. In fact, often it seems the key
to the growth of industrial civilization. I think this is high-
lighted by the recent interest in the Iran-Iraq conflict and the
potential disruption to petroleum supplies it has on the entire
free world. This sharpening focus has been accompanied by an
accelerated effort to discover, assess, control and utilize the
earth's energy resources. It's not surprising that Alaska finds
itself at the forefront of these international and national activ-
itles.
Alaska is in the unusual position of being rich in a number of
renewable and nonrenewable resources. With an estimated two to
five trillion short tons of coal, Alaska is unquestionably one of
the world's storehouses of the resource. This supply amounts to
approximately 40% of estimated U.S. resources and 15% of world
resources. It could be expected that pressure to develop the
state's coal resources would be even greater if it were not for
the inaccessibility of the majority of the fields under current
economic conditions, and certainly a more critical factor is the
uncertain land status situation.
Despite Alaska's distance from out-of-state markets, its low-
sulfur coal has attracted the attention of potential importers for
several years. However, 1980 appears to be the year in which
markets will be secure and development, particularly of the Beluga
coal field, becomes economically feasible, now that the markets
are almost there.
There are three especially strong indicators that the time has
finally arrived. The study completed last year for leaseholders,
4
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dick Bass, William Hunt and Starkey Wilson, have found it econom-
ically feasible to mine Beluga coal for export to Pacific rim
countries. The proposed project would include a work force of
approximately 630 people; a port facility in a new town site
accomodating 13,000 people. Similarly1 in addition to the Starkey
Wilson group, Placer Amex and Cook Inlet Corp. have been pursuing
the export of steam coal. More recently, attention has been
placed on the federal grant that the two companies have received
to study the feasibility of a 54,000 barrel-per-day methanol plant
in the Beluga area.
Negotiations, I understand, are also underway to deliver Healy
coal to Japan, Korea and possibly Taiwan. Coal will be hauled by
rail from the Usibelli Coal Mine to Seward and then shipped to the
Orient. The amount of the eventual export, I'm sure, is in the
area of four to six million tons per year, with possible expansion
at a later date.
On a much smaller scale is the potential utilization of coal in
remote villages. For example, the state legislature has recently
funded a $250,000 study by the Alaska Power Authority. It will
determine the economics of using coal for space heating and elec-
trical generation in Northwest Alaska.
With all these activities taking place, what are the major inter-
ests of the State of Alaska in coal development? Very briefly,
there are five basic issues that the state will be looking at.
Long-term economic diversification and stability, a fair price for
our coal resources, acceptable levels of environmental and social
impacts, provision of employment for Alaskans, and insurance of a
long-term energy supply for the people of the state. It's this
last element which our office is most concerned with. The others
are addressed by other agencies, which I'm sure you'll be hearing
from today.
The function of the Division of Energy and Power Development. in
coal development, has been primarily in the area of planning and
public information. Over the past four years, we have on the
preliminary basis addressed the potential problems and opportuni-
ties related to coal development in the State of Alaska, and these
efforts have been centered on the Beluga coal field. Again, they
are preliminary in nature. What we are attempting to do is to
determine whether there are any major problems that came up which
could not be overcome; which, perhaps, could hinder or delay the
development of the Beluga field. We've recently published the
Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project volume. It is a
federally funded project and it deals with Beluga coal. In it we
examine potential socio-economic impacts, permitting, land tenure,
technology, transportation and environmental impacts associated
with large-scale coal development in the area. As I think we all
know today, it looks as though there are no insurmountable prob-
lems. It all seems to be coming together.
5
This investigation was preliminary in nature and I know that much
more in depth studies are underway to identify those areas that
are going to have to be pursued a little bit further. Two other
major studies are currently looking at coal as one of several
energy alternatives for in state use. The first is the railbelt
electric power alternative study. Coal fired generation is al-
ready an important source of electrical power in the Fairbanks
area. However, the potential use of coal for the entire railbelt,
including the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage area as well as Fair-
banks, will be assessed in the alternative study. The alterna-
tives to the Upper Susitna Dam Project study, which I'm sure many
of us are familiar with, will also be assessed. The study will
assess the role which coal and other energy resources may play in
meeting the future power needs of the railbelt area. The contract
was recently awarded by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
and the project manager, Mr. Ward Swift, is here today. I'm sure
he would be more than happy to discuss your perceptions as to the
role that coal will play in the railbelt.
The other study is the long-term energy plan for the State of
Alaska. In the 1980 legislative session, our division was funded
and given the mandate on a very specific basis to look at develop-
ing a comprehensive long-term energy development plan for the
State of Alaska. In it we will examine the potential for in state
utilization of coal and other energies. The project will address
energy development, not only from the power perspective, but also
in terms of fuel needs for transportation, heating and other uses.
Proposals are presently being evaluated, with the final selection
of the contractor expected by the end of the week.
The last and most important area I'd like to address today is a
more active state involvement with the private sector, now that
development is starting to take place on an accelerated basis,
particularly at the Beluga field. In the past the state's in-
volvement has been primarily in three forms, resource and feasi-
bility studies, some liason activities between developers and
markets, and supportive mining interests and ventures at the
national level, paticularly in the ongoing D-2 battle, the result
of which we still don't know.
As coal development begins to accelerate, however, it becomes even
more important that a closer working relationship between develop-
ers, the state and local government should take place. This is
particularly critical when we're assessing social, economic and
environmental impacts arising from the development, and when we're
formulating mitigating strategies to deal with potential negative
impacts. I think it's critical that the state and the private
sector take a look at this so that we can develop realistic alter-
natives. Without this coordination, delays and unexpected prob-
lems will occur. I am particularly hopeful that the state's
Beluga coal task force will serve as the focus for this coopera-
tive effort, with the result being a timely development acceptable
to all parties concerned.
6
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
This conference has attracted numerous knowledgeable participants
capable of helping us identify and discussing these areas of
mutual interest and concern. It's of concern, not only to the
government but to the private sector as well. I am eager to see
how these issues are addressed during the next three days, and
look forward to the possibility that this conference may serve as
a jumping off point, so that we can start developing a more formal
relationship in this area.
Thank you very much.
7
Comments from State Division of Minerals and
Energy Management
Ross Schaff
Acting Director, Division of Minerals & Energy Management,
Anchorage
When Dr. Rao and Dean Beistline asked me to appear here today and
make a few comments, I tried to beg off. I didn't think being
born in Scraton, Pennsylvania and breathing coal dust for the
first two years of my life, and hauling ashes for the next ten,
really qualified me as a speaker before this august body. Never-
theless here I am in a dual role as the acting Director of the
Division of Minerals and Energy Management, as well as the Direc-
tor of the State Geological Survey. I'm going to come somewhere
in between those two, and title my talk, "Coal, Energy and Ignor-
ance, an Alaska Enigma".
To me Alaska coal is an enigmatic situation for several reasons.
First of all, it's well-known, in Alaska at least, that Alaska
coal is one of the largest energy resources of the nation. McGee
and Emmel of the State Geological Survey have compiled various
resource estimates and arrived at an average value of about one to
several trillion tons as a hypothetical resource. Bob Sanders,
over here, is going to get up shortly after me and disagree highly
with that figure as being far too low. Nevertheless, the point is
that this is an enormous energy resource, at least equivalent to
the world's reserves of oil. So if this nation is really serious
about finding energy, Alaska is an obvious source. The state
energy office concluded in one of their compilations that in
Alaska we have perhaps 50% of the nation's coal.
The enigma is that despite the overtures made to coal in Washing-
ton, D.C., there are very few evaluation programs sponsored by the
federal government to look at this resource. There are some good
exceptions--Jim Callahan of USGS, and work by the Bureau of
Mines--but according to Don McGee of the State Survey, most of
Alaska's coal is in NPRA--the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.
That's an area about the size of Indiana. It should have been
named NCRA--National Coal Reserve--in view of the negative results
of the federal government's exploration program for oil and gas,
and its national coal reserve. One has to ask where is the
systemic evaluation of this tremendous resource by the federal
government?
I know enough about coal and the accompanying exploration, econom-
ic and environmental problems to know that development of North
Slope coal will tax the ingenuity of industry and government, but
to me we have an enigma of the first order when we have a billion
dollar budget for synthetic fuels, and billion dollar budgets for
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
hydroelectric projects within view of 2.5 billion tons of coal
resources.
We have a national program for wood consumption, which to me is
another name for forced depletion. We import nearly 50$ of our
petroleum from foreign nations who attempt to dilute or dictate
our foreign policy, yet there is enough coal in Alaska to keep the
nation's energy budget in the black, if you'll excuse the pun.
So as Willie Aiken said to the first base umpire the other day,
when he forgot to put his foot on first base in the World Series
game, "What's the problem?". Is it capital outlay in markets,
perhaps? But Cle Conwell's paper, which will be presented later
in this conference, shows that the cost of heating oil in Alaska
villages will be three times the cost of an equivalent Btu in
coal. Technological know how? Maybe. But I think Joe Usibelli
has shown us how to mine and reclaim land in permafrost. The
Germans, during World War II, showed us how to make innumerable
products from various hydrocarbon derivitives. Is it bureaucracy?
Well, that's a touchy one. I don't think we should use this as a
cop out. Sure there are too many of us, probably. Yeah, we are
inefficient and maybe we cost too much--! see Joe shaking his
head, there. But can we say that the fundamental reason that
Alaska coal resources are not used by this nation is bureaucracy?
I don't think so. I think a fundamental reason for the enigma of
Alaska's coal resources is national ignorance. I'll give you a
few examples from personal experience.
A member of the Senate Energy Committee recently remarked to me
that over 40$ of the citizens of the United States do not realize
that we must import oil. That's an appalling conclusion. Now
that statement was made for the current Iranian crisis. But
there's little reason to suspect that it's lower. For those of
you in the mineral industry, you can find little solace in the
fact that most citizens know that gasoline at least comes out of
the ground somewhere. But it's no insurance that they realize
that the car came out of the ground, also.
A second experience. Recently I was in the office of a senator
from a leading eastern coal producing state, discussing the Alaska
national interests land issue, or as we call it the D-2 issue.
The Chief of Staff of this senator was completely unaware that
Alaska had coal. Despite the general ignorance of Alaska, I would
have expected from a coal producing state a better knowledge of
Alaska's coal. In short, the minerals potential and the coal
potential of Alaska is not known, in my experience, elsewhere.
I'll give you one final example. As most of you know, Congress is
agonizing its way towards the possible conclusion to the D-2
issue. There have been several amendments recently, proposed on
the house side, to alter the senate version of HR 39, mainly by
Congressmen Udall and Seiberling. The one that really concerns me
is the proposal to place certain designated areas into wildlife
refuges. Namely the Copper River Delta, which includes portions
9
of Bering River Coal field, the Tesh Cook Lake area and the Utukok
area of NPRA. Don McGee, of the State Geological Survey, did a
very quick estimate for me as to what impact this would have on
coal. He determined that approximately 55$ of the coal of NPRA is
probably in the Utukok area. I talked to Jim Callahan this morn-
ing, and we won't argue over the exactness of that figure, but
it's a high percentage of NPRA coals in the Utukok area. We also
estimate that probably about 80% of Alaska's coal is in NPRA. So
we're dealing with a very large energy resource--coal--that is
being placed into a wildlife refuge.
Now placing a resource in a wildlife refuge normally is not a
problem because, theoretically, resource development can take
place within a wildlife refuge. But there's a little section in a
previous law passed by Congress, which Dean Beistline and I have
agonized over from time to time, and that's public law 9587, which
explicitly states that there can be no surface mining of coal in a
wildlife reruge. Which means then, Congressmen Udall and Sei-
berling are ei tner acting out of ignorance, or ••• I'll leave that
call to you. I would say that in all probability they do not
realize that there is such an immense energy resource that is
being placed into this kind of a status.
I'll conclude with that statement. I noticed in my mail yesterday
a note from the American Geological Institute, and I thought that
because there would be some coal entrepreneurs here, that I'd
bring this announcement to you. It seems to me it's the best deal
in the United States right now for coal, if you're selling it.
I'll read it to you; it's very brief. "A recent DOE Newsletter
reports that New York State will dump 500 tons of compressed coal
brick in the Atlantic to build a reef that will host aquatic
plants, and provide a refuge for fish, about 2 1/2 miles off the
Long Island coast. State and federal agencies are providing 2.9
million dollars for the project." If my quick division is cor-
rect, that's about $6,000 a ton.
Thank you.
10
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal resources of Alaska
Robert B. Sanders
Diamond Shamrock Corp., Anchorage
History
Although the Alaskan Natives and some of the early explorers may
have utilized coal and oil shales as fuels, the first written
record of interest in coal is that of Captain Nathaniel Portlock
who discovered and used coal at Port Graham in 1786. The first
serious attempts for the commercial utilization of Alaskan coal
began in 1855 when Siberian fur traders opened a coal mine at Port
Graham for export to California in the United States. Although
the export market never developed, the mine produced coal for
local and maritime markets until 1865.
Later in the 19th Century, it became standard practice for the
whaling ships and U.S. Revenue cutters to take on coal from beds
near Cape Sabine on the Arctic Coast. The riverboats plying the
Yukon, Kuskokwim and other rivers also won small quanti ties of
coal for local use, and at least 16 mines operated on the Yukon in
the last decade of the 19th Century. These were all abandoned
before about 1910 as river traffic decreased, and what little
traffic there was converted to oil fuel.
The need for large amounts of heat to thaw frozen ground for
placer gold mining as well as for domestic uses was met with coal
wherever available, and at least a hundred small mines operated
around the turn of the century. The operators' rights to the coal
was apparently pedis possessio, but nevertheless coal "interests"
were bartered well before the general mining laws of the U.S. were
extended to the Territory of Alaska in 1903 (e.g. the 1892 sale of
Robert Lee's coal interests at Chugiak to Alaska Packers Associa-
tion for $1, 765.00).
In addition to those mines along the Yukon and other navigable
rivers, around the turn of the century there were mines at Admir-
alty Island, Herendeen Bay, Chignik, Cape Lisburne, Kachemak Bay,
Unga Island, Niak and Chicago Creek.
The last, near Candle on the Seward Peninsula, entered an 80 ft.
lignite seam in 1903 and produced almost continuously into the
1940's, despite early attempts by the federal government to halt
its unlicensed exploitation of the coal.
The mineral laws of the U.S. were first extended to the Territory
of Alaska by the Act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 327), making it
11
possible for prospectors to claim coal as a locatable mineral.
Many coal entries were made under this Act in the Bering River and
Matanuska Valley coal fields by prospectors apparently unaware
that this law permitted location only on surveyed land, of which
there was none in these Alaskan coal fields.
The Alaska Coal Act of April 28, 1904, (3 Stat. 525), allowed
location without the precedent government survey, and most of the
earlier claims were relocated under this authority. However,
because of the accusations of fraudulent claims by "dummy entry-
men" on behalf of "East Coast monopolies", all of the claims
became suspect. Spurred by a biased Washington press and Col-
lier's Weekly (a magazine) the matter of the Alaskan Coal Claims
became a national sensation, and ammunition in the growing ideo-
logical feud between Gifford Pinchot, Chief of the Bureau of
Forestry and champion of preservationism, and R.A. Ballinger,
Commissioner of the General Land Office and later Secretary of the
Interior.
In response to the controversy, on November 17, 1906, President
Theodore Roosevelt withdrew all Alaska public lands from entry
under the Coal Claim Laws. Although initially done under ques-
tionable authority, Congress validated the withdrawal in the Act
of May 28, 1908 (35 Stat. 424). Enmeshed in the Pinchot-Ballinger
controversy, the legal processing of the coal claims stagnated,
leaving the calimants in the unenviable position of having to do
annual assessment work, but unable to remove or sell coal. Under
these conditions, most of the claims were abandoned, with only 2
of the 900 claims going to patent.
At this time, domestic production supplied only 2$ of the terri-
torial coal consumption, the remainder being imported from British
Columbia, Austraila, Japan or the State of Washington at an aver-
age consumers price of $15 per ton. In addition to the many
claimants and investors who were financially ruined, consumers
having to buy this expensive imported (and import taxed) coal
while local coal might have been had for $3 per ton, were under-
standably unhappy. Pinchot was burned in effigy in Katalla, then
a town of several thousand which hoped to serve as a railhead for
Bering River coal. In Cordova the people shoveled several tons of
the expensive imported coal into Prince William Sound as a "Coal
Party Protest".
During the Congressional investigation which followed, it was
found that some of the General Land Office staff had been on a
clandestine Bureau of Forestry payroll, allegedly hired to disrupt
and delay the Land Office patenting operations while leaking
information to Pinchot'with which to embarrass Ballinger. Several
hundred people lost large sums of money when caught in the middle
of these dirty politics, work ceased on the several coal railroads
that had begun in the Bering River area, and the coal industry in
Alaska was stillborn.
12
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Between 1880 and 1915, the total reported coal production of the
Territory of Alaska was 70,000 short tons valued at approximately
$450,000 (see Table 1). This was mainly the production of the
Wharf Mine at Port Graham, which produced one to 3,000 tons of
subbituminous coal per year at a price calculated to have been $3
to $6 per ton, but also included several thousand tons of coal
produced from the McDonald Property on Bering Lake in 1907. Not
included in these data are the "pirated" output of the "illegal"
Chicago Creek Mine on the Seward Peninsula and the mines at Heren-
deen Bay, Chignik Bay and Unga Island, and other mines operated
within the local and native economy. The pre-1914 price data
based on Table 1 appears too erratic to be trusted.
In 1914, President Wilson authorized construction of the Alaska
Railroad, choosing a route which closely passed the Matanuska,
Little Susitna, Broad Pass and Healy coal fields. That same year
the federal government, now having a vested interest in coal
development, enacted the Alaska Coal Leasing Act under which mines
were developed in McKinley National Park and the Nenana, Matanuska
Valley and Bering River coal fields. Also in 1914, the U.S. Navy
undertook extensive testing of Matanuska and Bering River coal,
concluding that the former was suitable, but the latter unsuita-
ble, for naval use. This proved the death knell of the lingering
dreams of Katalla and Bering River entrepreneurs.
The building of the Alaska Railroad to the Matanuska coal field in
1916, and the Nenana coal field in 1918, created a market and the
transportation necessary for large scale mine development. Be-
tween 1916 and 1940, coal production increased fairly steadily to
174,000 tons per year. Primary production was of bituminous coal
from the Wishbone Hill district of the Matanuska coal field and of
subbituminous coal from Healy Creek and Suntrana areas of the
Nenana coal field.
The tremendous military build up in the Anchorage and Fairbanks
areas during and after World War II created market and profit
incentive for further exploration and development, and additional
mines were opened at Healy, Nenana, Jarvis Creek, Broad Pass,
Costello Creek and the Little Susitna and Wishbone Hill areas of
the Matanuska Valley. The price of coal jumped about 50%. Simi-
larly, lack of fuel forced Wainwright and Barrow to open coal
mines. Most of these wartime ventures were short-lived, but
overall production rose rapidly through the postwar years to
861,000 tons in 1953. The military market grew so rapidly that
the ominous switch from coal to diesel fuel by the Alaska Railroad
in the early 1950s did not adversely affect the Alaska coal indus-
try. In fact, production continued to increase in the face of
this transition, peaking at about 925,000 tons per year in 1966
and 1967. The 1968 Congressional decision to convert the Anchor-
age military bases to gas power generation signalled the doom of
the last Matanuska Valley mine, the Evan Jones, and displaced
about 100 workers.
13
The only mine surveying the pandemic transition to gas and oil was
the Usibelli Coal Mine at Healy in the Nenana field. This strip-
ping operation produces approximately 700,000 tons per year subbi-
tuminous C coal from three 17-20 ft. thick beds, primarily for
public utility and military markets in the Fairbanks area. The
price varies greatly between, contracts depending on the contract
specifications for value~ added by washing, classifying and
drying, and through transportation, tippling, etc., but probably
averages approximately $20 per ton. This is approximately
$1.25/MM Btu (compared with No. 2 fuel oil at $7 .64/MM Btu at
$1.00/gallon.
LAND STATUS: Under its mandate to designate "mineral lands" the
federal government has officially classified approximately 33
million acres in Alaska as "prospectively valuable for coal".
This represents about 9% of the state. The majority of these coal
lands have been selected by the State of Alaska under the State-
hood Act (72 Stat. 339), or by the Alaska Native corporations
created under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat.
688). However, much coal land remains under federal title in the
National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska, Alaska National Wildlife Re-
fuge, Chugach National Forest and the newly created Denali Nation-
al Park and Preserve, Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge,
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, Kobuk National Park, Yukon Delta
National Wildlife Refuge, Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve
and units of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Reserve. Addi-
tional coal may exist in the Innoko, Koyukuk, Nowitna and Kanuti
National Wildlife Reserve, and in areas transected by waterways
protected as wild and scenic rivers.
The extent to which most of these federally controlled coal fields
can be prospected and developed is not clear, as the regulations
pertaining to the new units created under the Alaska National
Interest Lands and Conservation Act of 1980 have not yet been
finalized, nor has the RARE II study in Chugach National Forest
been completed. All or parts of the Broad Pass, North Slope,
Circle-Eagle, Kobuk, Lisburne, Lower Yukon, Etolin Straits, Bering
River, Kenai and Nenana coal areas or fields are involved in this
temporarily unsettled ~tatus.
The State of Alaska has title to most of the Cook Inlet (Susi tna
Basin) coal region (Beluga, Yentna, Little Susitna and Kenai coal
fields), the Matanuska field, central portion of the Nenana coal
belt (Healy coal field), and portions of the North Slope, Heren-
deen Bay and Robinson Mountain fields. State selections pending
include additional lands in the foregoing coaliferous areas, as
well as in the poorly studied Seward Peninsula coal area, and the
abandoned coal sites that occur along the Yukon and Koyukuk Riv-
ers. Some of the "state selections" are in conflict with units
created under the Alaska National Interest Lands and Conservation
Act and will presumably be denied.
Acquisition of coal rights from the State of Alaska follows proce-
dures based on those of the old federal system of the Mineral
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leasing Act of 1920 (42 Stat. 437), with lands classified for
"competitive" or "noncompetitive" leasing and with a system of
"coal prospecting permits" which may be converted to lease upon
the proof of discovery of a commercial coal deposit (AS
38.05.150). However, since October, 1975, no new coal leases or
coal prospecting permits have been issued by the Department of
Natural Resources, except through the automatic Preferential
Rights to Lease provisions of a coal prospecting permit. This
"freeze" was originally an outgrowth of the Kachemak lease sale
court decision regarding the need for public notice prior to lease
issuance. Although new statutes have corrected the original prob-
lem, the "freeze" has been continued due to the administration's
disenchantment with the lease royalty provisions. It is unlikely
that any new coal prospecting permits or coal leases will be
issued until new regulations under AS 38.05.150, or a new statute,
have been adopted.
In the meantime 415 applications for coal prospecting permits are
pending. These are for approximately 1,989,500 acres, mostly in
the Beluga-Yentna coal field(s). As of October 1, 1980, there
were 52 coal leases ( 102,989 A.) and 8 coal prospecting permits
under application for conversion to coal leases ( 15,849 A.) con-
sidered extant by the state's Division of Mineral and Energy
Manageme~t. At this time, the only state lands available for
noncompetitive leasing (and therefore available for issuance of
coal prospecting permits) are those lands patented or tentatively
approved by Bureau of Land Management for patent to the state,
tentatively approved as of June 30, 1968. Lands patented or
tentatively approved to the State subsequent to June 30, 1968,
have DQt been opened to coal leasing or prospecting. The only
lands presently classified for competitive leasing are 6,710 acres
near Healy, 1,870 acres in the Matanuska Valley and approximately
200,000 acres near Pt. Lay on the northwest coast. The state is
currently revising the regulations under the existing statute and
hopefully will be in a position to offer and issue coal rights
within the year.
Several of the 13 Native corporations established under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA, 85 Stat. 688) acquired coal
lands. The most significant holdings are:
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.'s interests in the Cook Inlet-Susitna
coal region, especially in the Beluga coal field;
Doyon's interests in the Nenana coal belt, especially in the
Farewell area and in the Eagle-Circle area;
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation's interest in the North Slope
coal field;
Chugach Natives, Inc.'s interest in the Bering River coal field;
and
15
The Aleut Corporation's and Bristol Bay Native Corporation's
interests in the Herendeen Bay-Chignik coal field.
The acquisition of coal or exploration rights on these privately
administered lands would be through private negotiation, the state
and federal bureaucracy not being involved except through the
surface mining controls, safety and taxation.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (91 Stat.
445) affects all significant coal mining, both surface and under-
ground, regardless of land title. The Act mandates consideration
of special regulatory changes for Alaska, and the National Academy
of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering recently completed
a study recommending to the Secretary of Interior certain regula-
tory a~terations. In addition, the State of Alaska is in the
final steps of drafting a plan by which the State would assume
enforcement jurisdiction ("primary") over surface mining. Until
the Department of Interior adopts regulations for Alaska and the
State's primacy bid is resolved, the working conditions and con-
straints under the Act will remain unknown. However, it may be
safely stated that all phases of mining, including exploration and
tne very availability of mining lands will be severely impacted.
RESOURCES: Early attempts to estimate Alaska's coal resources as
by Brooks (1901, 1909) and Gates (1946) were based on such incom-
plete and unreliable data as to give only a general idea of the
order of magnitude of the resource. The great interest in coal
during and after World War II resulted in several excellent coal
resources studies by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and Geological
Survey, which were compiled into statewide estimates by Farrel
Barnes in 1960 and 1976. Although many new data have been devel-
oped, the updated statewide estimates of Rao and Wolff (1975),
McGee and O'Connor (1975) and McConkey et al (1977) have been
ignored in the various Department of Interior resource estimates
of the (d)(2) lands. Even the Department of Energy's 1980 report:
"Transportation and Market Analysis of Alaska Coal" quotes the
archaic data in preference to its own McConkey Report and the
several unpublished resource revisions prepared by its own Alaska
field office.
The federal government's apparent refusal to consider the
assessments incorporating the post-1967 calculations of even its
own U.S. Geological Survey geologists is not understood; but
because these federal studies received such widespread
distribution as compared to the more recent compilations, Barnes'
now grossly out-of-date figures continue to be quoted. Worse,
many qualitative and quantitative statements now known to be false
have been blindly repeated, perpetuating myth through repetition
by what Steransson so aptly called the "standardization or error".
The accompanying table of resource estimates shows Barnes' 1967
data as we~l as data cited more recently. The fact tnat all
authors cited quote the same datum for resources identified, (e.g.
Broad Pass), does not necessarily indicate this to be an estimate
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--- - -- - --- --- ------
•• ,.
ALASKAN COAL RESOURCES
~ 1. North Slope Coal Region
a) Arctic Coastal Plain c. area
b) Foothills coal area
2. Lisburne coal field
3. Kobuk coal field
4. Seward Peninsula coal area
5. Lower Yukon (Nulato) c. area
6. Etolin Straits coal area
7. Coal location N. of Bettles
B. Yukon-Tanana (Rampart) c. area
9. Upper Yukon (Circle-Eagle) "
10. Nenana coal field trend
a) Jarvis Creek coal field
b) Healy c. field (Usibelli Mn.)
c. Little Tonzona-Farewell c. loc.
11. Cook Inlet-Susitna Basin c. regn.
a) Yentna coal field
b) Little Susitna coal field
c) Kenai coal field
d) Beluga coal field
12. Matanuska Valley coal field
13. Broad Pass lignite field
14. Bering River coal field
15. Robinson Mountains coal field
16. Herendeen Bay-Chignik c. area .. 17. Chicken coal location
18. Southeast Alaska coal loc.
I ,. ..
z
!J
n
0
~ • ,.
aP IIU !;: .. Ill
:II
II>
---
YEAK
Pre-1891
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
19)]
0\
00
rl
-
COAL
SHORT TONS OOLLARS
6,076
1,083
871
923
488
1 ,6d7
712
2,673
2,652
2,264
2,855
2. 740
3,052
2. 717
1,824
4,334
6,061
10,689
4,066
3,430
2,250
1,850
1,205
2,312
1,190
1 ,629
12,676
54.275
75,316
60,894
61.111
76,817
79,275
119,826
99,663
82,868
87,300
104,300
126,100
100,C.OO
120,100
105,900
102,700
96,200
107,500
119,425
136,600
131 600
-
37,205
6,291
5,093
5,372
2,765
9,290
4,142
31,393
27,201
22,836
35,275
29,843
22,508
21,302
8,195
15,070
19,924
55.770
22,665
16,350
13,200
11,690
7,130
13,290
6,540
6,653
57,412
268,438
413,870
345,617
355,668
496,394
430,639
755,469
559.980
404,617
4 59,000
548,000
662,000
528,000
631 ,000
556.000 s 13.500
481 ,000
451.500
501 ,600
573.700
552 700
-
TOTAL
-
YEAR COAL Table 1
SHORT TOllS DOLLARS
ALASKA COAL PRODUCTION AND VALUE
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
H~~
1980
159,230
146,250
173,970
238,960
260,093
289,232
348,375
297 ,644
366,809
361,220
407.906
433,533
412,455
494 ,333
686,218
861 ,471
666,618
639,696
726,801
842,000
759,000
660,000
722,471
736 ,!>31
871 • 379
853.398
744,942
893,182
927,145
924 ,549
750,435
667,179
549,473
698,000
668,000
694,000
700,000
766,000
706,000
685,000
l~8:888 790,000
28,133,777
--
620,900
5R5 ,000
695,000
944,588
1 ,623,264
1 ,842. 708
2,239,684
1 ,868,592
2,354. 952
2,554. 747
2. 789 ,275•
NOTE: The relationship between production
and valuation (especially pre-1900)
is such that these data are suspect.
It is believed that the valuations
reflect product sales cost, and not
mine mouth or raw coal values.
3. 309.303 H--H-++++H-+-++4+++t-++1+H-+1+++-HH-+-+-+-H-+-+-+-I-I-+-+-+-~
3,033,445
3. 766.987
5,779,423
R ,4 51 ,54 2 1-+++·-:-r+-H+H+-l++-+-HH-+++!-++-6,442,414
5, 759,000
6,373,976
7, 296 ,ooo r+-f--<--'-H--H++-+-Hf-IIH+._+++ 6,931 ,000
5,869,000
6,318,358
5, S67, 764
6,408,659 -+--+4-+-~+-T-1-h-4-t·-•~-+-
5,910,007
5,007,!;06
6,()95,216
6 • 9 53.07 3 -+--~-.----~~~-+--~~-
7 ,295,034
4,502,097
4,365,930
4 • 0 58 • 9 2 9 -T-+-+-t-1-4-~-+-~-+
5. 710,000
*
---- ---- -
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
independently derived by many, but rather indicates the acceptance
of Barnes' work by subsequent authors while lacking newer data.
The estimates of McConkey (1977) were derived by literature
search, and generally utilized updated estimates as creating a new
limit rather than as replacing the prior estimates. The total
resources given herein are statistically ludicrous in that they
are the sum of data expressed in the nearest billion of tons and
nearest thousand tons. Considering "significant figures" the
total Alaskan onshore coal resource is estimated to be 216 billion
to 4,216 billion tons, of which 141 billion tons are identified
resources. An additional 1,430 billion tons are believed to lie
beneath Cook Inlet (to 10,000 ft.), raising the upper total limit
to 5.65 trillion tons.
North Slope
The area north of the Brooks Range may constitute the world's
largest coal province; it is also one of the least known and one
of the least probable for large-scale utilization. In the West
Central Ar~tic--including National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska
(NPRA) (12) --the coal occurs in the 1,000 to 15,000 ft. thick
Corwin formation, a deltaic sequence in the upper Cretaceous
Nanushuk Group. These coal beds occur in series, with eight or
nine individual coal beds commonly totaling 25-30 ft. of coal.
Although individual beds in excess of 7 ft. and a few of 20 ft.
class are described, most individual beds are 1-3ft. thick. Of
the approximate 150 described coal beds, Callahan (personal commu-
nication) describes only 28 individual beds as "thick", but addi-
tional groups of beds could be considered synergistically as
"thick". On the Arctic coastal plain (la), the thick wet tundra
vegetation generally restricts coal outcrops to stream cuts.
These coals are generally of subbituminous "A" rank with low (2-
10%) ash and sulfur (0.2-0.3%) and occur in simple, broad, open
folds at 6-10° dip.
To the east of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA) there
are few coal outcrops, and most data are from seismic shot holes
and oil well logs. Very few data have been published. East of
the Reserve, the coal bearing unit is placed in the Colville
Group, of late Cretaceous or early Tertiary age. The coal is
generally less mature and of lesser rank (subbituminous C and
lignite) than are the coals to the West on Arctic coastal plain.
As one approaches the Brooks Range foothills (1b) to the south,
the coals are incorporated in progressively tighter and asymmetric
folds with axial thrusting and the coal rank increases to high
volatile B bituminous. Significant locations include the Corwin
Bluffs where eighty coal beds including beds of 5 1/2 and 9 ft.
*Numbers in parenthesis refer to location on accompanying map.
19
have been described; the Cape Beaufort area where 12 and 17 ft.
beds occur in proximity; and on the Kukpowruk River where a 20 ft.
bed of high volatile bituminous coking coal occurs. The last
locality has been opened and extensively studied since 1954 by
Morgan Coal Co., Union Carbide Corp. and Kaiser Engineers.
Although the presence of coal appears pandemic in the Nanushuk and
Coleville groups, points of actual observation are few and far
between except in the far west. This makes correlation and re-
sources estimation difficult. On the basis of restricted projec-
tions, Barnes (1967) estimated 120,197 million tons of coal, of
which 101 million tons was subbituminous, as "identified re-
sources". On the basis of addi tiona! well log information, and
using liberal, but realistic, projections, Tailleur and Brosge
( 1976) calculated* the additional speculative resource to be be-
tween 220 billion and 3.35 trillion tons; of which 1-50 billion
tons are on the Chukchi Shelf. This raises the total resource of
the North Slope to between 321 and 3,471 billion tons. Schaff, in
COACMAR (1980), using these data plus a 22% factor for additional
area, estimated between 402 and 4,000 billion tons of hypothetical
sources, plus 60 to 146 billion tons identified resources for a
total coal resource of between 460 and 4,146 billion tons.
Difficulty of access, transportation and lack of local large
consumptive market essentially negate the probability of large-
scale development of the North Slope coals in the near future.
Utilization for village needs, however, is considered overdue in
light of high local energy costs and the proximity of coal. The
most probable large-scale exploitation of these coals may be as
liquid or gaseous pipeline feedstock through 1n situ conversion,
but this would be many years in the future.
Along the coast of the Lisburne Peninsula (2), where the Brooks
Range meets the sea, low volatile bituminous coal is found in the
Mississippian Kapaloak formation of the Lisburne Group. The area
has been severely deformed and the coal beds are described as
crushed, broken, lenticular and without persistence. The thickest
bed reported is 4 ft.
Interior Alaska
The interior of Alaska, (i.e., the area between the Alaska and
Brooks Ranges), contains several areas where coal bearing rocks
occur. Although the state's best known field lies in this pro-
vince, the majority of these coal locations are known from very
incomplete river bank exposures, the surface of most of the area
being covered by Quaternary and recent deposits. Over much of the
area the extent and distribution of the coal, even the very delin-
eation of the coal bearing basins, has not been determined. Ex-
*Billion used in U.S. sense, i.e. 1x109.
20
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I i
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ploration costs in these areas would be high, but the potential
for large volumes of subbituminous (and locally bituminous) coal
is also large. Transportation may be the critical factor for
development.
Nenana Coal Fields
A series of individual Tertiary coal bearing basins extends in a
discontinuous belt from up to 30 miles wide, for at least 150
miles along the north slope of the Alaska Range in the Alaska
interior. Although several of the basins bear individual coal
field names, e.g. Jarvis Creek, Tatlanika, Hood River, Healy,
Lignite, Suntrana and Teklanika, et al., they are sufficiently
similar that they can be considered under a single title. The
coal in these Oligocene-Miocene basins is generally subbituminous
C or B, varying generally between 8,500-9,500 Btu. Sulfur content
is low, about 0.2%. Throughout most of the area, the overlying
sandstones are poorly indurated, making stripping operations fav-
orable.
The easternmost coal field identified in this trend is the Jarvis
Creek Coal field (10a) near Big Delta on the Richardson Highway.
There are reported to be thirty coal beds greater than 1 1/2 ft.
thick and one 8-10 ft. thick seam. The area is gently folded.
The coal ranges from 7,800 to 8,300 Btu, typical for Nenana coal,
but contains 1.0 to 1.3% sulfur, which is abberantly high. Barnes
(1967) indicates over 76 million tons identified resource, but
this author agrees with McGee and O'Connor (1975) in feeling that
90~ of this would now be better classified as hypothetical re-
sources under the more recent resource classification scheme.
This field has been explored under a federal Coal Prospecting
Permit, and an application for conversion to lease is pending.
This prospect is described by Metz herein.
The Healy, Lignite and Suntrana coal fields lie in the central
portion of the Nenana Belt along the Alaska Railroad and the
Anchorage-Fairbanks Highway (10b). Several properties in these
areas were developed with the construction of the Alaska Railroad
in 1918, and many operated during and shortly after World War II.
Subbituminous C coal in beds 10-60 ft. thick occurs in cyclical
series of poorly cemented graded clastics.
The Usibelli Mine (10b), the only currently active mine in the
state, produces about 700,000 tons of coal annually from a series
of three 20 ft. thick beds totaling about 60 ft. of coal in a 235
ft. section in moderately dipping fault blocks. Reserves of at
least 250 million tons are estimated on Usibelli's state and
federal leases. The coal is subbituminous C, averaging about
8,000 Btu, with 27% moisture and 0.2% sulfur, which is considered
typical of the Nenana coals.
Immediately to the north, Meadowlark Farms, a subsidiary of Amax,
demonstrated commercial quantities of coal in obtaining state coal
21
leases in similar ground, but containing Tertiary diorite intru-
sions. The carbonization and pyrolitic effects of these are not
known.
Until recently, the western end of the string of Nenana coal
basins was thought to be seen in the thin and dirty subbituminous
coal beds observed in the Kantishna Hills. This hypothesis is now
supported by discovery of several coal outcrops about 100 miles
further west in the Farewell-Little Tonzona area ( 10c). The U.S.
Geological Survey reports seven beds thicker than 30 inches and a
single 285 ft. section containing about 115 ft. of subbituminous
coal in a steeply dipping tertiary sequence. The thicker, 110ft.
bed; is similar to that at Jarvis Creek in quality, being richer
in sulfur (0.7-1.7~) than the Nenana coals at Healy. Other coals
in the area are of elevated rank, marginally bituminous, presumab-
ly through diastrophic carbonization. Canadian Superior is cur-
rently studying these prospects under contract from Doyon. Specu-
lative resources of 1.5 billion tons could be present.
The coal resources of the entire Nenana coal fields trend are
believed to be about 7 billion tons identified and 10 billion tons
undiscovered (i.e., speculative and hypothetical) for a total
reserve of 17 billion tons.
Other Occurrences in the Interior Region
Borderline subbituminous to bituminous coal is found in 2 ft. beds
in several locations along a 120 mile stretch of the Kobuk River,
essentially between Kiana and Chugnak (3). The extent and distri-
bution are essentially unknown.
About 36 miles northeast of Bettles, on the middle fork of the
Koyukuk River, a 9-10 ft. bed of bituminous coal and extensive
additional float have been reported (7). The extent and distribu-
tion are unknown.
Along the lower parts of the Yukon River (5), in the Kaltag to
Galena segment, bituminous coal in 1-3 ft. beds are reported from
several locations in the Kaltag formation (Late Cretaceous). Sev-
eral small mines were operated for the riverboat market at the
turn of the century, including the Pickert Mine, near Nulato,
where a 30" seam of fair to good quality coking coal was worked.
ConweJ.l ( 1977) designates this area as the Nulato Coal Field on
his map of energy resources. A 10 ft. bed of coal is reported
from the vicinity of Anvik.
Coal and lignite have been reported from several sites along the
lower Kuskokwim River, including a report of a 6 ft. bituminous
coal bed (Barnes, 1967).
Along the Etolin Straits, on Nunivak and Nelson Islands (6),
bituminous coals with high coking values are reported, but in beds
less than 2 ft. thick. North along the coast, around Unalakleet,
22
I
II
I II
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lignite and coal were once mined from beds reported to be up to 8
ft. thick.
Several areas of lignite bearing Cretaceous rocks occur in a
complex of isolated basins in Paleozoic and Mesozoic metamorphic
and igneous terrane on the Seward Peninsula (4). The strata are
apparently deformed, at least locally. A steeply dipping 80 ft.
bed of lignite at Chicago Creek on the Candle River was opened in
1908 and mined almost continuously until after World War II.
Farther upstream on the Candle, steeply dipping lignite beds re-
ported to be 19-66 ft. thick and 58 ft. thick were also mined
(Kugruk and Superior Mines). The state is currently studying
these occurrences and may develop the coal for use in Kotzebue.
Near the confluence of the Yukon and Tanana Rivers (Rampart Area,
8), thin, late Cretaceous bituminous coals were mined for the
riverboat traffic at the turn of the century. Although the known
coal beds are thin (less than 36 in.), impure and of limited
"run", the area has not been explored sufficiently and should
remain of interest for the potential local market. Several miles
to the north, at the confluence of the Dall and Yukon Rivers, a 4-
5 ft. bed of subbituminous coal was described by the USGS in 1973.
Thin, subbituminous coal seams are observed in open folds along an
80 mile segment of the Upper Yukon River near the Canadian (9),
between the towns of Eagle and Circle, both of which are served by
road. At Washington Creek, five coal beds greater than 4 ft.
thick and at less than 45° dip are reported. Schaff, Committee on
Alaskan Coal Mining and Reclamation (COACMAR), 1980, estimates
hypothetical resources of 100 million tons in this area. A "poc-
ket" of bituminous "coking coal" was mined near the mouth of the
Nat1on River and described as Devonian in age on the basis of the
age of adjacent strata. However, this is more likely a tertiary
coal, locally carbonized along a fault. Most of the Circle-Eagle
coal is now within Yukon-Charley rivers National Preserve and is
"off limits" even to investigation.
About 50 miles south of the upper Yukon River coal area at Chicken
(17), an outcrop of vertically dipping Tertiary strata includes a
subbituminous coal bed greater than 22 ft. thick, which was opened
in the 1930s. The extent of the coal is unknown, but the area of
tertiary exposure itself is limited to only a few square miles.
So little is known about these several areas of outcrops that
resource estimation, even on a speculative basis, is of dubious
value. With the exception of Chicago Creek, no resources have
been estimated as "identified". McGee and O'Connor ( 1975) esti-
mate the hypothetical resources of the Middle and Upper Yukon
(8,9) areas to total 200 million tons, but this datum ignores the
Kobuk, Koyukuk, Seward, Unalakleet, Lower Yukon, Etolin, Bettles
and other occurrences. The total resource from these areas must
be in billions of tons, but because of National Park Service
stewardship we will probably never know.
23
Southcentral Alaska
~ Inlet-Susitna Basin ~ Region
The Tertiary sedimentary basin now partially occupied by Cook
Inlet contains enormous coal resources. In dealing with coal,
this area has been traditionally divided into several coal fields:
The Yentna coal field (11a) lying to the north of the Castle
Mountain fault, the Little Susitna coal field (11b) extending into
the Matanuska Valley, the Kenai coal field (11c) occupying the
western part of the Kenai Peninsula, and the Beluga coal field
(11d) lying to the west of Cook Inlet. Because of differences in
rock and occurrence, the adjacent Matanuska and Broad Pass coal
fields ( 12, 13) are not discussed as portions of the Cook Inlet-
Susi tna Basin Coal Region.
The thickest and highest ranked coal in the Cook Inlet-Susitna
Basin coal region are in the Beluga area ( 11 d) where at least 8
seams of 8,000 Btu, subbi tuminous coal occur in beds over 20 ft.
thick. These include the Canyon Bed, 23 ft. thick, with "indi-
cated resources" of 66 million tons; the Drill Creek Bed, 65 ft.,
64 million tons; the Capps Bed, 50 ft., 366 million tons; the
Chuitna Bed, 52 ft., 1,219 million tons, and the Beluga Bed, 30
ft., 12 million tons, (Barnes 1966) totalling 1, 727 million tons.
Additional beds are known, and the logs of Pan American Petroleum
No. 2 State show 42 significantly thick coal beds in the 7,450 ft.
of Tyonek strata penetrated. Although some of these thick coal
beds have been traced for several miles along rivers, there is a
lack of data away from the rivers, so Barnes' ( 1967) identified
resources estimate of 2 1 I 4 billion tons is based on a mere sel-
vage of the possible coaliferous area.
Based on more recent data, Swift et al., (1980) identified at
least 750 million tons as being economically extractable under
present conditions from approximately 50,000 acres in the Capps
and Chuitna areas. Resources for the entire Beluga area are
unknown, but this area alone probably exceeds the 29 billion ton
resources estimate that McGee and O'Connor (1975) ascribed to both
the Beluga~ Yentna (11a) coal fields. Most of the Beluga coals
range from 6,600 to 8,200 Btu (8,500-9,800 MMF) with 16 to 22%
ash, 20-30% moisture and 0.1 and 0.2% sulfur. Recently discovered
beds beneath the Chui tna bed are cleaner (7 -8% ash) but washing
and drying are considered necessary for most of Beluga coal,
especially for the anticipated export market. Papers in this
volume by Rao, Bechtel, Wolff and Nakabayashi address the benefi-
ciation of Beluga coal through washing, drying or addition of oil.
Plans for both the sale of bulk beneficiated coal and for the
convers1on of the coal to methanol are being seriously considerd
at this time, as will be discussed in the papers of Kirshenbaum
and Ramsay, to be presented here.
The coal sequence of the Beluga coal formation dips synclinally
eastward under Cook Inlet, extending in the subsurface of the
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kenai Peninsula (11c). McGee and O'Connor (1975) estimated 1.3
trillion tons of lignite to subbituminous coal as hypothetical and
speculative resources to a depth of 10,000 ft. under Cook Inlet,
of which 53.2 billion tons were in beds over 20 ft. thick. The
prospects of in ~ recovery from beneath Cook Inlet and the
Kenai Peninsula are intriguing.
In audition to these Tyonek Formation coals, the younger Beluga
and Sterling exposed on the Kenai Peninsula contain coals. The
coals found near the surface on the Kenai Peninsula are less
mature than are the Tyonek Formation coals of the Beluga field,
with greater ash and volatiles and less fixed carbon. They are
generally dull, platy and cleated in appearance with considerable
evidence of woody and bark tissues, and of marginal lignitic to
subbituminous rank. Most beds are 2-3 ft. thick and lenticular,
but 7 ft. beds are known, including one mined several times at
Homer. McGee and O'Connor (1975) estimated 24 billion tons
hypothetical resources of coal on the Kenai Peninsula, of which
300 million tons are the demonstrated resources estimated by
Barnes (1967). The majority of the Kenai coal field is under
state and native title, with intensive recreational, private and
municipal surface use which will probably preclude surface mining.
There may be potential for underground recovery, however.
The Tyonek Formation coals of the Beluga field reappear north of
the Castle Mountain fault and Mt. Susitna intrusives in the Yentna
coal field (11a). Around the western margin of the basin moder-
ately to steeply dipping coal seams have been reported, including
15 ft. beds on Johnson Creek and the Nakochena River, a 25 ft.
"bed" near Mt. Fairview and a 55+ ft. "bed" on Sunflower Creek.
These western margin coals are similar to those of the Beluga coal
field. Blumer (this volume) describes these coals as 5,400-9,450
Btu (a.r.) with 6-40~ ash, 20-30~ moisture and 0.1-0.2~ sulfur,
and reports 500 million tons identified resources in five 10-45
ft. thick beds to depths of 250 feet.
in the more central and eastern portion of the Yentna Basin these
coals are to 8,000 ft. deep, but surface exposures of younger,
thinner (to 6 ft.) beds of dirty, low rank subbituminous coals
have been utilized for years by the placer miners of the Dutch and
Peters Hills. Reed et al., ( 1978) estimated 64 million ton "re-
source" presumably as "inferred" in this area. The hypothetical
resource must be several billion tons. The Alaska Railroad and
the Parks Highway follow the eastern margin of the Yentna basin.
The coals of the Little Susitna coal field (11b) are similar to
those of the adjacent eastern margin of the Yentna field; platy,
dirty lignitic to subbituminous coals in thin, generally
lenticular beds. The only known commercial deposit, at Houston,
was exhausted through surface and shallow underground mining,
producing about 90,000 tons of subbituminous coal during World War
II.
25
The total coal resource for the Cook Inlet-Susi tna coal province
(i.e. the Beluga, Kenai, Yentna and Little Susitna coal fields and
that beneath Cook Inlet) are believed to be approximately 1.5
trillion tons; of which 11 billion tons are identified resources
(see McConkey et al., 1977). At least 750 million tons have been
blocked out for immediate mining.
Broad~ Lignite Field £nd Nearby Locations
The Broad Pass Lignite field ( 13) is an apparent northern exten-
sion of the Cook Inlet-Susi tna Basin coal region, following the
Chulitna River in what appears to be a graben. These are lignitic
coals in 5-10 ft. horizontal beds, believed to be younger than are
the coals in the Yentna Basin to the south. Although of low
calorific value, its location adjacent to the railroad makes this
an interesting prospect. Barnes (1967) estimated 64 million tons
inr ormal resource in a 7 sq. mile area of this inferred 300 sq.
mile field. Projection of these data is of doubtful validity, but
McGee and O'Connor's ( 1975) hypothetical resource estimate of 110
million tons is believed overly conservative.
West of Broad Pass, a small outlying area of subbituminous coal at
Costello Creek was mined between 1940 and 1954. At Yanert, on the
Alaska Railroad in McKinley (now Denali) National Park, a small
amount of coal was mined shortly after World War I. At least two
other mines operated in the National Park area, including one at
Highway Pass where a 1-3 ft. bed was mined for use in the park
buildings.
Matanuska Coal Field
To tne east of the Little Susitna coal field are older, early
Tertiary (Eocene?) coals ( 12). These older and more mature coals
of the Chickaloon Formation have been diastrophically carbonized
to progressively increased rank eastward up the Matanuska Valley,
from high volatile bituminous at Wishbone Hill to anthracite on
Anthracite Ridge.
In the Wishbone Hill district three series of coal beds with
individual beds to 23 ft. occur in a large, steeply dipping
faulted syncline. The coal beds are thin, 2-3 1/2 ft., and con-
tain shale partings. They run 12,000-12,500 Btu with 11% ash and
0.3-0.5% sulfur. The most productive mines were on the gentler
dipping (11-30%) south limb.
The largest mine in the district, Evan Jones, produced 6 million
tons of coal per year before closing in 1968. Eight beds were
mined, including one (the 113 seam) 8-12 ft. thick. Underground
mining operations ceased in 1952, leaving an estimated 100 million
tons identified resources. Also on the south limb are the Eska
Mines, operated by the Alaska Railroad intermittently from 1919
26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
through World War II as a contingency supply. Identified re-
sources of 600,000 tons remain in the Eska property.
The coal beds on the steeper dipping (25-35°) north limb of the
Wishbone Hill syncline were exploited by the Wishbone Hill, Buffa-
lo, Baxter and Premier Mines. The coal beds are quite variable in
both thickness and quality, but are generally in 2-3 ft. beds. A
Bureau of Mines core drilling program, 1949-1958, indicated that
the area is structurally complex, with numerous small faults
offsetting the coal beds. Although a large resource of coal
existed, 112 million tons according to Barnes (1967), the most
readily exploitable 6 million tons have already been removed, the
remainder being generally too deeply buried or in blocks too small
to attract development at this time.
The Chickaloon District is based on a small area (12 sq. miles) of
Chickaloon Formation outcrops exposed in a complexly folded,
faulted and dike intruded synclinal structure. Low volatile
bituminous coal occurs in disturbed lenticular beds to 14 ft.
thick. Although some samples have shown strong coking tendencies,
the intense deformation and lack of coal bed uniformity, purity
and continuity have discouraged mining. In 1921 the U.S. Navy
built a coal mining town at Chickaloon, but had to abandon it when
it was later discovered that the coal could not be mined at a
reasonable cost and was not generally satisfactory for Naval use.
Barnes (1967) estimated 23 million tons (best considered as hypo-
thetical resource) in a small portion of the area.
The Anthracite Ridge District at the eastern end of the Matanuska
Valley coal field contains thin and discontinuous lenses of semi-
anthracite and, locally, anthracite, in a complex of tight folds,
faults and intrusions. Although most of the coal exposures are of
beds best measured in inches, beds to 10 and 16 ft. thick are
reported. However, continuity beyond 100 ft. is generally lack-
ing, and the thicker coal occurrences tend to be associated with
diabase dikes. Based on a study of the 90 known outcrops and
eight cores, Waring (1936) estimated "several million" tons of
coal present, mostly semianthracite.
Total resources for the Matanuska Valley coal field have been
estimated at 248 million tons (McGee and O'Connor, 1975) to 274
million tons (Barnes, 1967), including identified resources of 99
million to 125 million tons respectively. The total resource,
most hypothetical, is probably closer to 500 million tons, with a
little over 100 million tons as "identified" resource.
~ Q( Alaska Tertiary Basin
The Bering River coal field (14) on the Gulf of Alaska is the
state's most historically renowned coal field, being the focus of
the Alaska coal "scandal" (Pinchot-Ballinger controversy) that
shook the Roosevelt and Taft Administrations. After 60 years of
study by numerous geologists from the federal, private and mili-
27
tary sectors, the area remains problematic. The coal ranges from
low volatile bituminous in the west to semianthracite in the east
in this 6 x 20 mile area. The coal occurs in the Kushtaka Forma-
tion of early or mid-Tertiary age. The area is so extremely
deformed that the term "coal bed" is not applicable, the coal
generally occurring as pods, lenses, along faults or as discordant
masses along the axes of compressed isoclinal and disharmonic
folds. Although spectacular outcrops of seemingly 20-30 ft. thick
coals may be observed, thorough study has shown that these are not
true bed thicknesses. The "common knowledge" presence of coking
coals in the area is not supported by published data, although
Douglas Colp (personal communication) has noted successful coke
testing in the field. Hypothetical resources to 3,000 ft. are 3.6
billion tons, of which only 1,500 tons are classified as "measured
resources" (Queen Vein on Carbon Creek).
Coal in beds up to 6 ft. thick have been reported from the Robin-
son Mts. (15). These are apparently in the Kultieth Formation, an
age and facies equivalent of the Kushtaka Formation of the Bering
River coal field and, according to Irv Palmer, U.S. Geological
Survey (personal communication), the coal is similarly distorted.
Alaska Peninsula
Chignik-Herendeen Bay
High volatile bituminous coal occurs in the upper Cretaceous
Chignik Formation at Herendeen Bay, in the Chignik area, and
presumably in the hundred mile area in between. The area has been
moderately to extensively folded and faulted. Dips are generally
in excess of 30° and continuity of the homoclinal limbs is not
great. The coal beds are generally 1-2 ft. thick, but 4 and 6 ft.
beds have been reported in the Chignik area.
McGee and O'Connor (1975) estimate hypothetical resources of 240
million and 2.9 billion tons respectively in the Chignik and
Herendeen Bay areas, exclusive of the unexplored intervening area.
Schaff, Committee on Alaskan Coal Mining and Reclamation (COACMAR)
1980, estimates 300 million tons for each of these sites. Con-
sidering the area between these locations, the author estimates
1.5 billion tons hypothetical resource •
.IJ.ngg Island
Beds of tertiary lignite up to 4 ft. thick occur in a single low
dip (8-10°) homocline on Unga Island and in the adjacent portions
or the Alaskan Peninsula. The only analytic data on this coal
showed 26% ash, 25% moisture and 0.5% sulfur (a.r.) giving 8,100
Btu (MMF).
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Southeastern Alaska
Coal occurs at several locations in the Alexander Archipelago
(18). On Kuiu, Kupreanof, Zarembo and Prince of Wales Islands
thin beds of Tertiary lignite occur. At Kotznahoo Inlet on Admir-
alty Island are 2-3 ft. beds of impure, sulfurous bituminous coal.
A small mine supplied Juneau with some of this coal prior to 1929.
Concluding Remarks
The total coal resource of Alaska is estimated to be 476 billion
to 4,216 billion tons, of which only 14 billion tons are classi-
fied as identified resources. An addi tiona! 1, 430 billion tons
are believed to lie beneath Cook Inlet. To quote such data with-
out an understanding of the caveats discussed in their derivation
would be folly. Therefore, please read the two boring pages
preceding the resource estimation table and map herein.
In considering the coal resources of Alaska, one must bear in mind
the fact of the myriad working conditions encompassed by the
state. To say merely that Alaska is cold and snowy is a dangerous
oversimplification. Alaska is not environmentally homogenous.
Conditions vary from the arctic desert, an area of meager precipi-
tation which is ankle deep with water due to poor runoff and
percolation, to the southeastern rainforests and southwestern
cloud shrouded barrens of the Aleutians. Mining plans must be
atuned not only to the characteristics of the deposit but to the
local working conditions as well. Some of the unique Alaskan
working conditions such as temperature and permafrost have severe
impact on mining operations and equipment, but must not be con-
sidered as state-wide problems.
The major hurdle to be overcome in developing Alaskan coal re-
sources is transportation. The surface transportation facilities
of Alaska are very poorly developed. The potential for developing
surface transportation is decreased by severe physiological bar-
riers such as the Alaska and Brooks Ranges, which form east-west
bulwarks cut by passes in the seemingly least advantageous loca-
tions. Between these ranges are hundreds of miles of wetlands
posing a road building nightmare. The ice bound coast of the
northern half of the state essentially precludes effective direct
ocean access to the state's largest coal province. Finally, and
most persuasively, the federal government has created a series of
"institutional barriers" through new parks, refuges and monuments
that erfecti vely isolate much or the richest coal areas. Although
a great percentage of the Alaskan coal resource is currently
deemed unexploitable due to lack of transportation and institu-
tional barriers, one need not despair--Alaska has such an enormous
coal resource that there remains an overwhelming number of devel-
opment prospects. Better, the state's geology is so poorly known
that the potential for discovery of new coal fields is high. Many
29
of the identified coal areas are based on "lost" outcrops; who
knows what a proper drilling program would uncover?!!
References
An essentially complete bibliography (Lyle & Bragg, 1974) on coal
in Alaska is available from the Divis ion of Geological and Geo-
physical Surveys, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alas-
ka, 3001 Porcupine Dr., Anchorage, AK 99501.
Works Cited
Barnes, F.F., 1961, Coal fields of the United States -Sheet 2,
Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Scale 1:5,000,000.
Barnes, F.F., 1966, Geology and coal resources of the Beluga-
Yentna region, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 1202-C.
Barnes, F.F., 1967, Coal resources of Alaska, U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1242-B.
Brooks, A.H., 1902, The Coal resources of Alaska: 22nd Annual
Report, U.S.G.S. Pt. 3, p. 515-571.
Brooks, A.H., 1909, Mineral resources of Alaska: U.S.G.S. Bulle-
tin 394, p. 172-207.
OOACMAR (Committee on Alaskan Coal Mining and Reclamation), 1980,
Surface coal mining in Alaska, an investigation of the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 in relation to Alas-
ka: National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Conwell, C.N., 1977, Energy resource map of Alaska: College, AK,
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. Scale,
1:2,500,000.
Gates, G.O., 1946, Coal fields of Alaska in analysis of Alaskan
coals: U.S.B.M. Technical paper 682, p. 1-9.
Lyle, W.M. and Bragg, N.J., 1974, Coal bibliography for Alaska:
Alaska open file report IJ 41, State of Alaska, Dept. of Natural
Resources.
McConkey et al., 1977, Alaska's energy resources: Final Report,
Phase 1, Vol. II, Inventory of oil, gas, coal, hydroelectric and
uranium resources. By Alaska Division of Energy and Power
Development under contract No. EY76C-06-2435 from U.S. Dept. of
Energy.
30
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------~----~~~~-------,
McGee, D.L. and O'Connor, K.M., 1975, Cook Inlet basin subsurface
coal reserve study: Alaska open file Report #74, State of
Alaska, Dept. of Natural Resources.
Rao, P.D. and Wolff, E.N., 1975, Focus on Alaska coal: Proceed-
ings of the Conference held at University of Alaska, Fairbanks,
October 15-17, 1975. MIRL Report #37.
Reed, et al., 1978, Folio of the Talkeetna quadrangle, miscella-
neous field studies map MF-870D.
Swift, et al., 1980, Beluga coal market study by Battelle North-
west Laboratories, under Contract No. 2311104261 from Division
· of Policy Development and Planning, State of Alaska.
Tailleur, I.L. and Brosge, W.P., 1976, Need to revise and test
estimates of Northern Alaska coal resources in The U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey in Alaska: Accomplishments during 1976: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Circular 751-B.
U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1946, Analyses of Alaska coals, U.S.B.M.
Technical Paper 682.
Waring, G.A., 1936, Geology of the Anthracite Ridge coal district,
Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 861.
31
Coal occurrences of the Nanushuk Group,
western Arctic Alaska--An update
James E. Callahan and Gary C. Martin
U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
Introduction
Coal in northern Alaska occurs in two sedimentary rock sequences,
the Nanushuk Group of Early to Late Cretaceous age and the Col-
ville Group of Late Cretaceous age. The coals in the Nanushuk
Group have been more thoroughly investigated for several reasons,
including early interest in their commercial possibilities and
accessibility for local utilization at Barrow and Wainwright, and
apparent general superiority in overall quality.
The Nanushuk Group was originally mapped and subdivided on a
regional scale in the Western Arctic by Chapman and Sable ( 1960).
More recently, Ahlbrandt and others (1979) completed a wide rang-
ing study using modern sedimentological concepts and techniques
and newly acquired subsurface data, primarily for the purpose of
evaluating the oil and gas potential of the Nanushuk Group rocks
in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPRA). Of particular
interest with respect to coal occurrence is their application of a
deltaic sedimentation model to reconstruct depositional environ-
ments of the facies represented by the Kukpowruk Formation (tran-
sitional near shore marine to nonmarine) and the Corwin Formation
(nonmarine). These two formations make up the Nanushuk Group in
the foothills and Arctic Coastal Plain of the western North Slope.
Geologic Setting
Tectonic disturbance has greatly affected the distribution and
rank of coal beds between the foothills and the Coastal Plain,
resulting in a considerable difference in the methods of investi-
gation and the facility of interpreting the results. In the
foothills the outcrop area of the Corwin Formation is discontin-
uous, (Fig. 1) and most, if not all, observed stratigraphic sec-
tions represent only the lower part of the original thickness of
the formation. The Corwin occupies the central parts of numerous
broad and relatively simple synclinal basins separated by tightly
folded, east trending anticlines; most of the anticlines are com-
plicated by high angle reverse faults or north directed thrust
faulting in the Kukpowruk Formation, and many are breached through
to the underlying Torok Formation. The thermal maturity of the
rocks, as illustrated by apparent coal rank and near surface
32
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
w
w
IXPLANATION
Kcm Kcc
Marine rocks of
the Colville Group
Knm
Marine rocu of
the Nonullluk
Grou'
ColltiMntal rodla
the Col¥111 Group
Knc
COitinental rocb of
tMNanulh*
Knt
Lower Cretoc10111 marine rocks
(~ GI'QI.C). Torok Forrnatilll' u,......,.ntlaWJ
--Contact
----+---lndltlnlte contact
-
N
f
-- --- -
I
/ K•M
,. -·-·-·ftT~tuM
/
I
/ ~.-·"1 ,:-·-· ./
---
BEAUFORT
SEA
'ltut• I· Geo1otic map of northweetwn Alael&cl (adapted froM PNIIRIIMrJ ... ~otic Map of Alaella, BeilnMn, 1971)
--
seismic velocities, both suggest a much greater depth of burial,
uplift and erosion in the foothills than in the Coastal Plain.
In tne foothills, resistant sandstone beds form low rubble ridges
and benches which clearly define the major structural features,
but exposures of the interven1ng shale and siltstone intervals,
including coal beds, occur only in cutbanks of the larger streams
and along the sea cliffs at Corwin Bluff. In the absence of
subsurface data, the outcrop positions of coal beds can only be
inrerred in the interstream areas by reference to the bedding
traces of associated sandstone beds.
In the Coastal Plain, the Nanushuk Group forms a continuous sub-
crop beneath Pleistocene and Holocene surficial deposits. It has
a general homoclinal dip to the south, averaging about 50 feet to
the mile in the western part of NPRA. Prior to the Navy's oil and
gas exploration program on Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (PET-4)
during the late 1940's and early 1950's, little was known about
the tnickness and distribution of the coal bearing rocks in the
Coastal Plain, except for isolated exposures along the Kuk River
near Wa1nwright and on the Meade River. Two of the early Navy
wells, the Meade and the Kaolak, penetrated about 1,200 feet and
4,000 feet respectively of coal bearing rocks, which were recog-
nized as equivalent to the Corwin Formation exposed in the foot-
hills belt. On the Reserve (redesignated National Petroleum Re-
serve--Alaska (NPRA) in 1976), more recent deep wells have fur-
nisued improved stratigraphic control and coal thickness data,
and, together with a widespread reconnaissance scale seismic grid,
provide the basis for a reasonably accurate estimate of hypotheti-
cal coal resources in the Coastal Plain.
Recent Investigations
Pr1or to 1978, subsurface investigations, other than those direct-
ly related to oil and gas exploration, consisted of drilling by
the U.S. Bureau of Mines at Cape Beaufort and on the Kukpowruk
River, by Lounsbury and associates near Wainwright, and trenching
and suallow hole augering by the Geological Survey at numerous
localities in the foothills between Cape Beaufort and the Utukok
River. In the winter of 1978, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
with the cooperation of Husky Oil Company and Geophysical Ser-
vices, Inc., began an experimental program to determine the feasi-
bility of obtaining shallow subsurface data on coal bed thickness
and distribution, by logging seismic shotholes in the foothills
and Coastal Plain of the western National Petroleum Reserve--
Alaska, inltlally us1ng the natural gamma radiation tool. This
method, despite its obvious limitations as compared to a drilling
program devoted so~ely to coal explortion, has been successful in
obtaining accurate and precisely located data on coal beds over a
wide area, at a cost several orders of magnitude lower than any
otner method for obtaining comparable information. During the
1979 and 1980 seasons, a gamma-gamma density tool was also used,
34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
which resulted in better definition of coal bed thickness and
aided in resolving the ambiguity between log responses of coal and
clean sandstones that arises from using the natural gamma tool
alone.
During the three years in which the shothole logging program was
conducted, the spacing of holes was one quarter mile in the Coast-
al Plain and one sixth mile in the foothills. The drilled deptns
were 75 feet and 105 feet, respectively. The number of holes
available for logging varied. The time required for logging
averaged 10 to 15 minutes per hole, using both tools. Under ideal
condit1ons, which were rare, this permitted logging every second
hole in the foor.hills. In the Coastal Plain, the terrain, shal-
lower holes and easier drilling resulted in a more rapid pace for
the seismic operation as a whole, and it was seldom possible to
obr.ain both types of log on a systematic basis. This limitation
was offset by the fact that the low dip results in more continuous
stratigrapnic coverage for a given horizontal spacing of holes
than in the foor.hills.
Typical log responses (Fig. 2) of coal beds reflect the low natur-
al radiation of most coals and the density contrast between coals
and tne enclos1ng rock. Where the natural gamma log is used
alone, ambiguity sometimes results from the similarity of log
responses for clean sandstone and for coal. Also, particularly in
the Coastal Plain, a similar ambiguity is possible in the re-
sponses or coal and ice lenses on both logs. These ambiguities
normally could be resolved by an observation of the proportions of
coal and ice in the drill cuttings.
Depositional Environment
Because a companion article in this volume is devoted to a de-
tailed interpretation of the environments of deposition of the
Nanusnuk Group rocks in the foothills, the following discussion is
limited to a summary of the regional depositional framework as it
relates to the stratigraphic distribution and geometry of coal
beds or zones observed in our studies.
Together with tne upper part of the Torok Formation, the Nanushuk
Group in the Western Arctic is thought to represent a prograding
deltaic depositional system (Fig. 3) initiated in Early Cretaceous
time. The system included uplift and erosion of older rocks in
the western Brooks Range and Lisburne Peninsula area and deposi-
tion of the resulting detritus in the Colville Trough, a foredeep
which developed north of, and generally concurrently with, the
Brooks Range uplift. ln the west, the progradation apparently was
nearly continuous, with only minor local marine transgressions.
The overall thickness of the Nanushuk Group decreases from south-
west to nortneast, from more than 11,000 feet at Corwin Bluff to
zero in eastern National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska. The coal
bearing facies, the Corwin Formation, comprises the full thickness
35
Surficial
deposits
Coal
Coal
Line 725
SPI69
Surface
NATURAL GAMMA DENSITY
increase increase
Ice?
Line 725
SP 219
NATURAL GAMMA DENSITY
increase increase
Cool
Coal
Fioure 2 -Typical log responses (Elusive Creek syncline; lines and shotpoints shown on fig. 10)
Scale
OFt.
50
100
-------------------
-----------------------------
Figure 3 -BLOCK DIAGRAM OF PRINCIPAL DEPOSITIONAL ENVIRONMENTS
INFLUENCING THE DISTRIBUTION OF COAL FACIES DURING DEPOSITION
OF THE NANUSHUK GROUP •
exposed at Corwin Bluff and is about 4,000 feet thick in west-
c~ntral NPRA. As noted previously, the original thickness in the
foothills in southern NPRA was probably much greater than this,
possibly 3,000-6,000 feet greater, based on coal rank. On the
bas1s ot gross lithology, coal bed distribution and sulfur con-
tent, the depositional environment of the thicker coals in the
Corwin Formation seemingly differs somewhat from the modern ana-
logues most commonly used as models for deltaic sedimentation.
The low sulfur content of most coals in the section suggests
isolation from salt or brackish water influences, as might be
expected in an upper delta plain or flood plain environment.
However, the low ratio of coarse to fine clastics in the asso-
ciated rocks suggests deposition by streams with low gradients, as
might be expected in more seaward parts of the delta system. Such
condit1ons might be found in a wide band of swampy coastal lowland
traversed by numerous moderate sized streams.
Coal Occurrence-Arctic Coastal Plain
In the Coastal Plain near Wainwright (Fig. 4) shallow subsurface
data from shotholes, along with logs from two deep exploratory
wells, have permitted a rough zonation for the Corwin Formation.
The coals in the lower part of the Corwin are relatively thin, but
laterally continuous, some being correlatable for as much as 12
miles between seismic lines (Fig. 5, beds 2 and 3). Coals in the
Corwin are overall low in sulfur, but the sulfur content of these
lower coals is relatively higher and more erratic than that of
coals higner in the Corwin, suggesting peat deposition in inter-
distributary bays in the lower (more seaward) part of the delta
system, and therefore subject to periodic exposure to salt or
brackish water. Coals higher in the Corwin were probably depo-
sited in backswamp areas between stream channels in an upper delta
plain or flood plain environment, where thicker accumulations were
possible due to greater stability of channels and more prolific
plant growth. These stratigraphically higher coals are as much as
30 feet thick, but tend to thin and split over short distances
(Fig. 6, bed 18). Coals in the zone of transition between these
two environments, where beds 6-10 feet thick are laterally persis-
tent fur as much as 6 miles, probably have the best commercial
potential (Fig. 5, beds 4, 6, 7; Figure 7, beds 4 and 5).
Coal Occurrence-Foothills
In the foothills, due to greater structural complexity and steeper
dips, the data on coal bed distribution and geometry are more
fragmentary than in the Coastal Plain. Except for the type sec-
tion of the Corwin Formation at Corwin Bluff, every stratigraphic
section which has been measured and described to date has con-
tained substantial gaps, and as mentioned previously, the original
thickness does not appear to have been preserved in any of the
38
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I N
I 1
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BED l5----BED 16
___ _,_
BED 17 _.....,...--
5
..
0 ~
PEARD BAY
--------
--
10 Miles
I Figure 4-Coal bed eubcrop diatribution and uiamlc lin•, Wainwright area, Alaska
I 39
fliT
20
100
0
SEISMIC
LINE
No. 07XN
Coal correlation•
••Iamie linea,
SEISMIC
LINE
No. 602
Flour• 5
Bed 12 ----
SEISMIC
LINE
No. 604
Bed 9_ --
Bed 1
Bed 6
Bed 5
Bed 4
Bed 3
Bed
from compoalte log aectlona alont
Wainwritht area, Ala•ka.
40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P'!!T
100
SEISMIC
LINE
No. 602
SEISMIC SEISMIC
LINE LINE
No. 604 No. 606
--!!.!!.._ 19 ----f=-----Bed 18 --....;;._----(
Bed 16
Bed 15--~ --\ ----
--........._ ......_
Bed 12 ---,
Figure 6
Coal correlation• from compoaite log 11ction1 along
11i1mic liMa, Wainwright area, Alaaka.
41
-
ELEVATION
IN
FEET ~
SPI20
50
Sea level 0
-50
ELEVATION
IN
FEET
100
Sea level 0
-100
SPIIS
SPI24
natural
gamma
log
SFlll7
density
log
SP 115
~
SP 113
------
L.oa correlation• of coal beds along aeiamic line 604
SPI22 SPI20 SP 118 SP 117 SP 115 SP 113
Shallow croll aection along aeiamlc line 604
SPIll
ELEVATION
IN
FEET
50
ELEVATION
South IN
FEET
SPIll 100
0 Sea level
-100
Figure 7-L.oa correlation• and croas 11ction along 11i1mic line 604, Wainwright area 1 Alaaka. --------- -
--------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
structural basins. Even along the lower Utukok and Kokolik Riv-
ers, where the Corwin is overlain by rocks thought to belong to
the Colville Group, structural relationships and the difference in
the degree of induration between the two units suggests a signifi-
cant depositional hiatus, during which a substantial thickness of
the Corwin was removed by erosion.
~ Beaufort ~-At Cape Beaufort, the Corwin Formation occurs
in the Liz-A syncline, a doubly plunging syncline about 15 miles
long (Fig. 8), and attains a thickness of about 8,000 feet. The
lowe~ 2,000 feet of the Corwin consists predominantly of interbed-
ded snale, siltstone and thin sandstone beds with thin coals and
carbonaceous shale zones, which probably represents a lower delta
plain environment of deposition. An over lying zone about 2, 700
feet thick contains somewhat thicker sandstone beds and several
moaerate.1y thick (6 to 10.5 feet) and laterally persistent coal
beds (Fig. 9, beds 10-20), at least one of which can be correlated
for about 11 miles northeast to southwest along the outcrop, which
in this area is generally parallel to the dominant paleocurrent
direction as determined by Ahlbrandt and others (1979). In terms
of the deltaic depositional model, the coal forming swamps during
depositlon of tnis zone were probably elongate subparallel to the
stream channels. An overlying zone, about 1,600 feet thick,
contains no known s1gnificant coal beds. The uppermost 1,700 feet
of the section at Cape Beaufort includes thick lenticular sand-
stones and the two thickest coal beds (Fig. 9, bed 7, 16.5 feet
and bed 8, 11.5 feet). Neither of these thick coals can be traced
for more than about 5 miles, and the thicker of the two splits and
thins rapidly to the southwest along the outcrop.
Utukok River .AI:n. Coal beds were mapped in the Elusive Creek,
Oxbow and Lookout Ridge synclines, on the basis of a few surface
exposures along Elusive and Avingak Creeks, several auger holes
and geophysical logs, mainly along four seismic lines (Fig. 1 0).
Tentative correlations were maele using color infrared aerial pho-
tography between these control points. Where available, seismic
recora sectlons provided approximate dips used in construction of
composite stratigraphic sections.
The thickness of the Corwin Formation in the Lookout Ridge
syncline is about 1500 feet above the transition zone mapped along
the south limb of tne syncline. The upper 800-900 feet contains
six coals. Of these, only the beds 3 and 5 (Fig. 10) can be
correlated for a significant distance. Along line 605, bed 3
thins from 12 feet to 8 feet in a distance of 2 miles to the east,
and to 6.5 feet in a distance of 3 miles to the west (Fig. 11).
Bed 5 thins and splits from about 10 feet westward to 6.5 feet in
1.3 miles. Along line 137 (Fig. 12), bed 3 apparently maintains a
relatively constant thickness from south to north over a distance
of 2.3 miles.
In tne Oxbow syncline the thickness of the Corwin section is
estimated to be about 2,500 feet, judged from an ill-defined base
and a poor seismic record section. Beds 3 and 5 from the Lookout
43
TULUGAK CREEK
A...-..ol. ON L-o ... •
1.7ft.h4&
tt. KAHKATAK CREEK
4 AI'POIO •• OM LM 1-11'
~
8!
I<I<LERUK CREEK
Afil'fll1ltOX. ON LIH A•A~
-;:
0
(.)
AKULJ( CREEK
APPOIO. ON L-a-a•
LAGOON
EXPLANATION
&~ .....
~-
1!!---en
::I
.. ~ b;J ..... 0
loll z Ill
6!1-.. -
u 0 8 c
1-1-
IL loll c -a: ::1 u a:: iii a: 0 c---II.. Ill g • z c ..
0 !: .t.7 ft. -', TMH,...aofc ... ...._ o·a:: z 0
cU
a::
Ill
a. a.,
F-::I
0
100 Q ... zoo
81 a:
WJ
!100 > Q
(.) 400
eoo
$00
700
.00
1100 1tl.
1000
Figure 9-Stratigraphic sections of the upper part of the Corwin Formation,
Cape Beaufort area, Alaska.
44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Colluvium
I Knc I
Corwin ForMolloll
~
Torok for111ati011
N
f
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLANATION
----~
AlluviuM
Cool MlbcrOp within 1/2 mile
of comrol poW
Cool subcrop pnlject~ alant
beddiftv trocn on aerial
photographs-dolllel; ...
.,_. at least !5 fMt, short
where I.,. ftMIII !S feet thick .
Min or fold axis
Zone of contorted beddint
0 DH72-8C Drill hole location (suffix "c"
indicates core taiUII)
G AH75-52 Auver hole location
. · · · · • Coal subcrap P':oiected th!OUC)h __ es.._. Surface IOIIIPie loc:otiOII
enos with thicll surficial ao
l~<nc~~l
cower (beddint traces ~ed) f-----'--__ ......!..::.::ll:..:=s~:..:.......::.=~___J
Approl.ilftGte contact (dotted
' • · where projected beMotla
'...... surficial cover)
_ -\-_., Appracilftcde synclinal a1.is
~ Thruat or .... _. .. fcallt, teeth
~ -011 UPI* plate
__ ~ -Fault, st1owin9 relative movement
....:;:----
Undifferentialed Corwill
and
KullpOWrUk Formations
Figure 8 -Geologic map showing
coal bed distribution,
Cape Beaufort area, Alaska.
I .S 0 I
I bJu&' I I • 1 1 1 I :a:d. MILES ~~--~~~·~~~~~~L-~~~-~-L-LI~'-:f¥~ Fin
-----------------"""
-llpbAMAT QM
~~~~~do~ ........ ~========~·~ ........ •l==========~'•-.
-II,LAMAIIAI-
--.... ;a .... c:tll ......... -.......... . .... ..... _,.,....,
...,.~~t-
Dll ...., .......
~
\•"',... .......
....,_, .....
• eT.s ~'":..-=:";'..=!'\ , ....
0
0
I
I I
FiQure 10-
Geologic map showinQ
I IIIII ..
' .........
coal bed distribution, Utukok River B-3
and So. 1/3 Utukok River C-3 quadranc;~les,
Alaska.
----.---....... -...... --
SP 336
3520'
SP 540
-'==~--_!!!..2 __ --
Bee! I
- - -- -- -
FIGURE II
KOPHYSICAL LOG CORRELATIONS ALONG SEISMIC LitE 106
ALONG SOUTH LIW8 AHD AXIS rY LOOKOUT ltiOGE SYNCLINE
SP 331
Bed 3
13200'
Bed 5
6160'
7040'
COMPOSITE
SP 321-324
- -- -- -
SP 302
Bed 3
5280'
SOUTH
-
COMPOSITE
SP 742-744
4400'
FIGURE 12
GEOPHYSICAL LOG CORRELATIONS ALONG SEISMIC LINE 137
ACROSS LOOKOUT R lOGE SYNCLINE
6160'
COMPOSITE
SP 749-750
COMPOSITE
SP 751-752
Bed 5
6160
NORTH
COMPOSITE
SP 756-758
----? Btd4
5280' ?---.. ~
Btd 3 Btd 3
3520'
FEET
0
50
100
----------------...... .....__. "'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ridge syncline have been correlated with 7 and 8.5 foot coals
respectively on line 632 across the Oxbow syncline, on the basis
of stratigraphic position. Above these, an interval of about 800
feet contains numerous thinner coals, 2.5 to 5 feet thick, which
appear to be lenticular and discontinuous. Near the top of the
section in the Oxbow syncline, a coal about 9 feet thick was
augered on the south limb. A bed with a gross thickness of about
9 feet was observed in shotholes 167 and 169 on line 727, approxi-
mately in the same stratigraphic position on the north limb. This
bed appears to be shaly or to contain numerous partings in the
lower 2 feet-
Along seismic line 725 (Fig. 10) on the axis and north limb of the
Elusive Creek syncline, 14 coal beds were observed within a strat-
igraphic interval of about 2,600 feet. Bed 3 (8 feet thick) in
this section seems, on the basis of seismic information, to corre-
late with an 11 foot bed which outcrops on lower Elusive Creek on
the south limb of the syncline. A very tentative correlation is
also suggested with bed 3 in the Lookout Ridge and Oxbow syn-
clines. If correct, this correlation suggests greater continuity
for this bed in the northeast-southwest direction, subparallel to
the most probable paleocurrent direction, than in the east-west
direction (Fig. 11 ).
Coal Sampling
Several hundred samples of coal were collected from various parts
of the region. Drill cuttings from the seismic shotholes have
provided the most widespread coverage. Other methods of collec-
tion included channel sampling of outcrops and beds exposed by
trenching, auger cuttings and drill cuttings from holes at Cape
Beaufort and from several of the deep exploratory wells in the
Coastal Plain. Three beds at Cape Beaufort and one on the Kukpow-
ruk River were cored by the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and one bed on
the Kuk River by Lounsbury and Associates. Part of a 5 foot bed
was cored in the Tunalik test well near Icy Cape. Even though
only the core samples conform to the ASTM standards for coal rank
determination, cuttings samples from holes drilled with compressed
air appear to be a reliable indicator of rank if the coal is
penetrated at a sufficient depth to preclude weathering effects
(about 25-30 feet in the foothills). Ash content could only be
determined with certainty from cores or channel samples from good
surface exposures. However, the drill cuttings from thick beds at
Cape Beaufort, which were recovered using a reverse circulation
drilling system and cyclone separator, were clean and the ash
contents are comparable to the core analyses where beds were
sampled by both methods. Most of the shothole samples were
floated in perchlorethylene to separate coal from rock particles
prior to being analyzed, and so the analyses actually represent a
1.62 specific gravity float fraction of the coal thickness ob-
served in the geophysical logs. For purposes of comparison, the
1.5 specific gravity float fraction from parting free core samples
49
at Cape Beaufort constitutes about 70 to 75 weight percent of each
sample.
Analyses and Rank
Prior to 1977. the only unweathered samples available for analysis
were the cores and drill cuttings from Cape Beaufort, the Kukpow-
ruk River and the Kuk River.
Analyses of cores and cuttings samples from the Bureau of Mines
drilling on the Kukpowruk River and at Cape Beaufort were dis-
cussed in previous reports (Warfield and others, 1969; Callahan
and Sloan, 1978). Some additional comments on the Cape Beaufort
coals were included here to illustrate some relationships between
various types of samples and between apparent rank and strati-
graphic position.
Figure 13 illustrates graphically the variation in heating values
on a moist, ash free basis of 23 coal beds distributed over a
stratigraphic interval of about 5,500 feet at Cape Beaufort.
Obviously, analyses of outcrop samples and drill or auger cuttings
from a depth of less than 30 feet are not a reliable indication of
rank, as there is no consistency between samples from different
points on the same bed, nor any discernible heating value vs.
stratigraphic position relationship among these samples. The very
low values (8,000-9,600 Btu) for surface samples from beds 11
through 24 indicate severe weathering effects. These samples were
taken from near vertical exposures along the lagoon at the north-
west end of the basin. In contrast, the unweathered cores and
drill cuttings exhibit a relatively narrow range of values among
samples from the same bed, and a progressive increase in heating
value with stratigraphic position (i.e., original depth of bur-
ial). The best fit line on Figure 13 represents moist, ash free
Btu values of core samples and drill cuttings from a depth greater
than 30 feet.
c.c. Boley, of the Grand Forks Energy Research Facility, performed
limited washability studies on core samples from beds 7 and 8 at
Cape Beaufort. Figures 14 through 17 show logs of two complete
and one partial core of bed 7 and one core of bed 8, along with
analyses of the whole core, 1.5 specific gravity float and 1.5
specific gravity sink fractions of the segments of the cores as
indicated. Based on studies, it appears that the upper 6 to 8
feet of bed 7 could be upgraded to a product with an average Btu
value of about 12,720 (as received), ash content of 7.5 percent.
and which would represent about 73% of the gross tonnage. For bed
8, the figures would be about 12,970 Btu, 7.3% ash and the product
would represent about 76% of gross tonnage. P.D. Rao ( 1980) has
done extensive additional chemical and petrographic characteriza-
tion studies on these samples.
50
I
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- --- - - - - --- - --- - - --
•ooo
SYMBOLS
0
0 0 5,4
e Core • ..., ....
0 Drill cuH ....
,,_ depf~ ) 50'
5000
• Drill cuttlolte
"-~<50'
X X • X X • 0-7 • Aufer CUtlillta
I ((50'1 X X 0 ID0 • en X Outcrop or ~
21 ,,_._..
]I>
::!
CD ;u 4000 ]I> .,
:!:
0
0 n Ul in 0 .. .... II> ,.. ,..
z n
"' • 1'1
5000 IC ..,
"' 1'1'1
=!
> Dl
0 < )0( X >O<X • 0 • '" 10
r
0
X II • 2000 X 12 '" X " II)
~
0
0 ,..
r
X • • 14 • II
1000
X X • X 19
X X X " " X X X X
X X
X 0 0 7000 •ooo 1000 10000 11000 12000 15000 14000 111000
MOIST, ASH-FREE HEATING VALUE (BTU)
Figure 13-Relationship of rank (heating value) to depth and sample type, Cape Beaufort area, Alaska.
-- ------ - -- - --- -- --
----------- ------- -
FIGURE 16 -An•lyele of core ••mplee, bed 7, DH72-10C ,
C•pe Be•ufort , depth 52.2-81.05 ft.
(Hole location shown on fig. 8)
Prox1~~~ate ~nalf1s Ultimate Analysis
Core Sample Volatl e Fixed
no. no. F'raction Weight percent Bas1s* Btu/1 b Mo1 sture Natter r.arbon Ash Hydroqen Carbon ~1 trogen O•.vgen Sulfur
0 SCALE
OH 72-lOC whole core 100. 1 11 ,130 3.3 31.3 48.4 16.g 4. 5 64.3 1.0 13.1 .2
2 11 ,510 32.4 50.1 17.5 4.2 66.5 1.0 10.5 .2
3 1J,g6o 39.3 60.7 5.1 80.6 1.2 12 .e . 3
4 13,621
,.
OH 72-lOC 1.5 sp. gr. float 75.9 1 12,720 3.0 34.3 55.4 7.4 4. 9 73.0 1.1 13.4 . 3
2 13,100 35.3 57.1 7.6 4. 7 75.3 1.1 11.1 . 3
3 3 14,190 38.2 61.8 5.1 81.4 1.2 12.0 . 3
4 13,833
OH 72-lOC 1.5 sp. gr. s1nk 24.1 1 7,540 3. 3 23.1 36.6 37.1 3.1 46.1 .6 13.0 .2
OJ 2 7. 790 23.9 37.8 38.3 2.8 47.7 .6 10.4 .2
U'l 5. fTI 3 12,640 38.7 61.3 4.6 77.3 . 9 16.9 .3 • 0 4 12,587
-..j
--, 6.
EXPLANATION OH 72-10C who 1 e core 100. 1 8,430 3.4 25.9 35.2 35.6 3. 7 49.1 . 7 10.7 .2
2 8,720 26.8 36.4 36.8 3. 5 50.8 .8 7. 9 .2
3 13,810 42.4 57.6 5. 5 R0.5 1.2 12.5 . 3
4 13,704
2
OH 72-10C 1.5 sp. gr. float 48.9 1 12,600 3.0 35.6 53.0 8.5 5.1 71.9 1.1 13.2 . 3
2.6n COAL 2 12,980 36.7 54.6 8. 7 4. 9 74.1 1.1 10.9 . 3
3 14,220 40.2 59.8 5.4 81.2 1.2 11.9 .3
4 13,882
SILT •O
1.oe OR OH 72-10C 1. 5 sp. gr. sink 51.1 1 6,680 3. 3 21.3 30.0 45.5 3.0 40.0 .5 10.9 .1
...;LAY 2 6,900 22.0 31.0 47.0 2. 7 41.3 .5 8.3 . 2
" 3 13,020 41.4 58.6 5.2 78.0 1.0 15.6 .3
4 13,138
1.54 BONE
I ,,·
* 1 As received _L_ 2 lloisture Free •1-11CKN£SS tfT) ,,. 3 llo1 s true and .\sh Free
4 lloist, Ash Free
, ..
' ..
--- --- - - --- - --- - - --
----
o' SCALE
z'
I EXPLANATIO, :
2.60 COAL
SILT
I .OB OR
CLAY
1.5480NE
I
9'
I II
13'
14'
15'
tD
ITI
0
Q1
-
Core no.
------ ---
FIGURE 17 -Analysis of core samples , bed 8 1 DH 72-SC ,
Cape Beaufort, depth 96.9-109.8 ft.
(Hole location shown on fiQ. 8)
Sample
no. Fraction Weight percent Basis* Btu/lb
DH 72-8C whole core
DH 72-8C 1 . 5 s p. gr. float
DH 72-8C 1. 5 sp. gr. sink
DH 72-8C whole core
DH 72-8C 1. 5 sp. gr. float
DH 72-8C 1. 5 sp. gr. sink
* 1 As received
2 Moisture Free
3 Moisture and Ash Free
4 Moist, Ash Free
100.
68.7
31.3
100.
82.7
17. 3
1
2
3
4
10,880
11 ,200
13,690
13,448
12.740
13,120
14,290
1 3. 954
7,800
7. 970
12,140
12,248
12,070
12,440
14,160
13,839
13,030
13,420
14,380
14,003
7,2 30
7,390
12,180
12,382
Prox1mate Ana 1 f is
Volab e FlXed
11oisture Matter Carbon
2. 9
2. 9
2. 2
3.0
3.0
2.1
31.4
32.4
39.6
34.1
35.1
38.2
27.4
28.0
42.6
35.6
36.8
41.8
37.2
38.3
41.0
27.5
28.1
46.4
48.0
49.5
60.5
55.1
56.7
61.8
36.9
37.7
57.4
49 .b
51.1
58.2
53.5
55.1
59.0
31.8
32.5
53.6
-- ---
Ultimate Analysis
Ash Hydrogen Carbon N1 trogen Oxygen Sulfur
1 7.6
18.2
8.0
8.2
33.6
34.3
11.8
12.2
6.4
6.6
4.3
4.1
5.0
4. 9
4. 7
5.1
3.0
2.8
4.3
5.0
4.8
5. 5
5. 2
5.0
5.4
38.5 3.1
39.4 2.9
4. 9
63.9
65.8
80.4
73.2
75.4
82.1
48.3
49.4
75.2
69.2
71.4
81.3
74.0
76.2
81.6
45.7
46.7
76.9
0. 9
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
.6
.6
. 9
1.1
1.1
1 . 3
1.2
1.2
1.3
.6
.6
1 .0
12.7
10.4
12.7
12.5
10.3
11.2
14.3
12; 7
19.2
12.7
10.3
11.8
1 3. 0
10.7
11.5
12.0
10.3
17.0
0. 5
.6
• 7
. 3
. 3
.4
. 2
. 2
. 3
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 2
. 3
In the Oxbow-Lookout Ridge syncline area shown on Figure 10,
samples have been taken from beds 3 and 5 from auger cuttings,
ou~crop channel samples and shothole drill cuttings. In Table 1,
17 analyses from bed 3 and 22 from bed 5 have been segregated on
the bas1s of sampling methods and handling to illustrate the
effects on the results. The moist, ash free Btu values for shot-
hole cuttings appear reasonably consistent, whether tne samples
have been floated in perchloroethylene or analyzed in the condi-
tion in which tney were collected, if the bed was penetrated at a
depth greater than 30 feet and a sufficient distance from the
outcrop. All but one of the analyses for these beds indicate an
apparent high volatile A bituminous rank. As for the Cape Beau-
fort samples, shallow drill cuttings, auger cuttings and outcrop
channel samples exhibit a wide range in heating value, on both
dry, asn free and moist, ash free basis, indicating a wide varia-
tion in weatnering effects. The drill cuttings samples cannot be
reliea on for ash content determinations, but the outcrop samples
represent channel cuts excluding visible partings, and the ash
content for these samples probably indicates the percentage or
closely associated mineral matter, which would probably not be
eliminated by washing. It is noteworthy that the ash content
(average and range) of the floated shothole samples from bed 3 is
within 1 or 2 percentage po1nts of tnat of the channel samples
from the same bed.
Except at Cape Beaufort, the heating value vs. stratigraphic
position relationship for foothills areas cannot be readily demon-
strated, owing to insufficient analyses of unweathered samples
over a significant stratigraphic interval at any one locality.
The coal beds mapped along line 725 (Fig. 10) occur in a strati-
graphic interval of about 2,600 feet. Shothole samples have been
taken from several of these coals, but analyses are not yet avail-
able. Analyses of unweathered samples of bed 3 from a shothole on
line 137 and of bed 13 on line 632, indicate a range of Btu values
from 14,044 to 14,452 (moist, ash free) in the 2,300 foot interval
between these coals (177 Btu/1,000 ft.), which is fairly
consistent with the trend at Cape Beaufort. However, neither the
thickness ot the section nor the number of analyses is sufficient
to make such a comparison with much assurance.
The apparent rank of coal samples from shotholes and shallow
coreholes in the Coastal Plain ranged from subbituminous A to
lignite, but has been predominantly in the subbituminous B range.
Eleven samples from the Peard Bay well (Fig. 1) exhibit a progres-
slve increase in heating values from 10,308 Btu (subbituminous B)
to 11,432 (subbituminous A) (moist, ash free) in a stratigraphic
interval of about 800 feet. Moisture content varies widely in the
shothole samples, but is predominantly in the 15 to 20 percent
range. In the Peara Bay well samples, moisture content decreases
with depth from 18.4 to 13.0 percent over the 800 foot interval.
As noted previously, samples from lower in the stratigraphic se-
quence have somewhat higher sulfur values, from 0.4 to 1.4 percent
in the lower 1,000 feet as opposed to 0.2 to 0.9 percent in the
upper 1,300 feet in the Wainwright area.
56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---- -- - - ---- -- --
TABLE I-SUMMARY Of' COAL ANALYSES, LOOKOUT RIDGE-OXBOW SYNCLINE AREA
.
~ j Btu
Average of 4 sa~nples 1 13585
from 30' or greater 2 13937
depth. floated in 3 14605
pe rcl'l 1 orethyl ene 4 14272
Average of 4 SIIIIPles 1 111856 fro• 30' or greater 2 12224
depth. ana 1 yzed as 3 14529
col 1 ected 4 14238
Average of 6 Sl.lltPles 1
fro• 1 ess than 30' 2
depth floated in 3
perch 1 orethyl ene 4
(No ultiute analyses)
Average of 3 outcrop 1
channel UIIIPles, e~~:cl. 2
visible partings 3
analyzed IS collected 4
Average of 7 analyses-1
sa•ples fro11 >30'. 2
floated in 3
perd'1l orethyl ene 4
(3 ulti111te analyses)
Average of 7 analyses-1
SllltPles analyzed n 2
collected fro111 >30' 3
dept~ 4
(1 u1t111lte ono1ys1s)
Average of 3 analyses-1
saii!Ples fr'OII <30' dept~ 2
f1oated in perc~loret~y 3
lene 4
('*» ul tillite analyses)
Average of 5 analyses-1
samples frOtn less t~an 2
30' dept~ analyzed as 3
collected 4
(No ulti111te analyses)
• 1 -As received
Z -Ji!tl1sture Free
3 -Jlltl1sture and As~ Free
4 -Ji!tl1st. As~-Free
11975
12636
13622
12927
11223
12520
13283
11870
13322 !
136851 14615
142881
I
11718
12142 '
14471 1
14090 I
12550 '
:~~I
13339
10463
11907
13008
11427
Prox111Y.te
" VH
2.6 37.8
38.8
40.7
3.0 34.4
35.5
42.2
5.5 33.1
35.0
37.8
10.6 33.7
37.6
39.9
2. 7 35.3
36.3
38.8
3. 5 33.6
34.8
41.6
4. 3 34.2
35.7
37.8
11.8 28.9
32.8
35.8
Ulth11te Range of Yalues
FC ASH H c " 0 s ASH Btu I ASH I 0
Analyses of 17 cool sample~ from bed 3
55.2 4.5 5.5 76.5 1.6 11.9 0.2 4. 2 12998 to 1 3135 2.2 to 7.0 10.7 to 13.1
56.6 4.6 5.4 78.6 1.6+ 9.8 0.2 4. 4 13455 to 14410 2. 3 to 7.1 9.1 to 10.4
59.3 5.6 82.2 1.7 10.2 0.2 14381 to 14777 9.3 to 11.2
13930 to 14481
47.1 15.5 4. 9 66.9 1.4 11.0 0. 3 15.5 10496 to 12546 11.0 to 24.0 10.8 to 11.8
48.6 15.9 4. 7 69.0 1.5 8.6 0. 3 15.9 10762 to 12984 11.4 to 24.6 B. 3 to 9.1
57.8 5.6 82.1 1.7 10.3 0. 3 14289 to 14738
I
9.6 to 11.4
14127 to 14398
I
54.4 7.0 0. 3 I 9967 to 13797 3.2 to 11 .4
57.6 7.4 0. 3 10923 to 14109 3. 5 to 12.2 I
62.2 0. 3 12420 to 14745
11318 to 14481
50.6 5.1 5. 3 65.6 1.6 21.2 0.2 5.1 1 0850 to 12650 3. 3 to 7.3 14 .B to 24.3
56.6 5.8 4.6 73.2 1.8 14.3 0. 3 5.8 11670 to 13560 3. 5 to B. 4 11 .8 to 15.7
60.1 4. 9 77.7 1.9 15.2 0. 3 12740 to 14060 12.2 to 17.2
11 04 3 to 1 3122
Analyses of 22 coal samples from bed 5
55.8 6.2 5.4 75.6 1.5 11.5 0.2 5.8 12640 to 13670 ! 3.9 to 11.4 I 11 .4 to 11.5
57.3 6.4 5.2 77.8 1.5 9.2 0.2 6.1 12949 to 14022 4.0to11.7 9.1 to q. 3
61.2 5.5 82.8 1.6 9.8 0.2 14513 to 14731 9.5 to q. 9
14169 to 14428
47.4 19.9 4.9 68.0 1.3 12.2 0.2 13.3 1 0317 to 12688 8.6 to 24.5
49.1 16.1 4. 7 70.6 1.4 9. 3 0.2 13. q 10696 to 13184 9.0 to 25.4
58.4 5.5 82.0 1.6 10.8 0.2 14254 to 14595
I 1 3958 to 14315
:
56.2 5.4 0. 3 11565 to 13498 4.6 to 6.0
58.7 5.6 0. 3 12295 to 13831 4.9 to 6.1
62.2 0.3 12928 to 14736
12175 to 13505
51.8 7.5 0.2 10243 to 10731 5.6 to 9.5
58.8 8.4 0.1 11793 to 12068 6.6 to 10.6
64.2 0. 3 12774 to 13304
- --
In the Tunalik-1 test well (Fig. 1), the base of the Corwin Forma-
tion was picked at about 3,700 feet. The moist, ash free Btu
values of coal cutting samples from this well range from 9, 995 at
a depth of 725 feet to 13,398 at a depth of 3, 280 feet.
The increase in Btu value with depth in the Peard Bay well is
about 1,400 Btu/1,000 feet, and in the Tunalik well about 1,600
Btu/1,000 feet (based on a projection of very limited data). This
much greater rate of change, as compared to the foothills, most
likely reflects the difference in the coalification process.
Overburden pressure and dewatering are thought to be a dominant
factor in the diagenesis of lower rank coals (i.e., physical
changes), such as those in the Coastal Plain, whereas temperature
and time are thought to have played a more important role in
producing chemical changes in higher rank coals (Teichmuller and
Teicbmuller, 1966).
Coking Tests
Carbonization studies have been performed on several of the high
volatile A bituminous coal beds in the foothills of the western
Arc~1c, by c.c. Boley of the Grand Forks Coal Research facility
(Warfield and Boley, 1969; Warfield and others, 1966). The coals
included in these studies were beds 15 and 16 at Cape Beaufort, a
20 foot coal on the Kukpowruk River, and a bed on the Kokolik
River on the north limb of the Oxbow syncline, which appears to
fall within the same stratigraphic interval as bed 3 in the Look-
out Ridge-Oxbow syncline area (Fig. 10). On the basis of bench
scale coking tests, the unweathered samples were judged to be
directly comparable to the Sunnyside, Utah, coal used by Kaiser
Steel as a base coal for the production of coke. The Kokolik
River sample, collected by trenching, was probably oxidized; it
required a higner proportion of medium volatile blending coal to
produce coKe comparable to the others.
Coal Resources
The minimum bed thickness used for resource calculations is 2.5
feet for subbituminous coal and 1.2 feet for bituminous coal. The
geographic line of demarcation between these two rank categories
is not well-defined due to lack of analyses between the Coastal
Plain and the foothills, and in any case it varies in the subsur-
face depending on stratigraphic position. At present, it is
assumed to trend across tne southern part of the Coastal Plain at
the surface. In the Coastal Plain and the northernmost part of
the foothills, where the structure is relatively simple and well
ties to the base of the coal bearing rocks are available, the
caiculation of the volume of coal bearing rocks using seismic
structure mapping is reasonably accurate.
58
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2 is a summary of hypothetical coal resources of the Nanu-
shuk Group in the Coastal Plain and northernmost part of the
foothills of the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA). It
does not include resources west of NPRA or coal bearing rocks
occurring in isolated structural basins south of the "Carbon
trend" (Fig. 1 ), a completely faulted, anticlinal feature crossing
the southwestern part of NPRA. These structural basins are sepa-
rated by complex anticlinal trends or fault zones, and well ties
to the base of the coal bearing rocks are not available. The base
of the formation must be picked arbitrarily in a zone of poor
surtace exposures and projected into seismic record sections,
which cnaracteristically lose most of their definition on the
flanks of the basins. Seismic structural mapping of these basins,
incorporating the most recent data, is incomplete, and it would be
misleading to incorporate the existing fragmentary resource data
from this southern area into a regional resource estimate.
References
Ahlbrandt, Thomas S. and others, 1979, Preliminary geologic, pet-
rologic and paleontologic results of the study of Nanushuk Group
rocks, North Slope, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Circular
794, 163 p.
Beikman, H.M., compiler, 1978, Preliminary geologic map of Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey special map, scale 1 :2,500,000.
Callahan, J.E. and Sloan, E.G., 1978, Preliminary report on anal-
yses of Cretaceous coals from northwestern Alaska: U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey Open File Report 78-319, 29 p.
Chapman, R.M. and Sable, E.G., 1960, Geology of the Utukok-Corw in
region, northwestern Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Profession-
al Paper 303-C, p. 47-174.
Rao, P.D., 1980, Petrographic, mineralogical and chemical charac-
terization of certain arctic Alaskan coals from the Cape Beau-
fort region: University of Alaska Mineral Industry Research
Laboratory Report No. 44, 66 p.
Te1chmueller, M. and Teichmuller, R., 1966, Geological causes of
coalification: Coal Science, v. 55, p. 133-55.
Warfield, R.S. and Boley, c. c., 1969, Sampling and coking studies
of several coal beds in the Kokolik River, Kukpowruk River and
Cape Beaufort areas of arctic Northwestern Alaska: U.S. Bureau
of Mines Report of Investigations 7321, 58 p.
Warfield, R.S., Landers, W .S. and Boley, c. c., 1966, Sampling and
coking studies of coals from the Kukpowruk River area, arctic
Northwestern Alaska: U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investiga-
tions 6767, 59 p.
59
0'\
0
--
Rank
Subbi tum I no us
Bituminous
Subtotals*
--
ueptn
Thickness ( ft)
( ft)
2.5-5.0
5.0-10.0
10.0+
1 .2-5.0
5.0-10.0
10.0+
1. 2-5
5.0-10.0
10.0+
Table 2 Hypothetical Coal Resources in the Nanushuk Group
in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska
(In Millions of Tons)
0-1 ,000 1,000-2,000 2,000-3,000 3,000-4,000 4,000-5,000
87,700 72,600 33,500 2,130 --
96,300 79,600 36,800 2,340 --
29,900 24,800 11 ,500 727 --
64,900 52,900 36,600 13,600 1 ,780
46,500 37,900 26,300 9,770 1 ,280
29,600 2~.200 16,700 6,220 813
153,000 125,000 70,100 15,700 1. 780
143,000 117,000 63,100 12,100 1 ,280
59,500 49,000 28,200 6,950 813
*Totals and subtotals rounded to 3 significant figures
--- ------
5,000-6,001) Subtotals* Total*
--196,000 --215,000 478,000 --66,900
149 170,000
107 122,000 370,000
68 77,600
149 366,000
107 337,000 848,1JOO
68 145 ,000
---- --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Deltaic coals and sediments of the Cretaceous
Torok, Kukpowruk, and Corwin Formations in the
Kokolik-Utukok Region, National Petroleum Reserve
in Alaska
Gary D. Stricker and H.W. Roehler
U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
Abstract
Study of the Cretaceous Torok, Kukpowruk and Corwin Formations of
Albian to Cenomanian Age in the western part of the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has led to development of a model for
deltaic coal accumulation. The lithologies, fossils and primary
sedimentary structures in the rocks of these formations indicate
that they were deposited as parts of a large, high-constructional
delta, called the Corwin Delta, which apparently prograded north-
eastward across the western part of the North Slope of Alaska.
The Torok, Kukpowruk and Corwin Formations are interpreted as
recording deposition in prodelta, delta-front and delta-plain
environments, respectively. The Torok Formation consists of shale
with thin interbeds of siltstone and fine-grained sandstone. The
Kukpowruk Formation is composed of fine-to coarse-grained, cross-
bedded sandstone with interbeds of shale and siltstone. It inter-
tongues with both the underlying Torok and overlying Corwin Forma-
tions. The Corwin consists of fine-to coarse-grained sandstone,
sandstone with interbeds of siltstone and shale, carbonaceous
shale and coal. Coal occurs in lower delta-plain strata of the
Corwin Formation as sparse, thin, discontinuous beds. Thicker and
more numerous coal beds developed on platforms underlain by aban-
doned channels and splay deposits in the middle delta-plain en-
vironment. Upper delta-plain and alluvial deposits are not found
in the study area, probably because of postdepositional tectonism
and erosion.
The full text of this presentation will be published as a supple-
ment to these proceedings.
61
Geologic and economic evaluation of Bituminous coal
Kukpowruk River region, northern coal field, Alaska
Harold A. Knutson
Chief Geologist, Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
Introduction
The Kukpowruk Region, in the Northern Alaska Coal Field, has been
assessed to contain the largest deposits of quality bituminous and
coking coal in Alaska (Fig. 1). Pursuant to this assessment,
geologic and economic evaluation studies of the Northern Coal
Field and the Kukpowruk Coal Basin area were made by Kaiser Engi-
neers during the period from 1970-1977. The scope of work for
these studies were to:
1. Geologically evaluate certain lease acreage for confidential
clients,
2. Confirm coal quality of selected target areas and
3. Determine strip and underground coal resource potentials.
Location
The Kukpowruk study area lies north of the Delong Mountains in the
extreme western part of Northern Alaska. The area is bordered on
the west by the Chukchi Sea and on the east by the Naval Petroleum
Reserve No. 4 (now the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska) (Fig.
2).
The principal coal outcrops of the Kukpowruk Basin occur along the
Kukpowruk River approximately 150 miles due north of the Eskimo
village of Kotzebue, and 28 miles south-southeast of Point Lay, a
Distant Early Warning (D.E.W.) line radar station.
Geography
Geographically, the Kukpowruk study area lies in the extreme
northern part of the Arctic foothills physiographic province, with
a relief of about 30-350 feet above sea level. Low broad ridges
surfaced with sandstone rubble reflect the distribution of under-
lying resistant rocks. Although these rubble ridges are conspi-
cuous features on aerial photos, and constitute the main structur-
62
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c:J SUIIIJUIIIIIOUS COIL
~ ••n••••o"s ca•L
o 10 •• .., • •oo ••u•
,..,-,--,
0 100 ........... .
fIg U r 8 1 COAL BEARING ROCKS OF NORTHERN ALASKA
10"
...
.. ,. ,.., .
·~ ....
Figure 2 INDEX AND LOCATION MAP
63
KUKPOWRUK, ALASKA
COAL AREA
_,.,v
t
al markers in the area, they are not always reliable for strati-
graphic correlation.
The Kukpowruk River (meaning "Big River" in Eskimo), is a major
arctic river with its headwaters in the Delong Mountains. It is
160 miles long and enters the Chuckchi Sea about 10 miles south of
Point Lay. The major bedrock and coal outcrops are found along
this river and its tributary drainages.
Geology
The Kukpowruk coal has been known and studied since 1925 by the
u.s. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Mines and private
companies. Coal beds of potential economic significance are con-
fined almost entirely to the Corwin Formation, which is Lower to
Upper Cretaceous in age. The Formation consists predominantly of
intertonguing nonmarine coastal facies of shale, siltstone, clay-
stone, sandstone, coal, conglomerate and bentonitic clay (in de-
creasing order of abundance).
In the Kukpowruk area, the coal bearing Corwin Formation is ex-
posed in the axial areas of major synclines that are cut by the
Kukpowruk River.
Bituminous coal and carbonaceous shale occur in beds ranging in
thickness of 1 inch to 22 feet. The coal, shiny to dull, hard,
with well developed cleat structure, outcrops below ledges, low
cliffs and in rubble of resistant sandstone. It is also manifest
in tundra frost heaves or exposed in tunnel dumpings of burrowing
ground squirrels.
About 80~ of the mapped bedrock exposures consisted of shale,
claystone and thin bedded sandstone, with shale and claystone
occurring in sets of beds as much as several hundred feet thick.
The silty shale, claystone and sandstone contain carbonaceous
plant remains, and ironstone nodules which occur in definite
layers. Thick sandstone beds, medium to fine grained, commonly
contain massive cross beds with fore set beds 2-3 feet thick and
inclined as much as 30% from the top set beds. Many sandstone and
siltstone beds are higly lenticular, pinching out abruptly or
grading laterally to shale.
The ironstone consists of layered or zoned beds of calcareous and
siliceous nodules with plant remains, and are most abundant in the
coally parts of the formation.
Remnants of burned coal beds are common in the hills away from the
river and are evidenced by fussed shale and sandstone "clinkers"
weathering to reddish orange. At some locations, a natural coke
has been formed.
64
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Structure
The structure of the Kukpowruk Basin area is a series of east-west
trending isoclinal folds occuring parallel to the front of the
Delong Mountains.
Strata continuity is displaced by larg&-scale thrust faults and
high angle reverse faults that occur principally on anticlinal
axies. The degree of deformation and faulting decreases northward
with gently undulating folds on the coastal plane province of the
basin.
The coal geology of northern Alaska is analogous to that of the
east slope of the Rocky Mountains and the Western Great Plains.
As in western United States, the mountain building process is an
important factor in developing high rank coals. Since the rank of
coal is a function of age of deposition and thermal and structural
deformation, bituminous coals are found in the folded and faulted
seams of the foothill strata. Lower rank coals are found in the
coastal plain, which is less disturbed.
In the principal area of coal occurrence, where a 22 foot coal
seam outcrops along the Kukpowruk River, a simple open symmetrical
fold plunges to the west with the dip of the bedding steepening
abruptly to almost 90° near the north and south boundaries of the
structures. The 22 foot coal seam, however, has an average dip
varying 12 to 15 degrees to the north-northeast within this syn-
clinal structure (Fig. 3).
Two large vertical transverse faults were mapped on the southern
limb of the syncline (called the Howard) which effects the princi-
ple 22 foot coal seam. One fault has a vertical displacement of
30 feet, and a horizontal throw of 1, 750 feet (Fig. 4).
Coal Se• Geology
In northern Alaska coal beds greater than 42 inches in thickness
occur only in the Corwin Formation. Of these, only one 22 foot
seam appears to have any economic significance at the present
time.
12 coal beds, 1 to 9 feet in thickness, occur above the 22 foot
seam, and outcrop where the Kukpowruk River cuts through the south
and north limbs of the aforementioned Howard syncline. These
exposures, however, were not extensive enough to determine if
mineable thicknesses occur, nor was exact correlation of beds of
similar thickness between the synclinal limbs possible, because of
the discontinuity of outcrops and lack of recognizable marker beds
(Fig. 5).
65
SECTION ORIENTATION N 16• E
SOUTH NORTH
TOI'OCRAI'MY JIX),t WEST OF SECTION ---------------------------------
KUKI'OII~ UK
RIVE~ .;-'
,./,
/r~-------------------------------------------
1' ............ ~~ ,._ u•
t
Figure 3
KUKPOWRUK RIVER AREA
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
66
HORIZONTAL SCAL.f
(h£TERS)
I I I I I
0 20 40 60 80
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal beds crop out only along the Kukpowruk River and some small
tributaries, and lateral correlation of coal bed projections away
from the river drainages were estimated by drill hole data, coal
rubble, and on the projection of resistant sandstone beds strati-
graphically associated with the coal.
The coal characteristics of the 22 foot seam are described as a
hard, bright vitrain clarain rich coal with well developed cleat
structure. Kaolinite occurs as a secondary mineralization film on
the cleat faces. Interlaminated carbonaceous shale occurs locally
as very thin, lenticular lenses (Fig. 6).
The roof and floor rocks consist of a thick sequence of very
friable, completely incompetent claystone.
Coal Quality
The Kukpowruk River coal has been analyzed as high volatile C
bituminous, soft coking, with low ash and sulfur contents. Test
results on a Proximate analysis basis demonstrate the following
coal characteristics for selected Kukpowruk coal:
Moisture
Ash
Fixed Carbon
Volatile Matter
Total Sulfur
FSI
Btu
2.8%
3.5%
58.5%
35.2%
0.25%
4.5%
13,860
The Kukpowruk coal is almost the same as high quality Western
United States high volatile coal, in terms of merit calculation.
Merit calculation is a factor based on moisture, ash, volatile
matter and total sulfur, without taking coking properties into
consideration.
The Kukpowruk coal is comparable to Australian soft coking coal in
quality and appears suitable for control of ash and sulfur in coke
operations.
Coal Weathering Properties
Coal mining will be on a year round basis, but coal shipping is
expected to be concentrated in a short summer period because of
ocean ice conditions. Therefore, mined coal will have to be
stockpiled. Limited oxidation studies suggest that Kukpowruk coal
is storable for reasonable periods, without excess loss of coking
properties. The oxygen contact of Kukpowruk coal after 5 months
of oxidation was slightly increased (0.2 to 1.0% moisture and ash
67
-
KUKPOWRUK RIVER STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION
M~TEA~
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
ao
10
SEAM ~-4
SEAM NO. S
1 n
0 <
"' "' "' 0
I
J
SEAM NQ I
SEAM NO.I
RIVER TRAVERSE
F lgure 5
~ 0 OVERBURDEN
t:Bl SILTY SHALE
[] SANDSTONE
• COAL
~ 0 IRONSTONE
~ SANOY SHALE
o.o"
3'-6"
4'-a"
a'-3"
6'-7"
u'-e"
16'-a"
----------------------------------------------------------------
F;gure 6
ROOF ROCK -10' DARK GRAY CLAYSTONE, VERY FRIABLE
AND NON RESISTANT.
-I em BONE OR SHALE BAND LEAF STRUCTURE VISIBLE
(POSSIBLE FUSIAN), SLIGHT WEATHERING. MEDIUM TO
THICK VITRAIN WITH KAOLINITE WEATHERING OF CLEATS.
0.5cm SHALE OR BONE BAND.
MODERATELY THICKLY BANDED VITRAIN
-PURE 4" VITRAIN BAND.
MODERATELY VERY THICKLY BANDED VITRAIN,
THICKLY BANDED.
REGION OF THICKLY AND THINLY BANDED
VITRAIN, NOT WELL DIFFERENTIATED.
ABUNDANTLY THINLY BANDED VITRAIN.
SHALE TO LOW
MOD£RATELY MEDIUM BANDED VITRAIN.
SCALE• l":z'
VERY THICKLY BANDED VITRAIN
GEOLOGY OF CHANNEL ALONG
KUKPOWRUK RIVER JUST EAST
OF USBM DRILL HOLE tt I
W. T. BELOW PERMAFROST. ---------.. .. ------ -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
free basis) and heating values were slightly decreased (80 to 150
Btu/lb moisture and ash free basis).
Coal Resources
The coal deposits of northern Alaska are characterized by a not-
able lack of exploration. The only area in northern Alaska which
has been explored as having a potential for an export market is
the Kukpowruk River region.
The economic potential of Kukpowruk depends upon the quantity of
coal economically extractable with current technology, and on
viable land/ocean transportation.
Since economic viability of the northern Alaska coal fields has
not been established, the quantity of bituminous coal delineated
by detailed exploration in the Kukpowruk Basin has been classified
as "resources" as opposed to "reserves".
The Kukpowruk resource base represents an estimate of all coal in
the ground meeting specific geometrical requirements (seam thick-
ness and depth of cover), whether economically recoverable or not.
Coal "reserves" are estimates of coal which can be recovered
economically using current technology. Reserves are calculated by
government agencies by applying recovery factors to a resource
base. This is a very simplistic approach and does not give ade-
quate consideration to the economic aspect of reserve determina-
tion.
Implicit in government reserve determination techniques is the
assumption that the cost of mining and transporting coal to market
is essentially the same in northern Alaska coal field as in coal
fields in other states. However, it is obvious that mining and
transportation costs and capital amortization charges will be
significantly higher in northern Alaska than elsewhere.
To account for the high anticipated costs in northern Alaska, it
is recommended that the minimum seam thicknesses should be 42
inches for bituminous coal and 10 feet for subbituminous coal.
The Kukpowruk bituminous coal reserve base estimate was based on
the following parameters:
Strippable Resources
a. minimum seam thickness: 42 inches*
b. maximum overburden: 120 feet
c. stripping ratio: 5:1
d. maximum degree of dip: 20°
69
Underground Resources
a. minimum seam thickness: 42 inches
b. maximum strata overburden: 2,000 feet
* ~: Obviously, seams thinner than 42 inches can be effective-
ly removed in multiseam operations which also con-
tain thicker seams.
The bituminous coal reserve base using the above parameters is
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Bituminous Coal Resource Base of Kukpowruk Coal Basin,
Northern Alaska Coal Field, in Million Short Tons (M.T.)
Mine. Method
Strippable 1
Underground
Resource Classification
Measured k Indicated Inferred
16.9 98.4
about 100 2 M.T. Total
Total
115.3
1It must be emphasized that the strippable coal estimate does not
represent estimates of "mineable" coal tonnages. There is a high
degree of geologic uncertainty with respect to the existence of
the coal, and recover factors have not been applied. The esti-
mates do form, however, a very rough approximation of order-of-
magnitude for in situ coal tonnages which may be amenable to
surface mining.
2The underground resource data is proprietary and only a general
statement can be made.
Transportation of Coal
An economic evaluation of transportation modes of Kukpowruk coal
from surface and underground mining locations consisted of two
scopes of work:
First, estimating the total delivered cost of surface and under-
ground mined coal to an ice free ocean port in southern Alaska.
Two routing locations were considered as shown in Figure 7: Dutch
Harbor, using seasonal tug and barge, and Seward, using railroad.
Second, comparing this cost with F.O.B. port prices for competing
North American and Canadian coal. In the same manner as infra-
structure development costs in remote areas, the need to construct
70
I
I,
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and operate a transportation system significantly affects the
economics of a remote mining project, particularly with a bulk
commodity of relatively low unit value, such as coal. It has been
assumed that most supplies would be backhauled on the coal trans-
portation system or barged to a point near the mine site.
The two modes of transportation are evaluated as follows:
All ~ Shipping ]OC Railway
This system would involve the construction of a railway through
delicate permafrost region from the minesite to the Alaska Railway
at Nenana, southwest of Fairbanks. For the Kukpowruk River mine
site, approximately 720 miles of new railway would be constructed.
This route would also permit development of other resources in the
Alaskan interior. Potential rail routes are shown on the Alaska
map (Fig. 7).
The unit trains would be unloaded at an ice free port in the
Seward-Whittier area. Because this transportation system would
operate all year, stockpile requirements would be nominal. A
stockpile of 250,000 tons capacity should be adequate to ensure a
smooth flow of coal. The port facility would be designed so that
train unloading and ship loading could take place.
Seasonal Shipping ]OC Barge
Coal would be transported from the mine site to the Chukchi Sea
coast by means of haulage trucks, belt conveyor or slurry pipeline
(Fig. 7).
Truck haulage would be by 180 ton bottom dump trucks over a heavy-
duty all weather road, which would connect the mine site to the
coal storage and barge loading facility on the Chukchi Sea. This
distance would be 25 miles for the Kukpowruk River mine.
An alternative method of transporting the coal from the mine to
the barge loading facility would be by means of a 36 inch belt
conveyor over substantially the same route as would be used for
truck haulage.
At the barge loading facility on the Chukchi Sea coast, sufficient
stockpile capacity would be required to permit the storage of a
minimum of 9 months production of coal. Loading facilities would
handle load two 60,000 ton load capacity barges simultaneously.
To reach water deep enough for safe barge operation, a long rock
filled pier would be required.
Coal haulage to an ice free port at Dutch Harbor would be by seven
4,400 horsepower tugs and nine 60,000 ton load capacity barges
with a loaded draught of 33 feet. Tugs would drop off barges at
both ends of the trip and pick up other barges which would have
71
POINT HOPE/
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I ~/NOME
I
I
I
' I
I
I
~ /
I
I
lt;:J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DUTCH 1 ~l
HARBOR 1 ~ 0
~ ~O!. ~
.~~~~.1::! ~
I
I
" "
... ,
,~, ... --
TRANSPORTATION ROUTES FOR
NORTHERN ALASKA COAL
\
I
I
\
............
0 100 200 MIL[S
I I I
•
EXISTING RAILWAY
POTENTIAL RAILWAY
POTENTIAL BARGE ROUTE
POTENTIAL COAL PORT
Figure 7 -------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
been either loaded or unloaded at the respective port facility.
This operating procedure would maximize the productivity of the
tugs.
The barges would be unloaded at the ice free port of Dutch Harbor.
This port facility would have stockpile capacity of 3.75 million
tons of coal and sufficient berthing capacity to permit the un-
loading of two barges and the loading of one bulk carrier simulta-
neously. Transportation routes are shown in Figure 7.
A third method of transporting the coal from the mine site to the
Chukchi Sea coast would be by means of a slurry pipe constructed
over the same route as would be used for the haulage road and the
belt conveyor. The slurry system would consist of a 16 inch
slurry line and a 12 inch return water line. The coal would be
dewatered and stockpiled at the barge loading facility for ship-
ment during the ice free season.
Transportation cost estimates will not be discussed because the
studies are either outdated cost wise or are proprietary in na-
ture. Suffice it to say that rail transportation is expensive
because there would be insufficient volume to ammortize capital
costs efficiently. Truck-conveyor-slurry pipeline and barge
transportation is, in order of magnitude, about 1/8 as expensive
as rail haul.
Constraints to Kukpowruk Coal Developoent
The principal constraints to the development of northern Alaska
coal resources are related to environmental problems, social and
economic problems, technical problems and marketing and transpor-
tation problems.
Envirol'llental Constraints
Environmental constraints to coal mining in northern Alaska are
classified in three general categories:
First, impact on the existing environment more from the influx of
population than from the mining operation itself.
Second, problems caused by climatic conditions: social and opera-
tional dificulties typical of a cold, remote location.
Third, difficulties in reclaiming mined land: permafrost safe-
guards and revegetation.
From a macroscopic viewpoint, much of northern Alaska is con-
sidered to be environmentally sensitive. The harsh climate has
resulted in many unique animal and plant species. Because of the
73
limited ability of the land to support wildlife, many animal
species either migrate or have a very large range area. However,
the extent of the caribou calving areas and bear denning areas is
restricted. The location of mines or transportation systems in
these areas could have major impact on wildlife populations.
Also, the location of transportation systems on migration routes
could affect wildlife species considerably.
Permafrost areas, especially wet tundra, are very susceptible to
environmental degradation. Careless travel activities over the
tundra surface during summer months could have long-term effects
on the thermal equilibrium of the active zone. The reestablish-
ment of equilibrium could result in either progressive erosion or
replacement of vegetation with different plant communities than
previously existed. Transportation corridors constructed across
tundra would require surface insulation to prevent progressive
melting of the underlying permafrost, and resulting problems of
foundation instability.
The cold, harsh climate and strong, prevailing winter winds are
constraints to mining operations. There are no year round sea-
ports in northern Alaska. Surface water freezes during the win-
ter, causing difficulty in designing water and sewage systems.
The effects of the cold weather and darkness upon various aspects
of human activity represent major considerations. Labor produc-
tivity will decline significantly during winter months. Cold
weather will also adversely affect the metallurgy and lubrication
of machinery, as well as operator comfort.
During the summer months, poor surface drainage will cause m1n1ng
problems. Handling of saturated, silty soils will be difficult.
Dewatering of blastholes and mining pits will require careful
attention.
The reclamation program will be constrained by surface conditions
and biological factors. During the winter, frozen soil is diffi-
cult to handle. However, when the soil melts it becomes a wet,
soupy substance which could be even more difficult to handle. The
extreme variations between seasons, and the short growing season
mean that scheduling of reclamation activities is more critical in
northern Alaska than in the Lower 48 states. Research work on
Arctic reclamation techniques is still in the early stages. There
has been insufficient time for feedback on test results and re-
sulting modifications to reclamation methods. The relative merits
of using native or non-native species have not been determined.
Much more work must be done before an acceptable reclamation
procedure can be determined.
Social and Economic Constraints
The following social and economic problems will impede the devel-
opment of coal mining in northern Alaska: labor, housing, trans-
74
I
I
I
I
I
li
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
portation distances, high construction costs to accommodate perma-
frost conditions, high energy consumption for heating buildings
and equipment, basic lack of existing utilities and infrastruc-
ture, and low labor and equipment productivity.
It will be difficult to attract and maintain a suitable labor
force in the Arctic. The majority of the public does not wish to
work and live in a remote location. In existing northern communi-
ties the incidence of mental illness, drug abuse and alcoholism is
far greater than in less isolated localities. Remote locations
are typified by a shortage of qualified workers, high turnover,
low productivity and labor disharmony.
Technical Constraints
Problems involving technical constraints appear to be the most
easily overcome of all problems relating to surface mining in
northern Alaska. Noncoal surface mines are currently being op-
erated under climatic conditions comparable to conditions in
northern Alaska.
The principal cold weather problems encountered in m1n1ng equip-
ment are related to inadequacies in metallurgy, lubrication, hy-
draulic systems and operator facilities. During very cold weath-
er, most metals become brittle and develop cracks even if normal
loads are applied.
Presently, no large-scale electrical power supply is available in
northern Alaska. New electrical systems would have to be built
and operated for coal mining projects. The extreme load fluctua-
tions caused by cyclical mining equipment could cause severe
electrical system difficulties.
Marketing Constraints
Potential markets for Alaskan coals are limited by coal quality
and by problems in transporting coal from an isolated area with no
infrastructure, under Arctic conditions. Although some of the
coal reserves are of coking quality, no high quality, low volatile
coking coal has been discovered; thus, Alaskan coals cannot com-
mand a premium price. Potential markets would be available in
Japan and Korea for both coking and thermal coal, and in the
western United States and Alaska for thermal coal. Thermal coal
could also be converted to other energy forms by gasification or
liquefaction, to compete in other markets in Alaska. Transporta-
tion beyond the Pacific Ocean area would probably be too costly
for coal of this quality to be competive with coal from other
market areas.
75
In the near future, marketing of coking and thermal coal in Japan
would be in direct competition with coal of equal or superior
quality from Australia, Siberia, China and southeast Asia. High
volatile coking coal from the western United States would also be
competitive. A market for thermal coal or coal conversion pro-
ducts may be developed in the western United States, although
competition could be expected from coal produced in the western
and northern plains states. However, environmental constraints to
mining may be more restrictive in these states because of the
greater population density and existing industry.
Transportation Constraints
Marine, land and air transportation systems would be involved in
northern Alaska coal development. Transportation constraints are
principally related to climate, physical features and lack of
existing facilities.
Marine transportation from the North Slope of Alaska is generally
limited to shallow draft ships and barges operating during the
short summer season. The shallow water and extensive continental
shelf, together with the Arctic ice pack and lack of dock facili-
ties, considerably complicate marine transportation and load-
ing/unloading operations. Shallow water, extending to 12 miles or
more offshore, limits the use of large, deep draft ships and
requires lightering with shallow draft ships and barges over most
of the coastline.
The Arctic ice pack extends south in the Bering Sea to approxi-
mately 61 degrees north latitude in the winter months, with float-
ing ice extending as far south as the Pribilof Islands near the
56th parallel. During the summer months, the Bering Sea is ice
free for approximately 5 months, the Chukchi Sea for 3 months, and
a narrow channel around Point Barrow is open for only 1 to 3
months. Pack ice may remain on or near Point Barrow until late
summer, and occasionally remains throughout the summer. Eastward
of Point Barrow, the pack ice seldom goes far offshore; ice move-
ment and therefore coastal navigation along the Arctic coast is
controlled primarily by winds.
Ground transportation in the North Slope area is presently limited
to winter travel with tractors and sleds because the tundra, when
thawed, will not support heavy vehicles and even low ground pres-
sure vehicles damage its surface. A newly constructed gravel
highway paralleling the Alaska pipeline route from Fairbanks to
Prudhoe Bay is presently the only land access route to the North
Slope. Construction of transportation facilities for movement of
coal overland to a seaport would be costly and require special
construction methods adapted to Arctic conditions.
Ground transportation would probably be by rail, truck, belt
conveyor or slurry pipeline. Construction of transportation fa-
76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cili ties in permafrost regions would require specialized tech-
niques to reduce the effects of the permafrost. Insulation of
road and track beds would be required. Mechanical stabilization
of cut slopes and prevention of ice formation in culverts will
require further attention. With pipelines, steps must be taken to
prevent freezing within the pipe and thawing of permafrost if the
pipe is buried. Above ground pipelines and conveyor belts can
interfere with animal migration routes. Mechanical components of
transportation are subject to cold weather problems such as start-
ing system failures, lubrication failures and low temperature
material failures.
Conclusions
As a result of the economic and geologic evaluation of the Kukpow-
ruk coal deposits, certain conclusions have been made with respect
to the geology and coal resources:
Geology and Reserves
The Kukpowruk River area coal has been assessed to contain the
largest deposits of quality bituminous and coking coal in Alaska.
The Kukpowruk coal has been analyzed as high volatile C bi tumi-
nous, soft coking, with low ash (3.5i) and low sulfur (0.25i)
content.
The bituminous coal resource base for the Kukpowruk Basin total
16.9 million short tons of strippable coal on a measured and
indicated basis, and approximately 100 million short tons of
underground coal on an inferred basis.
With the exception of the Kukpowruk River area, the degree of
exploration has not been sufficient to provide good estimates of
coal resources in other coal bearing areas of northern Alaska.
Coal in seams greater than 20 feet thick has not been identified
to any great extent in northern Alaska. The exceptions are the
20 foot thick Kukpowruk Seam and coal intersections of up to 30
feet in thickness, which were encountered in test wells on Naval
Petroleum Reserve No. 4. It is suspected that much of the coal
intersected by the test wells is carbonaceous shale. Generally,
the coal seams encountered in northern Alaska are thinner than
those encountered in other western states.
Past estimates of strippable coal in northern Alaska are over-
stated. Very little flat lying coal exists. Therefore coal re-
serves with less than 120 feet of overburden are limited.
77
Given the geology and the costs of northern Alaska, most coal
cannot be mined economically with current technology.
Environnent and Reclamation
The environment of northern Alaska is harsh. Special construction
and equipment operating techniques will be required.
The potential for success of reclamation projects in the Arctic is
unknown.
Insufficient data exists to make detailed environmental impact
assessments of potential northern Alaskan mining activity.
Technical Feasibility
The coal deposits of northern Alaska could be mined with currently
available equipment and mining techniques.
Economic Feasibility
The only bituminous coal source from northern Alaska which would
be competitive with other northern American coals is the Kukpowruk
River coal--but only when mined at a rate of 5 million tons per
year, to support the costly shipping and mine complex infrastruc-
ture.
In regard to strippable ~: assuming a minimum production life
of 20 years and 80~ recovery of in place coal, geologic "reserves"
would have to contain a minimum of 125 million tons of bituminous
coal, with a stripping ratio of less than 5 cubic yards of over-
burden per ton of coal, to support a strip mining operation. This
is far in excess of the current measured and indicated reserves of
about 17 million tons to a depth of 120 feet and with a minimum
seam thickness of 42 inches.
Kukpowruk coal reserves would have to be expanded by a factor of
10 before this coal would be competitive with existing North
American coal sources.
Currently, identified underground coal resources for the Kukpowruk
Basin are not economically mineable.
78
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Paleogeography and paleoclimate of the
Arctic Alaskan Cretaceous coals
W.K. Witte and D.B. Stone
Geophysical Institute, Division of Geosciences,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Abstract
High biologic productivity, as indicated by the enormous volume of
the arctic Alaskan coal deposits of Late Cretaceous age, combined
with the plant megafossils of those deposits, suggest the deposit
was not formed in polar latitudes. These two observations are in
conflict with the common paleogeographic reconstructions based on
paleomagnetic data from the North American craton, and the assump-
tion that arctic Alaska was fixed with respect to North America by
Late Cretaceous time. These reconstructions put arctic Alaska
within a few degrees of the pole at the time the coals were
formed. Even with significant climatic warming, the low sun angle
and long winters of such high latitudes are probably incompatible
with the observations. A possible solution to the problem is to
bring arctic Alaska in from the south along with the proposed
allochthonous terranes of southern Alaska.
Introduction
Extensive sequences of coal are found in the Cretaceous Nanushuk
and Colville Groups of northern Alaska. Coal resource estimates
for northern Alaska range from 100 billion tons to 4 trillion tons
(Tailleur and Brosge, 1975; Barnes, F.F., 1967) (Figure 1). These
occurrences seem anomalous when one considers that accepted North
American paleogeographic reconstructions for the Cretaceous and
Cretaceous paleomagnetic data (Irving, 1979) put northern Alaska
within ten degrees of the north geographic pole (Figure 2). This
raises the question as to whether it is possible for these north-
ern Alaskan coals to have been derived from forests growing so
close to the magnetic, and by implication, geographic pole.
Paleoclimatology and Paleobotany of the North Slope Region
Smiley ( 1967, 1969) interpreted the paleoclimate of Late Creta-
ceous northernmost Alaska as that of a "humid coastal plain, near
sea level". From an analysis of the latest Early Cretaceous
(Albian) to latest Cretaceous (Maestrichian) Nanashuk and Colville
floras, and Vakhrameev's (1964) Late Jurassic to Albian sequences
in the Kolyma and Lena River areas of Eastern Siberia, Smiley
79
00
0
-
'"· ~-. ·~ /
• "'1 ••
• I .... \,
Fig.l Present location of the Arctic Alaskan
Coal Province (hatched area). Tailleur and
Brosge (1975) estimated coal reserves of be-
tween 100 billion and 4 trillion tons for the
province. ------- -
+
~ +
~ . ...&--
Fig.2 Mid-Cretaceous (100 million years before present)
pole position and paleolatitudes for North America and
Alaska assuming Arctic Alaskan plate was in its present
position relative to North America in the Early Cretaceous.
(Paleopole from Irving, 1979) - - --- ---- -
------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
decided that the observed paleobotanical distributions were the
result of a widely recognized "world-wide" warming (Frakes, 1979).
This warming trend peaked during the Albian and was followed by
world-wide cooling through the Maestrichian.
Vakhrameev ( 1964) determined that Mesozoic Eurasian vegetation
zones were nearly symmetric about the present north geographic
pole and parallel to present isotherms (see also Chaney, 1940).
From these data Smiley (1967) concluded that Eurasia had not
rotated nor changed its latitude since the Jurassic, and that the
Atlantic Ocean had existed since the Late Mesozoic. At that time
(1967) Smiley observed that all paleoclimatic variations could be
attributed to world-wide cooling and warming without continental
drift, or shifts in the inclination of the Earth's axis of rota-
tion. Within the last ten years, general acceptance of plate
tectonics has grown so that it now represents a major paradigm of
geology. Smiley's earlier interpretations of Alaskan paleoclima-
tology have to be reconsidered in the light of modern plate tecto-
nic hypotheses.
Even if the Cretaceous was warm enough to permit extensive forests
in the polar regions, where accepted plate reconstructions would
put this part of Alaska at that time, which is 20° further north
than Smiley believed (Figure 2), plant life in those regions would
be subject to extreme seasonal variations in light conditions.
Incident light would also be limited to oblique angles, placing
additional constraints on the amount of photosynthesis possible,
thus adding to the problems of producing a huge coal deposit.
Wolfe (1978) notes that broad leaved evergreens with medium sized
leaves rarely occur north of 50 latitude today. He hy~othesizes
that the light conditions at latitudes greater than 50 , regard-
less of the climate, would impose seasonal variations that are too
severe for the general survival of broad leaved evergreens, and
that deciduous forms would predominate with perhaps a slight broad
leaved evergreen component.
In northern Alaska Smiley observed the Albian floral dominants to
be "ferns, cycadophytes, dissected ginkgoids and conifers" (Figure
3). Almost all contemporary cycads and conifers have evergreen
habits, while the only contemporary ginkgoid, Ginkgo biloba is
deciduous. However, the weight of the paleobotanical evidence
would seem to be against an extreme polar location for the de-
velopment ot· these coals.
The sometimes ambiguous relationships between living and extinct
plant species leads to a problem inherent in paleontological
generalizations. Interpretation of paleoclimates and botanical
habit, for instance deciduous vs. evergreen, is prone to error if
based soley upon taxonomic and strict evolutionary relationships.
Paleoclimatic interpretation should also be based upon the physi-
cal aspects of the paleobotanical material. Useful physiognomic
characteristics of broad leaved foliage include: type of margin,
size, texture, type of apex and the type of base and petiole
81
I
AGES FLORAL DOMINANTS I
I
c: I (lj > Angiosperms only c:
(lj
E Q)
0 c:
I c:::: 0
Q) N
()
>-~ I .....
(lj 2 CM w
if~b I ~~-·r-'., ~~ ~ ---~:-~ I Q) 1·-m;~---' c:::: WI· 0 Angiosperms ~~ N
and Ferns I -· · .. · c:
2 CM (lj
..0
<( I Q) -(lj
...J
Q) I c:
0
N
I
c:::: I (lj
:0 (D
<( I Q) 2 CMI ~~ Q) c::::
'U 0 l. 'U N
~ I I
I Early
Cycads, Ginkgos, and Ferns Albian <(
Q) 'j~ I /J-·-c: ~~ 0
N [~ --------I ?Aptian?
after Scott and Smiley, 1979
Fig. 3 82 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Wolfe, 1970, 19791); however, the physiognomic characters have
yet to be studied in the Cretaceous floras of arctic Alaskan.
One solution to the severe polar light regime is to assume the
earth's spin axis was inclined less than the present 23.5° during
the Late Cretaceous. This hypothesis was suggested by Wolfe in
his interpretations of Tertiary floras of Western Washington and
the Gulf of Alaska (Wolfe, 1978). A large gradual decrease in the
angle of inclination (to approx. 5° in the middle Eocene) followed
by a rapid increase (to approx. 25°-30° at the end of the Eocene)
could possibly account for the Tertiary climatic trends described
by Wolfe. Wolfe suggests that the spin axis of the earth changed
in response to precession and astronomical perturbations similar
to those hypothesized by Milankovitch ( 1938). The actual mecha-
nisms that could be responsible for such variations in the incli-
nation of the earth's axis are necessarily complex and have yet to
be adequately explained. While they could account for some of the
observed variations in climate and paleobotanical distributions,
these variations can also be explained through changes in the
local paleogeography.
Paleogeography and Evolution of the Actic
The paleogeographic configuration of the elements making up the
North Pacific, Arctic and North American tectonic systems must
have ha<l an effect on the paleoclimate of arctic Alaska. It has
become apparent on the basis of paleomagnetic, structural and
sedimentary observations that northern Alaska has not remained
rigidly fixed with respect to North America throughout the Paleo-
zoic and Mesozoic (Tailleur, 1969, 1973; Newman~ al., 1977;
Sweeney .tl:.al., 1978; Churkin .tl:li., 1979; Mull, 1979; Newman il
.al., 1979, Kerr, in press). The arctic Alaskan plate (Figure 4)
as defined by Newman tili. (1977, 1979) and Churkin (1973) is
believed to be bordered on the south by the Kobuk Suture and on
the north by a typical Atlantic type margin. Arctic Alaska's
eastern and western margins are less well-understood. The eastern
margin is probably marked by the Porcupine orocline near the Mac-
Kenzie Delta. In the west several boundaries have been suggested
(Sweeney, 1978; Patton and Tailleur, 1977) and include different
parts of Siberia, although most include a significant portion of
Chukotka (see Sweeney, 1978, for a discussion of this problem).
The motion common~y ascribed to the arctic Alaskan plate is a
counterclockwise rotation out of the Canada Basin, initiated in
the latest Jurassic and completed by the latest Cretaceous. This
hypothesis puts arctic Alaska in northern Canada in the Early
Jurassic, with Early Cretaceous rotation followed by a continental
collision with parts of southern Alaska in mid-Cretaceous time.
This reconstruction results in some possible conflicts with the
bathymetry (Newman &.t gl., 1979) and with the available magnetic
anoma~y data from the Arctic Ocean (Vogt il .al., 1979). If the
arctic Alaskan plate is taken to include the Chukotka and/or
Kolyma blocks of Siberia, as some authors propose (Churkin, et
83
I NORTH ~jo ~-I ATLANTIC '-....),
I
I
I I ~
Ia I
t----··-·-·--·-----·-·----
Fig A
NORTH
AMERICA
PACIFIC
Arctic Al:~~an plate (shaded) and its relation to other Arctic tectonic
~~lme~ts. Plate boundaries shown arP those of Churkin (1979).
84
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..aJ.., 1980; Sweeney, 1978; Churkin, 1973; McElhinney, 1973), these
problems are accentuated and a space problem develops in both the
prerotation conriguration and the space available for rotation.
In terms of the timing of the "arrival" of arctic Alaska in its
present position relative to North America, the geologic evidence
suggests that it should be in place sometime in the Cretaceous,
the exact time depending on how far south one places the colli-
sional boundary. A pervasive thermal event that reset many of the
radiogenic geochronologic clocks of arctic Alaskan rocks at 100
million years (Turner ~ £l., 1979) can perhaps be considered
circumstantial evidence for a Late Cretaceous arrival. Plate
tectonic evidence for the emplacement of the arctic Alaskan plate
in or near its present position by the latest Cretaceous is in
part based upon interpreting the Alpha Cordillera as a fossil
spreading center. If this was the case, then the timing of cessa-
tion of active spreading on the Alpha Cordillera is determined by
the presence of Maestrichian silicoflagellates in sediments from
the central valley (Ling ,tl. gl., 1973). If the Alpha Cordillera
were the spreading ridge involved in the initial opening of the
Arctic Ocean and the rotation of the arctic Alaskan plate, then
presumably all major arctic Alaskan plate movements must have been
completed by the latest Cretaceous. The nature of the Alpha
Cordillera is critical to this timing argument.
There is evidence that indicates the Alpha ridge is neither an
active nor a fossil spreading center. The Alpha Ridge lacks
almost all the geophysical indications associated with an active
spreading ridge, sucn as seismicity (Wetmiller and Forsyth, 1978)
and elevated heat flow (Judge and Jessop, 1978). Similarly, if
the Alpha Ridge had been an inactive spreading center since the
Late Cretaceous, it should have long ago cooled and adjusted
isostatically (Delaurier, 1978). Within 40-70 million years fol-
lowing the end of active spreading, the topographic relief on the
Alpha Ridge should be less than 500 meters instead of the observed
2, 900 meters. Alternative origins for the Alpha Cordillera have
been proposed by several authors: a sunken crustal block (King ~
.al., 1966), a transform fault swarm (Hall, 1970; 1973), a subduc-
tion or deformation zone (Herron, .e.t.a.l., 1974). Herron, Dewey
and Pitman's ( 197 4) subduction hypothesis would indicate a more
southerly origin for the arctic Alaska plate as opposed to a
rotation, an origin more consistent with the Cretaceous coals.
Large scale and disparate northward motions have been proposed for
most of southern Alaska and parts of western Canada (Monger and
Irving, 1980; Stone, 1979; Hillhouse, 1978; Jones ti ~., 1978;
Packer and Stone, 1974). Perhaps a similar origin is indicated
for arctic Alaska. One of the consequences of the overall "col-
lage" hypothesis for the formation of southern Alaska as proposed
by a number of authors (Stone and Packer, 1979; Jones and Sil-
berling, 1979; Stone, 1977; and others) is that there is no ob-
vious piece or original or "ancestral" Alaska. One of the few
pieces of Alaska that can possibly be tied to the rest of North
America is the Tindir area near the Yukon River/Canada border.
85
·-~
The remainder of the terranes forming interior Alaska have yielded
little evidence as to their place of origin or time of arrival.
It is conceivable that there was motion of an oceanic plate from
the "Pacific" into the "Arctic" as indeed has been proposed by
Churkin (Churkin and Trexler, 1980) for somewhat earlier times.
In this case, a model involving the northward motion of the arctic
Alaskan plate from the Pacific region, along with all the other
components of the Alaskan and West Coast collage, is quite plausi-
ble.
A Pacific origin for the arctic Alaskan plate does not require
arctic Alaska to be in its very northern position by the Late
Cretaceous, the lower latitude giving both less extreme sunlight
variations and a warmer climate (Figure 5). In this hypothesis
the Alpha Cordillera could then be the isostatically adjusted
remnant of a trench system active during the northward motion of
the arctic Alaskan plate. The tectonic features of arctic Alaska
usually considered as having been caused by the collision could
then have been formed to the south and also moved northwards. In
this way they would not necessarily represent events at the time
of collision.
Conclusions
Present geotectonic models for arctic Alaska may be in disagree-
ment with some Cretaceous paleoecologic and climatic interpreta-
tlons based upon paleobotanical evidence. Geophysical information
from the arctic Alaska and the Arctic Ocean tectonic systems is
generally incomplete, permitting only speculation on the evolution
of the arctic system. Proposed times for the arrival of the
arc~1c Alaskan plate in its present position, previously con-
sidered to be pre-Maestrichian, depended in part upon an interpre-
tation of the Alpha rise as a rift system. De laurier ( 1978) has
shown the Alpha Cordillera was probably not a spreading center.
Herron ..e..t. al., (1974) have suggested that the Alpha Ridge was at
one time an island arc system. This hypothesis allows speculation
as to a southerly origin for arctic Alaska in a manner not unlike
the other fragments of the Alaskan collage.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support provided by
Atlantic Richfield Corporation, which was both financial and lo-
gistic. Financial support was also provided by the National
Science Foundation under grant EAR 78-00817. We would also like
to acknowledge the expert guidance offered by Dr. R.C. Allison of
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
86
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
120?
Fig.5
Poss1bl~ location of the Arctic Alaskan Plate in the
E.:u·ly C~et.::. ceo u.s (circa. 120 f..1YBP) . 1\A--=Arctic Alaskan
Pl.:dJc, 1-Jl\,.:.:.~Jorth l1.fll.erican Plate, K=Kolyr;-.a Plate.
87
References Cited
Barnes, F .F., 1967, Coal resources of the Cape Lisburne-Colville
River region, Alaska, Contrib. to Econ. Geology: USGS Bull.
1242-E, 37 p.
Chaney, R.W., 1940, Bearing of forests on theory of continental
drift: Science Monthly, v. 51, p. 489-499.
Chapman, R.M. and Sable, E.G., 1960, Geology of the Utukuk-Corwin
region, northwestern Alaska: USGS Prof. Paper 303-C, p. 47-174.
Cnurkin, Michael Jr., Carter, C. and Trexler, J.H., 1980, Colli-
sion deformed Paleozoic continental margin of Alaska--foundation
for microplate accretion: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 91, p.
648-654.
Churkin, Michael Jr., 1973, Geologic concepts of the Arctic Ocean
Basin, in Arctic Geology, ed., M.G. Pitcher: Amer. Assoc.
Petrol. Geol. Memoir 19, p. 485-499.
Churkin, Michael Jr., Nokleburg, W.J. and Huie, C., 1979, Colli-
sion-deformed Paleozoic continental margin, Western Brooks
Range, Alaska: Geology, v. 7, p. 379-383.
Churkin, Michael Jr. and Trexler, J.H., 1980, Circum-Arctic plate
accretion--isolating part of a Pacific plate to form the nucleus
of the Arctic Basin: Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v.
48, p. 356-362.
Delaurier, J .M., 1978, The Alpha Ridge is nQ.t a spreading
center,in Arctic Geophysical Review, ed., J.F. Sweeney: Pubs.
Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa, Canada, 1978.
Frakes, L.A., 1979, Climates Throughout Geologic Time: Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 310 p.
Hall, J.K., 1970, Arctic Ocean geophysical studies: The Alpha
Cordillera and Mendeleyev Ridge, Cu-2-7: Lamont-Doherty Geol.
Obs., Palisades, New York, Tech. Report 2, 125 p.
Hall, J.K., 1973, Geophysical evidence for ancient sea floor
spreading from Alpha Cordillera and Mendeleyev Ridge, in Arctic
Geology, M.G. Pitcher (ed.): Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Memoir
19, p. 542-561.
Herron, E.M., Dewey, J.F. and Pitman, W.C. III, 1974, Plate tec-
tonic model for evolution of the Arctic: Geology, v. 2, p. 377-
380.
Hillhouse, J.W., 1977, Paleomagnetism of the Triassic Nikolai
Greenstone, southcentral Alaska: Can. J. of Earth Sci., v. 14,
p. 257 8-2592.
88
I II
I
II
I
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Irving, E., 1979, Paleopoles and paleolatitudes of North America
and speculations about displaced terrains: Can. J. Earth Sci.,
v. 16, p. 669-694.
Jones, D.L. and Silbering, N.J., 1979, Mesozoic Stratigraphy; the
key to tectonic analysis of southern and central Alaska: United
States Geol. Survey open-file report no. 79-1200, 37 p.
Jones, D.L., Silberling, N.J. and Hillhouse, J.W., 1978, Micro-
plate tectonics of Alaska--significance for the Mesozoic history
of the Pacific Coast of North America 1n Mesozoic Paleogeography
of the Western United States: Soc. Econ. Paleontologists and
Mineralogists, Pac. Sec., Pac. Coast Paleogeography Symposium 2,
p. 71-74.
Judge, A. and Jessop, A., 1978, Heat flow north of 60°N., .in
Arctic Geophysical Review, J.F. Sweeney (ed.): Pub. Earth Phys-
ics Brach, Ottawa, Canada, 1978.
Kerr, J.W., in press, A plate tectonic contest in arctic Canada,
.in Strangeway, D.W., ed.: Geological Association of Canada
Special Paper.
King, E.R., Zietz, I. and Alldredge, L.R., 1966, Magnetic data on
the structure of the central Arctic region: Geol. Soc. Amer.
Bull., v. 77, p. 619-646.
Ling, H.Y., McPherson, C.M. and Clark, D.L., 1973, Late Cretaceous
(Maestrichian?) silicoflagellates from the Alpha Cordillera of
the Arctic Ocean: Science, v. 180, p. 1360-1361.
McElhinney, M.W., 1973, Paleomagnetism and Plate Tectonics: Cam-
bridge Univ. Press, 358 p.
Milankovitch, M., 1938, Astronomische Mittel zur Erforschung der
erd-geschichtlichen Klimate: Handbuch der Geophysik, v. 9, p.
593-698.
Monger, J.W.H. and Irving, E., 1980, Northward displacement of
northc~ntral British Columbia: Nature, v. 285, no. 5763, p.
289-294.
Mull, C.G., 1979, Nanashuk Group deposition and the Late Mesozoic
structural evolution of the Central and Western Brooks Range and
Arctic Slope, in Ahlbrandt, ed., Preliminary geologic, petrolog-
ic and paleontologic results of the study of the Nanashuk Group
rocks, North Slope, Alaska: United States Geological Survey
Circular 794, p. 5-13.
Newman, G.W., Mull, C.G. and Watkins, N.D., 1977, Northern Alaskan
paleomagnetism, plate rotation, and tectonics, in Alaska Geolog-
ical Society, 1977: Symposium, Proc., The relationship of plate
tectonics to Alaskan geology and resources, Anchorage, Alaska,
1977.
89
Newman, G.W., Mull, C.G. and Watkins, N.D., 1979, Northern Alaska
paleomagnetism, plate rotation and tectonics of the Arctic
Alaska Plate, in press.
Packer, D.R. and Stone, D.B., 1974, Paleomagnetism of Jurassic
rocks from southern Alaska, and their tectonic implications:
Can. Jour. Earth Sci., v. 11, p. 976-997.
Patton, W.W. and Tailleur, I.L., 1977, Evidence in the Bering
Strait region for differential movement between North America
and Eurasia: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 88, p. 1298-1304.
Smiley, C.J., 1967, Paleoclimatic interpretations of some Meso-
zoic floral sequences: Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., v. 51,
no. 6, p. 849-863.
Smiley, C.J ., 1969, Floral zones and correlations of Cretaceous
Kukpowruk and Corwin Formations: Northwestern Alaska, Amer. As-
soc. Petrol. Geol. Bull., v. 53, no. 10, p. 2079-2093.
S'tone, D.B., 1977, Plate tectonics, paleomagnetism, and the tec-
tonic history of the N.E. Pacific: Geophysical Surveys, v. 3,
p. 3-37.
Stone, D.B. and Packer, D.R., 1979, Paleomagnetic data from the
Alaska Peninsula: Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., v. 90, p. 545-560.
Sweeney, J.F., Irving, E. and Geuer, J.W., 1978, Evolution of the
Arctic Basin, .in Arctic Geophysical Review, J.F. Sweeney (ed.):
Pub. Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa, Canada, 1978.
Tailleur, I.L., 1968, Rifting speculation on the geology of
Alaska's North Slope, Pt. II: Oil and Gas Jour., Sept. 29, p.
128-130.
Tailleur, I.L., 1973, Probable rift origin of Canada Basin, Arctic
Ocean, ..in Arctic Geology, M.G. Pitcher (ed.): Amer. Assoc. Pe-
trol. G~o1. Memoir 19, p. 526-535.
Turner, D.L., Forbes, R.B. and Dillon, J.T.,
Geocnronology of the southwestern Brooks Range:
Earth Sci., v. 16, no. 9, p. 1789-1804.
1979, K-Ar
Can. J. of
Vakhrameev, V.A., 1964, Jurass1c and Early Cretaceous Floras of
Eurasia and the paleofloristic provinces of this period:
U.S.S.R. Acad. Sci. Trans., v. 102, 261 p.
Vogt, P.R., Taylor, P.T., Kovacs, L.C. and Johnson, G.L., 1979,
Detailed aeromagnetic investigation of the Arctic Basin: Jour.
of Geophysical Research, v. 84, no. B3, p. 1071-1089.
Wetmiller, R.J. and Forsyth, D.A., 1978ff, Seismicity of the Arc-
tic, 1908-1975, ..in Arctic Geophysical Review, J.F. Sweeney
(ed.): Pub. Earth Physics Branch, Ottawa, Canada, 1978.
90
I
II
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
Wolfe, J.A., 1970, Tertiary climatic fluctuations and methoas of
analysis of Tertiary floras: Paleogeography, Paleoclimatology,
Paleoecology, v. 9, p. 27-57.
Wolfe, J .A., 1978, Paleobotanical interpretations of the Tertiary
climates of the northern Hemisphere: Amer. Scientist, v. 66,
no. 6, p. 694-703.
Wolfe, J.A., 1979, Temperature parameters of humid to mesic for-
ests of eastern Asia and relation to forests of other regions of
the Northern Hemispnere and Australia: United States Geol. Sur-
vey Prof. Paper no. 11 06.
91
Reconnaissance engineering geology
of the Beluga coal resource area,
southcentral Alaska
Henry R. Schmoll, Alan F. Chleborad, Lynn A. Yehle and
Cynthia A. Gardner
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, and
Anne D. Pasch
U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
Abstract
Reconnaissance work in the Beluga coal resource area has revealed
several environmental and engineering geologic factors that may
affect future development and that deserve further consideration
and study. Factors of concern include slope stability, earthquake
hazards, volcanic hazards. erosion and flood potential. One com-
plex landslide is east of the proposed Capps coal field mining
area, covering about 16 km 2• Many smaller slides, mostly slumps,
are in the vicinity and along bluffs of major streams. Another
zone of landsliding is along the west coast of Cook Inlet; linear
geomorphic features along the Nikolai escarpment, northeast of the
Chakachatna River, suggest possible large-scale gravitational
spreading.
Evidence of faulting, including escarpments prominent lineaments
sag ponds and sheared rock, was observed where a possible fault
has been postulated by others as an extension of the Lake Clark
and Castle Mountain faults. Additional work is needed to deter-
mine the extent and recency of faulting in order to evaluate that
aspect of earthquake hazards. The potential hazard presented by
Mount Spurr and other volcanoes has not been studied in detail;
however, work is in progress to establish a chronology of ash fall
events. Coarse grained volcaniclastic deposits occur in at least
three different parts of the area; these may yield other important
information concerning the volcanic history and hazards to the
area.
In July 1979, flooding occurred along the Beluga River as a result
of the breakout of glacier dammed Strandline Lake. Flooding of
this type is recurrent and threatens engineering structures such
as bridges and other low lying facilities. In a proposed mine
area of the Capps coal field, two core holes were drilled to a
total depth of about 180 m to determine the geotechnical proper-
ties of coal bearing Tertiary rocks. Principal lithologic types
sampled were: sandstone, siltstone, claystone, coal and diamicton
(glacial till). Based on strength index tests these geologic
materials can be categorized as ranging from soft soil to soft
rock. Much of the material can be easily excavated because of its
softness, but, for the same reason, such material also may be
susceptible to slope failures and to rapid erosion by running
water during the mining process.
92
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
The Energy Lands Program of the U.S. Geological Survey is focused
on investigations in regions of energy resource development and
has the following objectives: (1) determining the extent and
understanding the nature of environmental constraints to resource
development, especially those constraints related to geologic
hazards and the response of geologic materials to mining and
related construction activities, (2) assessing environmental geo-
logic effects of energy related developments, and (3) providing
information for decision making regarding efficiency of methods
for extraction and enforcement of regulations. Achieving these
objectives involves collecting and synthesizing data on landforms,
bedrock and surficial geologic materials, active geologic proces-
ses and geologic hazards.
The ongoing project discussed here is investigation of the Beluga
area, known to contain large coal resources relatively accessible
for exploitation (Patsch, 1975). The Beluga area project has two
principal phases: (1) surficial geologic mapping and (2) geotech-
nical studies of bedrock and surficial geologic material that are
involved in ongoing geologic processes, and that would be encoun-
tered during coal mining activity. The Beluga area is on the west
side of Cook Inlet, about 90 km west of Anchorage (Fig. 1 ). It
extends westward from the Susitna River in the vicinity of Mount
Susitna, to the Chigmit Mountains and the base of Mount Spurr in
the Tordrillo Mountains, and south to Cook Inlet.
It lies within two political subdivisions: the Kenai Peninsula
Borough and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Major cultural fea-
tures include: the electric generating power plant at Beluga;
Tyonek Village; the Tyonek Timber, Inc., camp, chipmill and dock;
and a limited road network not joined to the main Alaska road net.
Two major proposed coal mining areas shown in Figure 1 are the
Capps field and the Chuitna field. Proposed transportation corri-
dors extend from the coal fields to the coast in the vicinity of
Granite Point and Congahbuna Lake, and possibly from there to the
highway and railroad east of the Susi tna River. The Congahbuna
area has also been considered as the site of a proposed plant for
converting coal to methanol.
The physiographic and geologic features of the Beluga area (Fig.
1; Schmoll and Yehle, 1978) can be classified into three principal
units: (1) high mountains and foothills consisting mainly of
Mesozoic and lower Tertiary metamorphic and igneous rocks, (2) an
adjacent plateau underlain primarily by Tertiary coal bearing
sedimentary rocks with a variable, relatively thin cover of Qua-
ternary glacial deposits, and locally a thicker cover of possibly
Tertiary glacial deposits, and (3) lowlands underlain by relative-
ly thick Quaternary deposits, chiefly of estuarine and alluvial
origin, that are separated from the plateau by major escarpments.
93
--
5 0
I I I I,, 5
I
10 15
I I
20 25 KILOMETERS
I I
Figure 1: Beluga coal resource area, generalized physiography and geology,
-----------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The escarpments bounding the plateau are both structural and
erosional in nature, and are referred to informally as the Nikolai
escarpment on the southwest side and the Susitna escarpment on the
southeast side. The bedrock geology has not been studied in
detail, but the Tertiary sedimentary rocks are discussed briefly
because of their importance both as the resource rocks and as
major determinants of environmental geologic effects.
Tertiary Sedimentary Rocks
The Tertiary sedimentary rocks of upper Cook Inlet basin are
entirely continental in origin and comprise forearc basin deposits
of both early and late Cenozoic tectonic cycles (Fisher and Ma-
goon, 1978). Surface exposures in the Beluga area were described
in some detail by Barnes (1966), whose work emphasized coal depos-
its. The Tertiary rocks throughout the basin had been called the
Kenai Formation; primarily on the basis of subsurface data com-
piled during exploration for oil and gas, the Kenai was raised to
group rank, its divisions assigned to five formations, and their
type sections were defined by Calderwood and Fackler (1972). From
oldest to youngest these formations are the West Foreland, Hem-
lock, Tyonek, Beluga and Sterling, all in the Kenai Group.
The West Foreland Formation was subsequently removed from the
Kenai Group (Boss and others, 1976; Magoon, Adkison and others,
1976) in recognition of the widespread unconformity between it and
the overlying formations; it was generally regarded as early
Eocene in age (Franklinian biostratigraphic (floral) Stage of
Wolfe, 1968). It is thought to be latest Paleocene (Wolfe and
Tanai, 1980) and is the sole representative in these rocks of the
earlier Cenozoic tectonic cycle. In this area it consists chiefly
of sandstone and conglomerate that have markedly volcaniclastic
components, and it is barren of coal deposits. As much as 630 m
has been measured in sections exposed northwest of the Capps field
area along Capps Glacier (Adkison and others, 1975; modified by
Magoon, Adkison and others, 1976), although only about 270 m is
identified in the type section in a drill hole about 60 km to the
south. Within the Beluga area, it crops out mainly northwest of
the Lake Clark and Castle Mountain faults (Fig. 1 ).
The Hemlock Conglomerate, apparently principally sandstone, is the
lowest formation in the Kenai Group, although Boss and others
(1976) proposed that it be considered a member of the Tyonek
Formation, and Magoon, Adkison and Egbert (1976) in their regional
map compilation, did not map it separately from the Tyonek. The
Hemlock is the basal unit of the late Cenozoic tectonic cycle and
is generally regarded as early Oligocene in age, assigned to the
Angoonian Stage (Wolfe, 1977; Wolfe and Tanai, 1980); it is the
chief reservoir bed for oil in most of the Cook Inlet fields. It
is present in the subsurface in the Beluga area (Calderwood and
Fackler, 1972), and has been mapped northwest of the Castle Moun-
tain fault by Detterman and others (1976). However, Magoon,
95
Adkison and Egbert ( 1976) have suggested that the Hemlock Forma-
tion might be restricted to the southeast side of the Bruin Bay
fault.
The Tyonek Formation underlies the area of Capps coal field, as
well as most of the Beluga area southeast of the Lake Clark-Castle
Mountain fault system. It is late Oligocene to middle Miocene in
age; outcrops both near Capps Glacier and also along the Chuitna
River serve as the type section for the Seldovian Stage (Wolfe and
others, 1966; Wolfe, 1977). The Tyonek Formation is generally
finer grained than the West Foreland Formation, and includes sand-
stone, siltstone and claystone; it also contains numerous coal
beds, some more than 10 m thick. At the type section of the
formation in a well south of Tyonek, 2331 m are assigned to the
Tyonek Formation and include at least 15 substantially thick coal
bed sequences. Stratigraphic thickness of the exposed beds is not
well-known, and only a small part of the type section is presently
exposed, including two principal coal beds in each outcrop area.
In the Capps field area the upper bed is the Capps coal bed (named
by Barnes, 1966, who thought from surface exposures that there was
but one principal bed) and the lower one is the Waterfall coal
bed, the separate identity of which was established by Patsch
(1975) through intensive subsurface exploration. In places, what
was originally mapped (Barnes, 1966) as the Capps bed is now
regarded as the Waterfall bed, whereas at other places the origi-
nal mapping designation is retained.
The Tyonek Formation, as exposed throughout this area-seems to
represent only the upper part of the formation; this is supported
by a recently published radiometric age of about 15.8 million
years, derived from a volcanic ash from one of the coal beds along
the Chui tna River (Turner and others, 1980, p. 95; see also Tri-
plehorn and others, 1977).
Rocks asigned to the Beluga Formation (late Miocene age; Homerian
Stage and lower part of Clamgulchian Stage) crop out along the
lower Beluga and Chuitna Rivers and along Beshta Bay east of
Granite Point, and include sandstone, siltstone, claystone and
coal (Magoon, Adkison and Egbert, 1976; Barnes, 1966; Wolfe and
Tanai, 1980). Total stratigraphic thickness of the formation is
poorly known from outcrops; about 1.234 m of it is present at the
type section in a well near Beluga.
The Sterling Formation (late Miocene and Pliocene age; Clam-
gulchian Stage) is not known to crop out in the area, but it is
reported in the subsurface overlying the Beluga Formation, for
example in the Beluga well, where the uppermost 1, 100 m include
both Sterling Formation and overlying Quaternary deposits.
96
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In the vicinity of Granite Point 1 (Fig. 1. loc. A) there are good
exposures of bedded diamicton along the bluffs; these deposits may
be of glaciomarine origin, at least in part. They were thought to
be Pleistocene in age and presently are so mapped (Barnes, 1966;
Magoon. Adkison and Egbert, 1976; Schmoll and Yehle, 1978). How-
ever, apparently interbedded in the diamicton is at least one
anomalous coal layer, and lower in the section are interbeds of
sandstone that are similar in appearance to those of known Terti-
ary age.
The association of glacial and nonglacial deposits is difficult to
explain regardless of the age; the coal may have been deposited in
place or transported as a whole from another area, perhaps by
glaciotectonic means. Search for microfossils within the deposits
is now underway, and theser if found, should aid in determination
of a more definitive age, and possibly establish correlation with
diamictite assigned to the Beluga and Sterling Formations in drill
holes on the Kenai Peninsula (Boss and others, 1976).
Deposits that have been recorded as overlying the coal bearing
rocks in the Chuitna coal field (B.J.G. Patsch, written communica-
tion, 1979) are also inferred to be similar in lithology, and
possibly in age, to those exposed at Granite Point. We are stu-
dying the deposits at Granite Point in some detail because they
have not been described before, and because they are the only
surface exposures of deposits that may be considerably more exten-
sive in the subsurface than was believed initially. They are in
an area that has potential as a port site, and as the site of
industrial development. It is important to understand how these
deposits are likely to respond to construction activity.
Capps Field Area
Some of our work, thus far. has been concentrated in the area of
proposed mining in the Capps coal field, because it was thought
that this area might be the first to be developed (Placer Amex,
Inc., written communication, status report, Dec. 1977); apparently
this is no longer true. The surficial geology of that area was
mapped at a scale of 1:31,680, and a generalized version of a part
of this map is shown in Figure 2.
To date we have had two holes drilled within the Capps field area
(Fig. 2). The objective of the drilling was to obtain core sam-
ples, to determine basic geotechnical properties of the material
needed to evaluate geologic hazards, and to help predict the
response of geologic materials to large-scale coal mining and
related development in the Capps coal field. Specifically, such
things as natural and cut slope stability, spoil pile stability.
1Apparently named because of the large granitic boulders along the
beach; there is no granitic bedrock in this vicinity.
97
ground response to seismic activity, blasting effects, excavata-
bility, building characteristics and erosion potential need to be
determined.
Figure 2, Explanation:
Mapping based on interpretation of 1:40,000 scale 1952 air photos.
Deposits presumed to be 2 m or more in thickness and covered by as
much as 1 m of organic silt and fine sand, locally containing a
high percentage of volcanic ash.
Qygternary Deposi~
a Alluvial stream deposits--Chiefly pebble gravel and sand
with some organic silt
af Alluvial fan deposits--Mostly pebble and cobble gravel
c
1
m
me
oc
p
with some sand and organic silt
Colluvial deposits--Mixed earth materials of bedrock and
surficial origin, including organic deposits and vol-
canic ash moved by gravity down moderate to gentle
slopes
Landslide and possible landslide deposits--Areas of
ground having moderately to very irregular surfaces
Ground moraine and kame deposits--Chiefly pebbly sandy
silt with cobbles and boulders; bedrock common local-
ly
Lateral moraine deposits of the Carlson Lake moraine
complex--Pebbly to cobbly sandy silt
Possible outwash channel deposits--Pebble gravel in
glacier related meltwater channels
Pond and thick organic deposits--Chiefly organic silt,
organic fine sand and peat; includes same solifluc-
tion deposits
Tertiary Bedrock
b Tyonek Formation of Miocene to Oligocene age; mainly
sandstone, siltstone, claystone and coal; thin cover
of Quaternary colluvial deposits included in places
be Includes Capps coal bed
cw Includes Waterfall coal bed
Contour
98
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 2, Explanation. (Continued)
Geologic contact
Principal stream
Trench
Section corner with designations
Pond, small lake
Test hole: 1, U.S. Geological Survey core hole, 1979:
2, U.S. Geological Survey core hole, 1980
The 1979 hole was located so that the two major coal beds, the
Capps and the Waterfall, and the over and interburden would be
recovered, as well as material equivalent to that involved in
landsliding. Penetration of 121 m was achieved, reaching to the
upper part of the Waterfall bed, but relatively little of the
interburden was recovered. In 1980, a second hole was drilled to
a depth of 61 m at a site about 1 km southwest of the 1979 hole;
all of the Waterfall bed, some of the Waterfall overburden, and
about 27 m of underlying material was cored, with generally better
recovery.
Both geotechnical and geophysical logs from the 1979 hole have
been described in detail (Chleborad and others, 1980).
Laboratory testing of core material is currently in progress, but
the preliminary field tests indicate that the test hole material
can be categorized as ranging from soft soil to soft rock, as
compared with typical strength values (Fig. 3). The sandstone of
the interburden and also below the Waterfall bed was so friable
that recovery was extremely poor. This friability suggests that
the interburden could be excavated easily, but also that it may be
susceptible to rapid erosion.
Enviroraental Geology
Langslides
A study of the geomorphology of the area revealed a substantial
number of landslides, including some of large size. They are
found in two principal geomorphic environments: (1) along river
and coastal bluffs and (2) along the glacially eroded major es-
carpments. Landslides are more common in rocks of the coal bear-
ing Tyonek Beluga Formations, and less so in the dominantly
99
' m\
I
I
I
' I
'· ...
I
~--c-
__ ..:.Asz:::.:
-----~ b
oc ' -----"'\
.5 !4 .3 .2
gg) g)
Figure 2:
'
.I 0 .5 I Kilometer
}:g1 I I
' I,,
w \
...,.~ .........
I
: p
Mapping based on interpretation of 1:40.000 scale 1952 airphotos.
Deposits presumed to be 2 m or more in thickness and covered by
as much as 1m of organic silt and fine sand. locally containing
a high percentage of volcanic ash.
100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
I-'
0
I-'
very soft soil -
soft so i 1 -
firm so i 1 -
stiff soi 1 -
very stiff soil -
very soft rock -
soft rock -
hard rock -
very hard rock -
very very hard rock -
• Ol
Range of values of ,.--------·---, c apps coal field samp
I I
H I I
I I
I
I l I
I I
I
I I I I
I I I
I I
I I I
I I
I I t-f--
I I I'
I I
I I
0 1 10 100 1000
Unconfined Compressive Strength (MN/m 2 )
1 es
H Range of values by
various workers
Figure 3: Relationship between hardness and unconfined compressive strength in meganewtons
per square meter. (Chleborad and others, 1980, modified from Jennings and Robertson,
1969) 0
coarser grained West Foreland Formation; some are related to the
Bootlegger Cove Clay.
The largest of the landslides, about 16 km 2 in extent, is just
east of the proposed mining area in the Capps coal field. It is a
complex landslide and has surface indications of various types of
movement. Parts of this slide may have moved as many as 7,000-
10,000 years ago, whereas other parts near the head are presently
active. There are several smaller landslides, also within and
adjacent to the Capps field, some of which show signs of active
retrogressive enlargement. These slides appear to involve the
fine grained facies of the Tyonek Formation in association with
coal beds or carbonaceous zones. The susceptibility of such
materials to landsliding indicates the need for detailed study-
and for awareness of possible slope stability problems in the coal
mining areas.
River bluffs are affected by many small landslides, most of which
seem quite old; however, one (Fig. 1, loc. B) occurred in late
1978 or early 1979 along the Chuitna River and partially blocked
the river. Slides of this type are numerous within the area of
the Chuitna coal field. Such slides have occasionally caused
siltation of the Chuitna River, which is the principal clear
fishing and salmon spawning stream in the area. This natural
siltation is minor, however, compared to that which could result
from coal mining. To minimize such effects, development plans for
the Capps field suggest that all drainage from the coal mining
area be diverted to the glacier fed Beluga River, which is natur-
ally silt laden during part of the year. Preserving the quality
of the Chuitna River may prove more difficult if the Chuitna field
is developed, unless a similar diversion system or other protec-
tive measures are planned.
Mass wasting also is noted along coastal bluffs, especially north
and south of the mouth of the Chui tna River, where silt and clay
is exposed near sea level. Where similar material is exposed
along the Beluga River (Fig. 1, loc. q4, it contains marine mol-
lusk shells that have been dated by C analysis as about 14,000
years old, about the same age as shells from the Bootlegger Cove
Clay in the Anchorage area (Schmoll and others, 1972), providing a
rather confident stratigraphic correlation. The Bootlegger Cove
Clay then apparently extends across upper Cook Inlet to the Beluga
area and underlies a portion of the lowland. The Bootlegger Cove
Clay is well known to have been a "bad actor" during the 1964
Alaska earthquake, and is responsible for other but less dramatic
stability problems as well. Some of the coastal slides in the
Beluga area are known to have been reactivatd during the 1964
earthquake (Foster and Karlstrom, 1967), but are less extensively
developed than at Anchorage.
Another zone of sliding along the coast in the Beshta Bay area
(Fig. 1) is underlain mainly by claystone and coal bearing rocks
102
I
I
I '
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
of the Beluga Formation. Some of these slides appear to have
moved recently and may still be moving, as indicatd by tilted
trees.
Along the Nikolai escarpment (Fig. 1) are several straight, smooth
ridges a few kilometers long, a few hundred meters wide and paral-
lel to the slope, that are separated from each other by narrower,
grabenlike depressions. Although first thought to be lateral
moraines, the anomalous appearance and position of these ridges
have led to the consideration that they might be the result of
large-scale gravitational spreading, perhaps in a manner analogous
to that inferred for sacking features (Zischinsky, 1966; Radbruch-
Hall and others, 1976). These features should be investigated in
more detail should development on them be anticipated.
Faylb
The Beluga area is crossed by regionally extensive faults that
have been projected beneath surficial deposits or water, to inter-
sect near the Beluga River (Detterman and others, 1976; Magoon,
Adkison and Egbert, 1976). These faults are the Castle Mountain
fault, which is mapped in the northeast part of the area; the Lake
Clark fault in the southwest; and the Bruin Bay fault south-
southwest of the area1. The topographically most prominent fault
within the area is along the southeast side of Lone Ridge, and is
here called the Lone Ridge fault. Granitic rocks are on the
northwestern side and, presumably, Tertiary sedimentary rocks are
on the southeastern side of the Lone Ridge fault. Sheared rocks,
sag ponds and springs are present along the escarpment that marks
the line of this fault. To the northeast and southwest, no simi-
lar evidence of surface faulting is seen; however, numerous linea-
ments visible on aerial photographs roughly parallel the projected
fault traces. On the basis of such lineaments, the Lone Ridge
fault may be a segment of the Lake Clark fault, whereas the Castle
Mountain fault may be more readily traceable to the Bruin Bay
fault, perhaps along the line of the southern part of the Susitna
escarpment. The scant evidence presented by the mapping of linea-
ments suggests that the faults may lie en echelon through the
area, as suggested by Hackett ( 1977) on the basis of geophysical
interpretations.
No direct evidence for faulting has been found along the Nikolai
escarpment, which trends across the generally northeast-southwest
structural grain of the region. Although glacial erosion may be
responsible for the present position of the escarpment, the line-
arity of the feature suggests that the escarpment may be fault
controlled in part.
1on some compilations, most recently Beikman (1980), the term
Castle Mountain fault is used to include the Lake Clark fault as
well.
103
The Castle Mountain fault east of the Susitna River has been
active in Holocene time (Detterman and others, 1974; Bruhn, 1979),
but we have not been able to establish evidence of equally young
activity on faults west of the river. Should construction devel-
opment take place, however, some of the lineaments should be
examined for recent fault activity.
The entire area lies within seismic zone 3 (International Confer-
ence of Building Officials, 1976) and ground shaking from major
earthquakes can be expected to produce Modified Mercalli Intensi-
ties of VIII or more, and to cause major damage to structures.
Probable seismic acceleration for various periods have been des-
cribed by Thenhaus and others (1979).
Volcanic ActivitY
There is evidence of volcanic activity in the Beluga area, at
least intermittently, from before the time of deposition of the
coal beds to the present. Fine grained tephra (volcanic ash) beds
have been recognized within the coal deposits (Triplehorn and
others, 1977; Turner and others, 1980); the most recent deposition
was in 1953.
Coarse grained volcaniclastic deposits are found in several dif-
ferent parts of the area, and are of different ages in each.
These deposits originated as air falls, volcaniclastic debris
flows, and (or) volcanic mud flows from present day Mount Spurr or
from an ancestral volcano. None of the flows can be demonstrated
to have reached the sites of proposed coal mining. However, a few
kilometers west of Capps coal field, a relatively thick sequence
of upper Tertiary or lower Quaternary volcaniclastic deposits
overlie the coal bearing rocks. Exploitation of any coal beds
that may lie beneath the volcaniclastic deposits probably would
require underground mining, because of the thickness and nature of
the overburden.
A thin bed of volcaniclastic material in the diamicton of Granite
Point (Fig. 1, loc. A) suggests that at least some volcaniclastic
debris of probable late Tertiary age might have extended consider-
ably farther south and east than presently mapped.
Near the southern edge of the plateau (Fig. 1, loc. E) there are
accumulations of volcaniclastic debris at the surface within the
bounds of the Nikolai moraine. It is unclear whether these depos-
its were moved by the glacier as part of the moraine, or whether
they were emplaced directly as volcaniclastic debris flows. Such
flows may have spread over the glacier.
Volcaniclastic debris from Mount Spurr partly fills the upper
Chakachatna valley and is probably of Holocene age, at least in
part.
104
I
I
I
I
I;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thus, volcaniclastic debris flows have spread into the area at
various times in the past, and there is a potential for repeated
activity of this sort. Such flows, however, would probably be
restricted to the major valleys and would not cover the plateau
areas.
Evidence of recent volcanic activity is restricted to tephra that
has been noted in most of the windblown deposits of the area. and
within peat deposits. Most tephra probably originated from Mount
Spurr, although some of the ash beds may be from other more dis-
tant volcanoes to the southwest. At least one tephra sequence
probably came from Hayes Volcano, a small vent abo~t 35 km north-
west of Mount Spurr (U.S. Geological Survey. 1976) •
We have studied the tephra beds in the area in a reconnaissance
fashion, and have dated several beds in an effort to establish a
tephrochronology to give a preliminary es~hmate of the frequency
of air fall volcanic activity. Thus far, C dates of about 3,000
and 6,000 years before present have been obtained from tephra beds
at several sites, suggesting that at about these dates there was
fairly widespread air fall activity. The accumulation of at least
12 tephra beds within the last 12.000 years indicates considerable
additional activity, which we have not yet dated as closely.
The most recent tephra was deposited in 1953 during the eruption
of Crater Peak on the south side of Mount Spurr. One to 3 em of
this material can be seen at the level of the grass roots in many
places. Crater Peak is releasing steam and sulfurous smelling
vapors at presentJ and certainly has the potential for future
eruptions.
Ground Surface_Conditions
Ground conditions in the Beluga area range from firm (bedrock and
well drained gravel hills) to very soft (peat and muskeg).
The area is covered in part by several morainal systems that
provide hummocky but relatively firm and well drained ground that
has only local ponds and poorly drained areas. The two most
prominent moraines (Fig. 1) are here informally named the Carlson
Lake moraine. a large loop primarily in the Be~uga River drainage,
formed by glaciers; and the Nikolai moraine, a lateral moraine
that generally parallels the Nikolai escarpment and that formed
along the northeast side of coalescing glaciers in the Chakachatna
River and McArther River drainages. Both moraines may be about
1The distance from Mount Spurr given in this reference is incor-
rect.
2The term "Nikolai Creek glaciation" applied to a moraine of
similar age on the Kenai Peninsula by Krinsley (1953), but not
used subsequently (Karlstrom. 1964, p. 13), is here abandoned.
105
the same age as the Elmendorf Moraine at Anchorage, which is dated
at late Pleistocene (Schmoll and others, 1972).
Morainal deposits which lie outside the Carlson Lake and the
Nikolai moraines may be middle to early Wisconsin or older. In-
side the two prominent moraines. and closer to existing glaciers,
there is a complex of moraines which thus far have yielded early
Holocene ages. Younger moraines may be restricted to the imme-
diate vicinity of existing glaciers.
Beyond the Carlson Lake and Nikolai moraines are larger areas of
poorly drained ground. A potential transportation corridor from
the Capps field to the coast is likely to cross one such area.
Tracked vehicles already have had difficulty crossing soft, bog-
surfaced ground in this corridor (Fig. 1, loc. F). Development of
surface routes across such areas will require extensive use of
suitable fill material. The best sources of sand and gravel are
in the southeastern part of the Nikolai moraine, 25 km or so
distant from the corridor. However. lower grade sources of fill
material could probably be developed from closer sources such as
the volcaniclastic deposits, glacial deposits in the Nikolai mo-
raine, or older diamicton within the Chuitna field or near Granite
Point.
The proposed principal transportation corridor extending north-
eastward to the existing highway and railroad would have to cross
the extensive silt clay deposits that have been correlated with
the Bootlegger Cove Clay, and that will undoubtedly rate as poor
foundation material with some risk of ground instability; proper
route selection, however, could minimize this problem.
Flooding
The Beluga River is occasionally subject to flooding because of
the breakout of glacier dammed lakes, the larges~ of which is
Strandline Lake, which has an area of about 8.6 km (Fig. 1, loc.
6). Such breakouts are known to have occurred in 1958, 197 4 and
in July 1979. The 1979 flood washed out approaches to the only
bridge over the Beluga River connecting two segments of the local
road network (Fig. 1, loc. C). The effects of flooding along the
major portion of the Beluga River are somewhat mitigated by the
presence of Beluga Lake and lower Beluga Lake, which serve as
holding basins for the main surge of a flood; but the shores of
the lakes then are subject also to sudden rises of water levels.
Recurrent floods of this type should be considered in long-range
planning.
Slope failures have occurred and are continuing in several parts
of the Beluga area. The potential for slope failure appears to be
106
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
high in places that may undergo coal m1n1ng and related develop-
ment; many of the existing natural slope failures involve coal
bearing strata and associated clay rich beds. The likelihood of
significant earthquake or volcanic activity probably is not high
during the relatively short time span of mining operations. but
should a major earthquake or eruption occur during that time, it
could affect much of the area and should be assessed. The soft
ground conditions in large areas make careful route and site
planning necessary; sources of good quality fill material are
abundant locally, but are not readily available close to where
they probably will be most needed. Although other major streams
may have some potential for flooding, especially following land-
slide or ice jam blockage, the Beluga River is the most suscepti-
ble because of the presence of glacier dammed lakes within its
watershed.
References
Adkison, W.L., Kelley, J.S. and Newman 1 K.R., 1975, Lithology and
palynology of Tertiary rocks exposed near Capps Glacier and
along Chui tna River, Tyonek quadrangle, southern Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 75-21, 58 p.
Barnes, F.F., 1966, Geology and coal resources of the Beluga-
Yentna region, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1202-C,
54 p.
Beikman, H.M., 1980, Geologic map of Alaska: U.S. Geological
Survey, scale 1:2,500,000.
Boss, R.F., Lennon, R.B. and Wilson, B.W., 1976, Middle ground
shoal oil field, Alaska, in Braunstein, Jules, ed., North Ameri-
can oil and gas fields: American Association of Petroleum
Geologists Memoir 24, p. 1-22.
Bruhn, R.L., 1979, Holocene displacements measured by trenching
the Castle Mountain fault near Houston, Alaska: Alaska Division
of Geology and Geophysical Surveys Geological Report 61, 4 p.
Calderwood, K.W. and Fackler, W.C., 1972, Proposed stratigraphic
nomenclature for Kenai Group, Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska: Ameri-
can Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 56, no. 4,
p. 739-754.
Chleborad, A.F., Yehle. L.A., Schmoll, H.R. and Gardner, C.A.,
1980, Preliminary field geotechnical and geophysical logs from a
drill hole in the Capps coal field, Cook Inlet region, Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 80-393, 25 p.
107
Detterman, R.L., Hudson, Travis, Plafker, George, Tysdal, R.G. and
Hoare, J .M., 1976, Reconnaissance geologic map along the Bruin
Bay and Lake Clark faults in Kenai and Tyonek quadrangles,
Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-477, 4 p., 1
map, scale 1:250,000.
Detterman. R.L., Plafker, George, Hudson. Trais, Tysdal, R.G. and
Pavoni, Nazario, 1974, Surface geology and Holocene breaks along
the Susi tna segment of the Castle Mountain fault, Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Mao MF-618.
Fisher. M.A. and Magoon, L.B., 1978, Geologic framework of lower
Cook Inlet, Alaska: American Association of Petroleum Geolo-
gists Bulletin, v. 62, no. 3, p. 373-402.
Foster, H.L. and Karlstrom, T.N.V., 1967, Ground breakage and
associated effects in the Cook Inlet area, Alaska, resulting
from the March 27, 1964, earthquake: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 543-F, 28 p.
Hackett, S.W., 1977, Gravity survey of Beluga basin and adjacent
area, Cook Inlet region, southcentral Alaska: Alaska Division
of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Geologic Report 49, 26 p.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1976, Uniform
Building Code, 1976 Edition: Whittier, California, 728 p.
Jennings, J.E. and Robertson, A., 1969, The stability of slopes
cut into natural rock: International Conference Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, 7th, Mexico, Proceedings, v. 2, p.
585-590.
Karlstrom, T.N.V., 1964, Quaternary geology of the Kenai lowland
and glacial history of the Cook Inlet region, Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 443, 69 p.
Krinsley, D.B., 1953, Southwest Kenai Peninsula, Alaska . .in Pewe,
T.L. and others, Multiple glaciation in Alaska: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 289, p. 5-6.
Magoon, L.B., Adkison, W.L., Chmelik, F.B., Dolton, G.L., Fisher,
M.A., Hampton, M.A., Sable, E.G. and Smith, R.A., 1976, Hydro-
carbon potential. geologic hazards and infrastructure for ex-
ploration and development of the lower Cook Inlet, Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 76-449, 115 p.
Magoon, L.B., Adkison, W.L. and Egbert, R.M., 1976, Map showing
geology. wildcat wells, Tertiary plant fossil localities, K-Ar
age dates and petroleum operations, Cook Inlet area, Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations Map
I-1019.
108
I
II
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Patsch, B.J.G., 1975, Exploration and development of the Beluga
coal field, in Rao, P.D. and Wolff, E.N., eds., Focus on Alas-
ka's Coal '75, Conference, Fairbanks (Alaska), October 15-17.
1975, Proceedings: Fairbanks, University of Alaska, School of
Mineral Industry, MIRL Report 37; and Federal Energy Admini-
stration, Anchorage, p. 72-83.
Radbruch-Hall, D.H., Varnes, D.J. and Savage, W.Z., 1976, Gravi ta-
tional spreading of steep sided ridges ("Sackung") in Western
United States: International Association of Engineering Geolo-
gists Bulletin 14, p. 23-35.
Schmoll, H.R., Szabo. B.J., Rubin, Meyer and Dobrovolny. Ernest.
1972, Radiometric dating of marine shells from the Bootlegger
Cove Clay, Anchorage area, Alaska: Geological Society of Ameri-
ca Bulletin, v. 83, no. 4, p. 1107-1113.
Schmoll, H. R. and Yehle. L.A., 1978, Generalized physiography and
geology of the Beluga coal field and vicinity, southcentral
Alaska. in Johnson, K.M., ed., The United States Geological
Survey in Alaska--Accomplishments during 1977: U.S. Geological
Survey Circular 772-B, p. B73-B76.
Thenhaus, P.C., Ziony, J.I., Diment, W.H., Hopper, M.G., Perkins.
D.M., Hanson, S.L. and Algermissen, S. T ., 1979, Probalistic
estimates of maximum seismic acceleration in rock in Alaska and
the adjacent Outer Continental Shelf: American Association for
the Advancement of Science, Proceedings of the 30th Alaska
Science Conference, Sept. 19-21, 1979, p. 68-69.
Triplehorn, D.M., Turner, D.L. and Naeser, C.W., 1977, K-Ar and
fission track dating of ash partings in coal beds from the Kenai
Peninsula, Alaska--A revised age for the Homerian Stage-Clam-
gulchian Stage boundary: Geological Society of America Bulle-
tin, v. 88, no. 8, p. 1156-1160.
Turner, D.L., Triplehorn, D.M., Naeser, C.W. and Wolfe, J.A.,
1980, Radiometric dating of ash partings in Alaskan coal beds
and upper Tertiary paleobotanical stages: Geology, v. 8, no. 2,
p. 92-96.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1976, Geological Survey research 1976:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1000, p. 40-41.
Wolfe, J .A., 1968, Paleogene biostratigraphy of nonmarine rocks
in King county, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 571. 33 p., 7 pls.
__ 1977, Paleogene floras from the Gulf of Alaska region: U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 997, 108 p., 30 pls.
Wolfe, J .A., Hopkins, D.M. and Leopold, E.B., 1966 1 Tertiary
stratigraphy and paleobotany of the Cook Inlet region, Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 398-A, 29 p.
109
Wolfe, J.A. and Tanai, Toshimasa, 1980 1 The Miocene Seldovia Point
Flora from the Kenai Group, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1105, 52 p.
Zischinsky, Ulf, 1966, On the deformation of high slopes: Inter-
national Society of Rock Mechanics Congress, 1st, Lisbon, Pro-
ceedings, v. 2, p. 179-185.
110
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Geology-coal resources and mining plan for the
Chuitna River field, Alaska
John P. Ramsey
C.C. Hawley and Associates, Inc., Anchorage
The Chuitna River Coal Field lies approximately 50 miles west of
Anchorage in the upper Chuitna River area. This Tertiary subbitu-
minous deposit is situated in the southern part of an area gener-
ally referred to by the U.S. Geological Survey as the Beluga-
Yentna Region". The majority of the lease is situated between
Lone ridge to the northwest, Lone Creek to the east and the Chuit-
na River to the south (Figures 1, 2, and 3).
Significant geological ground work for the area was laid by Barnes
in his 1966 report covering the regional coal outcrops. The
present lease holders, The Bass-Hunt-Wilson Venture, began their
involvement with the property in 1967 by obtaining prospecting
permits from the state. Exploration drilling programs started in
1968 and were carried on annually in an effort to outline the vast
local coal reserves. The property was elevated to State Coal
lease status in 1972 and became known as the B-H-W leases and the
Chuitna River Coal Field.
In August of 19~0, close spaced grid drilling was undertaken to
study a possible open pit production area outlined by Bechtel,
Inc., a consulting engineering firm. A comprehensive program of
70 rotary drill holes and 29 core holes was designed to generate
geologic, engineering and hydrologic data for reserve computation,
interburden and overburden determination and preliminary pit de-
Slgn. The proposed pit area, one of a number of possible mining
options being considered by BHW, would generate an annual produc-
tion of 9.3 million short tons with a cumulative stripping ratio
of 4.4 over the life of the mine. Total mineable reserves are
relatively large, considering the proposed area occupies only 20
percent of the BHW leases.
Topography
Regional topography is that of a broad piedmont lowland of gener-
ally low relief (Barnes, p. 5). The lease area itself is part of
a glaciated plateau cut by post glacial stream erosion and covered
by till and outwash material. Elevations vary from 350' on the
Chuitna River to 1400 feet at the base of Lone Ridge. Lowland
areas are covered with muskeg and numerous small lakes, and spruce
and birch trees occupy the higher elevations. Local drainage is
generally south to the Chuitna River Canyon, which is the most
dramatic topographic feature.
111
,..,
1
PLATE 11
f
J
" •
l
~ ~ ; {It, N
I
4.'1!
!t ""' 4-+ \ • • !lifll(>l"t . ... .....
-.. 1'J t
•"'· .. --
·-
t
J
,I:'#Jt
General Locolion of lh• Chuilno Riv•r Cool Fi~ld
11 2
..
" ..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
------ -
• •
-
.... -
----
4 •
•.· ..
~~"' ~ ,. ...
/,
-
..
..... \ .....
-~ ... '~1 ... , .... .,-~
-~-- -
-
FIGURE 2
ll~ ,
...
---
oreos with
. so·····tisfoctory ! ttfip mining
c'*'<Sitions
t~
()IJniNE OF TERTIAR~. BASIN·
INDICATING AREA a:" FAVORABLE
STRIP. MINING CONDITIO,~$
FIGURE 3
----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Geology and Stratigraphy
Economic geology in the Cook Inlet Basin is dominated by terres-
trial sediments of Tertiary age. As early as 1898 geologists such
as Eldridge and Spurr recognized coal deposits in Tertiary out-
crops. Subsequently, various authors such as Barnes have made
more detailed studies of the exposed coal.
Oil and gas discoveries on the Kenai Peninsula in the 50s prompted
continued seismic work and exploration drilling programs, which
led to the oil and gas discoveries in the Tertiary basin beneath
Cook Inlet. This extensive data base has provided petroleum and
coal geologists a means to understand the stratigraphic relation-
ships of the Tertiary Formations in the basin and along its mar-
gins. In 1972 Calderwood and Fackler proposed elevating the
"Kenai Formation" to the Kenai group, subdividing it into five
formations: (in upward order) the West Foreland Formation, Hem-
lock Conglomerate, Tyonek Formation, Beluga Formation and Sterling
Formation.
The coal measures of the Chuitna River Field represent a major
section of the Chuitna member of the Tyonek Formation (Adkison, et
al., p. 12). Outcrops of these sediments along the upper Chuitna
River Canyon (Figure 4) were used by Wolf, Hopkins and Leopold in
their paleobotanical studies as the type section for their Seldo-
vian time stratigraphic unit. They place the depositional age of
the outcrops at early Miocene (Wolf, et al., p. A14).
In general the Tyonek Formation consists of a basal conglomeratic
unit, the Middle Ground Shoals Member and the upper, finer
grained, coal bearing Chui tna Member. The Middle Ground Shoals
unit consists of interbedded sandstone, pebble to cobble conglom-
erate and minor siltstone (Adkison, et al., p. 8) and corresponds
to the upper part of the lower "Kenai Formation" described by
Barnes. The Chui tna River State 1 well drilled by Pan American
Petroleum (Figure 5) penetrated the majority of the Tyonek Forma-
tion, and the well logs indicate that the Middle Ground Shoals
member is represented by the interval from 1844 to 6210 feet. It
appears to be resting unconformably on the Chickaloon Formation,
due to the fact that the Hemlock Conglomerate and West Foreland
Formation are not represented in this sequence (Adkison, et al.,
p. 12).
The Chuitna Member of the Tyonek consists of poorly indurated,
interbedded, sandstone, siltstone, claystone, minor conglomerate
and numerous thick coal beds (Adkison, et al., p. 8). It is
probably the upper strata of this sequence which outcrops in the
Chuitna river canyon and was called the Middle Member of the
"Kenai Formation" by Barnes in 1966. Adkison, Kelley and Newman
worked on the same outcrops and their 1975 report contains precise
lithologic descriptins of the strata. Their statement concerning
the probability of their measured sections 16 and 17 lying in the
upper part of the Tyonek and corresponding to the upper 600 feet
115
•.
/ "
.......,..., ~
yy/
-<, , • /~--..t. ..
"/·--•r-:""' IJto>
~
tJHW C«<l
.....
. ·~
.~~ . .... ·J
~ CHUITNA-•MEMBER, TYONEK F~l~
COAL BEARING ROCK OUTCROPS.P"'
·:t . GEOLOGY MOOIFtfD AFTER BARNES
I
--------------
f
"
FIGURE 4
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --·--
-.. ~ .. :.
" .. ~ • ..,.... • • .. t . .... -· .... ,.,,..: . ... '
~-·: .. i
!
""' ~UITNA .. RIVER COAL FIELD-oufcROP AND
~p MAP OF BHW LEASE AF£A
I • e t-.n
I
/ . I
I .. ·' ·i -~Y , .. ~
-. "
•
il -• 1' ....
FIGURE 5
of strata in the Pan American well, agrees with stratigraphic
correlations between BHW drill holes, the Pan American well and
the Adkison, Kelley and Newman measured sections. The lithologic
sequence and character of the coal beds indicated by footages 50
to 1500 feet on the Pan American well log correspond closely to
the stratigraphy of the Chuitna River Field. It is probable that
the upper 1844 feet of the Pan American well logs represents the
Chuitna member of the Tyonek Formation.
The stratigraphically highest coal bed in the Pan American well
corresponds to the Chuitna Bed referred to by Barnes. This bed
outcrops for seven miles in the Chuitna river canyon and is called
the Brown Coal in the Chuitna River Field. This bed and five
lower coal unlts comprise the bulk of the reserves of the BHW
leases. The entire sequence from highest to lowest is referred to
as the Brown, the Yellow, the Green, the Blue, the Orange and the
Red Coal Beds.
Assay data indicates that this is extremely clean, low sulfur, low
ash coal of subbituminous C rank (Table 1). The three lower beds,
the Blue, Orange and Red are within 300 feet of the surface in the
northern lease area and are particularly clean, averaging .176
percent sulfur and 7.63 percent ash with Btu ranges from 7800 to
8200.
Structure
Regionally the lease area is bounded on the northwest by the
Castle Mountain Fault zone and on the southeast by the Moquawkie
Fault zone (Figure 6). A minor fault running en echelon with the
Castle Mountain system forms the northwest boundary of the pro-
posed pit area.
Local structure in the lease area is generally very simple. The
beds are relatively flat lying in the northern proposed pit area,
with a gentle dip to the south which increases as one approaches
the Chuitna River. Dip of the outcropped beds measured by Barnes
varied from 0° to 15° south. A notable exception to the overall
simplicity is a mild structural anomaly in the central part of the
lease. This condition could possibly have been created by a
slightly plunging anticline and syncline configuration, noted in
the Bechtel study, but present drilling density is too sparse to
make a satisfactory determination. Minor faulting occurs in a
northeast-southwest trend sporadically through the lease, but no
excessive displacement is detectable in the proposed pit area.
Mine Plan
The preliminary feasibility study drafted by Bechtel revolves
around a tentative 30 year pit boundary. Preliminary engineering
118
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
... ...
co
------
,f
_1 •
--
.. ~.:: -· _. .. -,. ---. ' ,.,. .. .
-·--...... · .. +-···
- - -
\
;.' ., .. , .... _~ •.• , .......... ~~ ~ " ... :;t.
'( -.......
•, .......
-- -----
I
•
\
..
indicates extraction by a walking dragline and a truck and shovel.
A port facility and ocean going vessels are being considered for
transportation to Pacific Rim markets.
Two walking draglines, each with 50 yard bucket capacity, are
planned for overburden removal. Two 15 yard rock shovels will
load and a series of 120 ton haulage trucks will move the overbur-
den to an intermediate area, making it available for reclamation
use. The design of the pit allows reclamation to be carried on as
coal extraction progresses.
Coal removal will be facilitated by the use of two 16 yard coal
shovels and a series of 85 ton haulage trucks. The blasted coal
will be moved from two separate working faces to provide operating
flexibility. Plans are for haulage from mine to port facility to
be handled by a cable conveyor system.
Conclusion
The Chuitna River Coal Field is a deposit of unquestionable eco-
nomic viability. It is a relatively shallow, low sulfur coal
within 12 miles of tidewater. Climatic conditions would allow
year round mining and access by ocean going vessels. More impor-
tantly, it lies on uninhabited state land uncontested by any
federal land acquisitions. Development would provide a source of
long-term state revenue, in conjunction with employment for local
residents and a stable means to combat the present boom/bust
economy in Alaska.
Table 1
Net Coal Thicknesses and Assay Data
for Major Seams
Chuitna River Field, Alaska
Average Heating
Net Coal value
~ Thickness, it.. 1Mb 1 Sulfur BTU/lb.
Brown 28 10.13 0.33 7845
Yellow 5-15 18. 19 0.28 6782
Green 20 11.25 0.23 7862
Blue 28 7.34 0.16 8216
Orange 16 7.99 0.20 8054
Red 33 7.57 0. 17 7828
120
I
II
1:
II
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References
Adkison, W.L., Kelley, J.S. and Newman, K.R., 1975, U.S.G.S. Open-
File Report 75-21, 58 p., 1 pl.
Barnes, F.F., 1966, Geology and Coal Resources of the Beluga-
Yentna Region, Alaska: U.S.G.S. Bull. 1202-C, 54 p.
Wolfe, J .A., Hopkins, D.M. and Leopold, E.B., 1966, Tertiary
Stratigraphy and Paleobotany of the Cook Inlet Region, Alaska,
19 p.
121
Review of Mobil coal leases
-Yentna Region, Alaska
John W. Blumer
Coal Exploration Manager, ~obil Oil Corp. Denver, Colorado
Ladies and gentlemen, it gives me great pleasure to be here today
to discuss Mobil's coal holdings in the Yentna River Basin of
southern Alaska. I will discuss the geology, coal resources and
development plans for Mobil's leases. Two of these items are
fairly objective; however, discussing development plans becomes
quite subjective in nature.
As orientation, the first illustration (Fig. 1) indicates Mobil •s
coal leases in the Beluga-Yentna Region of Alaska. We currently
hold some 23,000 acres in 8 leases on the western flank of tne
basin. These are arranged in 2 tracts; the north, which we refer
to as Johnson Creek, and the south, which we refer to as Canyon
Creek.
The general area is located 90 miles northwest of Anchorage and 45
miles north of Cook Inlet. Access into the area is by air, with
the Skwentna landing strip 20 miles east of the leases.
Let me briefly review the geology of the area. The second illus-
tration (Fig. 2) is a slight modification from the map in U.S.
Geological Survey Bulletin 1202-C, Geology and Coal Resources of
the Beluga-Yentna Region, Alaska, by Ferrel Barnes. In 1973, when
Mobil became interested in the possibility of acquiring Alaskan
coal, this report was a mainstay of our knowledge of tne area.
From that point in time, up to today, our working knowledge of a
small part of the larger area has not changed the scientlfic
geologic aspect as put forth by Barnes.
The basement complex is a series of metamorphic and igneous rocks
identified as Early Jurassic to Late Cretaceous in age. To a coal
geologist, anything below the coal bearing horizon is considered
basement. Our only work on these rocks has been to map where
possible (or infer where covered) the contact with tne overlying
Kenai Formation.
The Kenai, which is our formation of interest, lies uncomformably
upon the basement metamorphic and igneous materials. The Kenai
consists of nonmarine clastics of a highly lenticular nature. It
is interspersed with coal beds of subbituminous and lignitic
nature. The only things that we have found in the Kenai resembl-
ing marker horizons are the coal seams themselves. Previous
geologists have noted the Kenai as being of Miocene Age with
possibly some Oligocene or Pliocene present. Our work has done
nothing to either strengthen or refute this dating.
122
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AL-75-3
0
100
JOHNSON
CREEK ... AL{77-6 8 UNDIFFERENTIATED DEPOSITS .,
150
0 KENAI FORMATION
[:oi,l:j INTRUSIVE ROCKS
h.id METASEDIMENTARY ROCKS
~ FAULT
o DRILL HOLES
ENERGY MINERALS-COAL /SYNFUELS
JOHNSON AND CANYON
CREEK PROSPECTS
ALASKA
0 MILES 6
0 12
KILOMETERS
Figure 1: Johnson and Canyon Creek prospects, Alaska.
CANYON
CREEK
AREA
Figure 2:
COOK INLET
(
l
-BASIN OUTLINE
ENERGY MINERALS-COAL I SYNFUELS
SUSITNA COAL BASIN
COOK INLET ALASKA
O MILES 30
0 so
KILOMETERS
Susitna Coal Basin, Cook Inlet, Alaska.
123
Overlying the Kenai are the extensive unconsolidated Quaternary
deposits. These are the glacial till and outwash materials and
the alluvial sands and gravels that tend to mask all of the under-
lying formations. The Quaternary deposits range in thickness from
a few feet to more than 400 feet, as identified by our drilling.
The structure in the general Johnson Creek area was estimated from
outcrops along Johnson Creek itself and from five miles to the
south along the Skwentna River. Everything in between is covered
with Quaternary sands and gravels. This outcrop information indi-
cates the Kenai is striking North 18° West and is dipping basin-
ward from 16° to 20°. I might add that it was virtually impos-
sible to correlate the coals from one outcrop to another prior to
drilling.
In the Canyon Creek area we had the benefit of several outcrops to
help with our projections. In the Canyon Creek tract, a north-
trending fault dropped the Kenai on the east side of the block,
exposing Jurassic metamorphics.
We believe the faulting in this case saved the Kenai from erosion,
preserving the coal section. On the west side of the Canyon Creek
tract, the Kenai dips at 10° to 15°. On the east side adjacent to
the fault the coal beds are vertical to overturned 20°, indicating
drag on the sediments along the fault plane.
In 1975, armed with the scant outcrop data, and with prospecting
permits in hand, we went to work to check some basic assumptions
concerning coal continuity, thickness, depth and of course,
quality. We drilled 2,000 feet in 17 holes. We found that the
drills utilized were undersized and were not capable of penetrat-
ing the gravels, especially the sequence in the Johnson Creek
area. Six of the 1975 project holes were abandoned within 30 feet
of the surface.
In 1977 we went back, using much larger drills and trying a couple
of new techniques to penetrate the gravels. This time we drilled
14 holes penetrating about 5, 000 feet, or an average of 350 feet
per hole, which just happens to be 13 feet more than the deepest
hole drilled in 1975.
Based on the 1975 and 1977 drilling results, we applied for leases
on the prospecting permit areas. Upon granting of the leases in
1979, we went back to the field for some in fill drilling. This
time we drilled seven holes for 2, 250 feet, or an average of 320
feet per hole.
As a result of this information, we have identified both our lease
blocks as potentially multiple seam mining sequences. In the
Johnson Creek area, we have from five to seven seams ranging from
10 up to 40 feet in thickness. In the Canyon Creek area, we have
up to five seams potentially mineable. Individual seams range in
thickness from 10 to 45 feet. In one area in Canyon Creek we have
124
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a coal zone where four distinct seams come close together, giving
us 63 feet of net coal in a 77 foot interval.
In developing resource calculations we applied the following cri-
teria:
No seam sequence of less than 10 feet net coal was considered.
No ratios of greater than 10:1 (virgin) were considered for any
given point.
No depth greater than 250 feet was calculated regardless of the
ratio (in a few cases at 250 feet, we were still working with a
5:1 ratio).
The bottom line in this analysis is that we have identified an in
place resource, well in excess of 500 million tons of coal, to
depths of 250 feet. Additional coal resources occur below these
depths as the seams continue on downward. However, for our pre-
sent calculations, we feel that 250 feet is an adequate depth for
us to consider.
Now that we have talked about the quantity, I feel it is time to
mention quality. Similar to the Beluga Lake area, the Johnson and
Canyon Creek quality is often dependent upon the amount of part-
ings in the seam. The ash for various seams and sample locations
has a wide range, that being from 6 to 40 percent. This, of
course, directly affects the calorific values received. Our pre-
sent work has established ranges in Btu from 5,400 up to a high of
9,450, depending upon the amount of ash present. Sulfur content
is constant at one tenth to two tenths percent in all samples.
These numbers I have just given are an as received--the moisture
content ranging from 20 to 30 percent.
In analyzing the situation, we see some seams that we believe will
maintain over 8,500 Btu/lb for quite a lateral distance. We have
looked at some of the other seams--especially those high in ash--
and have found that the limited samples we have washed clean, up
to an 8,500 ± Btu/lb product. These were the results for simple
laboratory testing at a 1.5 specific gravity float. Recovery on
these samples ranged from 70 to 80 percent at this float media.
We fully realize we still have a great amount of sampling work to
do on our lease tracts. However, our preliminary indications are
that by a simple washing of those seams that are high in ash and a
blending operation with the higher quality seams, an 8,500 Btu/lb
product should be achievable.
So far in my talk today, I have given you an overview of the
geology and coal resource. Now let me discuss development or, in
this case, development problems.
Mobil's past work had identified a large resource of subbituminous
coal, and we have evaluated the simple schematics for mining and
125
transportation. In comparison to other lease holders south of us
in Beluga Lake, we still have a lot of sampling and drilling yet
to be completed to bring our properties up to an equal footing for
knowledge of resource and potential mine economics.
You have all read various journals about energy crises, the resur-
gence of coal, energy independence etc. You have also heard about
new processes being developed such as Solvent-Refined Coal, or
SRC; coal gasification; coal to methanol, and carrying further
from this, Mobil •s newly developed methanol to gasoline. All of
this indicates that coal production should be increasing. This
increase i's factual--it is happening--but not by great leaps and
bounds.
I could talk all day about the problems in the coal industry in
the Lower 48 states and then compare those problems with an
Alaskan operation. You have all heard this several times, so I do
not feel that I need to reiterate the difficulties of developing
this coal field. Basically, the situation can be boiled down to
the old phrase "supply and demand". It is fairly obvious to all
that the primary market for much of the Alaskan coal is the Paci-
fic Rim countries. The economics of supplying coal that can
compete against energy, whether it be coal or oil, from other
countries or other parts of the United States will determine
Alaska's share of the coal market place.
I feel one of the major problems facing Mobil's Alaska coal is
identifying enough developable resource. The costs of developing
a mine or mining complex, the infrastructure for that complex--
transportation facilities to the coast and coastal loading facili-
ties--are all interwoven into the economics of delivering energy
to the market place.
Without enough resource to guarantee the potential customer an
adequate volume, longevity and dependability of supply, market
contracts cannot be acquired. In reviewing the capital require-
ments needed to develop mines and delivery systems in this area, I
doubt that Mobil will start detailed development without a firm
market commitment.
However, we have identified a resource. We will continue to
gather data on our leases, further evaluating the quantity and
quality of that resource, and refining our estimated delivery
cost. We will watch the various processes that are being devel-
oped to upgrade coal into higher quality products of a more easily
transportable form, to see if this new emerging technology can be
applied to this area. We are confident that some time in the
future the cost of extracting, processing and delivering Alaskan
coal energy will mesh with delivery costs of fuel from other areas
in the Pacific Rim market place. The main thing that we cannot
tell you at this time is when that will happen.
126
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ground-water reconnaissance near Graphite Point,
Alaska
Gordon L. Nelson
U.S. Geological Survey, Anchorage
Abstract
The Granite Point area, on the west shore of Cook Inlet near
Tyonek, has been proposed as a site for port facilities and an
industrial complex to process coal from the Beluga coal fields.
Present plans are to use ground water to supply the needs of this
development.
The geologic unit that is most likely to be tapped to produce this
water is a seaward thickening wedge of unconsolidated sediments
overlying Tertiary sedimentary bedrock. These sediments have good
potential for yielding many hundreds of gallons per minute to
wells north of the Chuitna River or south of Nikolai Creek.
However, in the area between these streams, which includes the
Granite Point area, the unconsolidated sediments are generally too
thin for large capacity wells. Near Granite Point, wells are
likely to be completed in weakly consolidated sediments of the
Kenai Group. The uppermost formation of the Kenai Group at Gran-
ite Point is the Beluga Formation, which is generally fine grained
and has poor potential for supplying water to industrial wells.
The underlying Tyonek Formation contains conglomerate units that
have slight potential for supplying water to large capacity wells.
The depth to the Tyonek Formation is unknown.
If industrial wells cannot be developed from the Tyonek and Beluga
Formations, they may be developed in the sediments underlying the
northeastern part of the McArthur Flats, about 6 miles west of
Granite Point. An oil well in McArthur Flats 12 miles west of
Granite Point penetrated about 800 feet of unconsolidated sedi-
ments composed largely of sand and gravel.
Water samples from five wells in the area between Granite Point
and Beluga River were of generally good quality. However, all
samples might require some treatment for iron and color. Dis-
solved iron concentrations of the samples ranged from 0.41 to 6.2
milligrams per liter (mg/L), and color ranged from 5 to 200 units.
127
Introduction
Granite Point is on the west side of Cook Inlet near the village
of Tyonek (Fig. 1 ). The Granite Point area has been proposed by
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and Placer Amex, Inc. as a site for a
54,000 barrel per day methanol plant. Granite Point is also the
likely site for bulk loading facilities for coal mined from the
Beluga coal fields.
The proposed methanol plant will require 7.2 million gallons of
water per day, if no recycling is used. However, current plans
are to recycle water and use 0.6 million gal./day as make up (Noel
Kirschenbaum, Placer Am ex, Inc., written communication, 1980).
Additional, unspecified quantities of water will be required for
the bulk loading facilities and other commercial and residential
development in the area. Present plans call for utilizing ground
water to supply the needs of the plant and much of the other
development in the area.
Most of the data on wells and water quality contained in this
report are from the files of the U.S. Geological Survey and were
collected by many hydrologists during the past 20 years. I have
collected only those data pertaining to the Capps Creek area. The
pronoun "we" in this report refers to all these hydrologists.
Ground Vater
The potential for developing large quantities of ground water
depends largely on the occurrence of extensive deposits of uncon-
solidated materials that are more than 200 ft. thick. All of the
high capacity industrial and municipal wells in the Cook Inlet
basin are completed in unconsolidated Quaternary sediments. Wells
in Tertiary materials rarely produce more than 50 gal./minute.
The coastal area west of Cook Inlet is underlain by a seaward
thickening wedge of unconsolidated glacial and alluvial materials,
overlying weakly to moderately consolidated sediments of the Kenai
Group. North of the Chuitna River and south of Nikolai Creek
(Fig. 2) the wedge of unconsolidated alluvial and glacial ma-
terials may be hundreds of feet thick near the coast. Between
Nikolai Creek and Chuitna River in the Granite Point area, the
unconsolidated materials are much thinner.
At Beluga the power plant well penetrated the top of the Tertiary
sediments at 420 ft. below land surface. In this well we assumed
that a density increase on the gamma-gamma log at 420 ft. indi-
cates a transition to consolidated materials. We used the geo-
physical log because it is commonly difficult to distinguish, on
the basis of drill cuttings, unconsolidated Quaternary sediments
from weakly consolidated Tertiary sediments. The geological log
of the well at Beluga shows a sequence of interlayered sand,
128
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I :
I
I
I
I
\ ~
600
152° 150°
0 50 MILES
................. ,......., ............ ,...-.L... .......
o ' 5o KILOMETERS
Figure 1.-Location of the Cook Inlet basin, Granite Point, and communities mentioned in text.
EXPLANATION
J..J..U Upianda boundary • hachures on upland
aide
• 50 Location of well that pentrated top
of Tertiary at 50 ft
• 75? Queatlon mark indicates well log not
condusive in defining Tertiary
> greater than
Outcrop of Beluga Fm
Outcrop of Tyonek Fm
Outcrop of other bedrock
j ~ ? ' f r MILES I I f I )
0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
Geology from Magoon, Adkinlon, and Egbert, 1976 151 °QO'
Figure 2.--Granite Point area, showing bedrock outcrops, depth to bedrock in wells, and locations of sites
mentioned in text.
129
gravel and silty clay that is similar to those penetrated by many
wells in the Anchorage, Nikiski, Kenai and Soldotna areas. Such
deposits typically contain multiple aquifer systems in which per-
meable sand and gravel units are interlayered with much less per-
meable, and areally extensive, glacial and lacustrine deposits.
No logs are available to us for water wells in the unconsolidated
materials in McArthur Flats, and there are probably not more than
five water wells in the area. However, the log of an oil well
about 12 miles west of Granite Point records the top of Tertiary
at 800ft. By analogy with other areas in the Cook Inlet basin,
we expect that 800 ft. of Quaternary sediments contain aquifers
capable of supplying water to high capacity industrial wells.
In the uplands (Fig. 2) the Quaternary materials are generally too
thin to supply the large quantities of water required for indus-
trial wells. An oil well near Granite Point recorded Tertiary
materials at land surface, and Tertiary sediments crop out along
the bluffs at Beshta Bay. Within a 4 mile radius from Granite
Point, Tertiary sediments of the Beluga Formation or the under-
lying Tyonek Formation are the only potential aquifers. The
Beluga Formation consists primarily of coal and weakly-to-moder-
ately consolidated sandstone, siltstone and claystone. Wells
completed in the Beluga Formation at Tyonek, and elsewhere in the
Granite Point area, typically produce less than 50 gaL/minute.
Wells commonly penetrate interlayered fine sandstone, claystone
and coal, and are completed in coarse sandstone units or gravelly
sandstone units that are less than 10 ft. thick. Figure 2 summa-
rizes the available information on thickness of unconsolidated
materials and distribution of outcrops of Tertiary bedrock.
In 1978 the U.S. Geological Survey drilled a test well near the
Chuitna River, about 6 miles northwest of Tyonek. The well pene-
trated about 22 ft. of unconsolidated gravel over clay that is
probably Tertiary in age. The Tertiary sediments consisted of
interlayered clay and coal to 320 ft. At that depth the drill
penetrated water bearing conglomerate that may be either a minor
conglomerate of the Beluga Formation, or a part of the underlying
Tyonek Formation.
The Tyonek Formation generally contains coarser materials than the
Beluga Formation (Adkison, Kelly and Newman, 1975), and therefore
has a somewhat greater potential for ground water development. No
wells near Granite Point are known to be completed in the Tyonek
Formation. However, the U.S. Geological Survey has drilled into
the Tyonek Formation in the Capps Creek field (Fig. 2). That
drilling, which was completed in October 1980, showed no units
that were capable of supplying the large quantities of water
required by industrial wells. In three of the five wells, coal
units were the principle aquifers and produced 20-50 gal./ minute
of ground water. In the fourth and fifth wells, water bearing
sandstone and conglomerate produced less than 25 gaL/minute to
each of the wells.
130
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Base Flow
After several days of no precipitation or snowmelt runoff, the
water flowing in streams is entirely derived from drainage of
ground water and is termed base flow. In order to aid in our
evaluation of the ground water resources, we have initiated bian-
nual measurements of the base flow at five sites near Granite
Point. Not enough data have been collected to estimate low flow
characteristics of streams in the Granite Point area. However,
Scully, Krumhardt and Kernodle (written communication, 1980) have
analyzed low flow of Chuitna River. The low flow characteristic
they use is the 7 day minimum flow that occurs with a 10 year
recurrence interval (termed M7 10 ). They found the M7 10 for the
Chuitna River to be about 0.4-0!6 cubic feet per second'per square
mile. If base flow of the Granite Point area approaches 0.4 cubic
feet per second per mile, then the requirements of the proposed
methanol plant and much of the port facility could be met by
diversion of some of the small creeks draining the uplands near
Granite Point.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water in the area may require treatment for iron and color.
Ground water commonly contains iron in concentrations that exceed
the national water quality standards for drinking water (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975). For some uses, colored
water may also be objectionable. At Nikiski, the most highly
colored water clogs ion exchange beds in an industrial water
treatment system (Charles Ross, Union Chemical Co., oral communi-
cation, 1978).
A water sample from a well 9 miles north northeast of Granite
Point (first well in the following table) contained about 0.150
milligrams per liter (mg/L) of arsenic. The same sample also
contained 6.2 mg/L of dissolved iron. The results of analyses for
selected constituents of five ground water samples from the Gran-
ite Point-Beluga area are presented below. More complete analyses
are available from the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division.
No chemical analyses have been made of ground water in the McAr-
thur Flats area. However, the eastern extent of McArthur Flats
near Cook Inlet is an area in which ground water is generally
moving toward the land surface. Ground water emerges in many
springs and small spring fed creeks and sloughs. Streambed mater-
ials in many of these springs, and in the streams below springs,
are heavily stained by iron and contain reddish slime deposits
probably formed by iron fixing bacteria.
131
Conclusions
Industrial water supplies are probably available from ground water
sources in McArthur Flats, about 6 miles from Granite Point, and
possibly from surface water sources in the uplands near Granite
Point. However, the successful completion of industrial supply
wells in the uplands near Granite Point is unlikely. Ground water
is likely to require treatment for iron and may require treatment
for color producing compounds. No water quality data are avail-
able from springs or wells in McArthur Flats.
Refereuces
Adkison, W.L., Kelly, J.S. and Newman, K.R., 1975, Lithology and
palynology of Tertiary rocks exposed near Capps Glacier and
along Chui tna River, Tyonek quadrangle, southern Alaska: U.S.
Geological Survey open file report 75-21, 58 p., 1 pl., 1 table.
Barnes, F.F., 1966, Geology and coal resources of the Beluga-
Yentna region, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1202-C,
p. C 1-C54.
Magoon, L.B., Adkison, W.L., and Egbert, R.M., 1976, Map showing
geology, wildcat wells, Tertiary plant fossil localities, K-Ar
age dates, and petroleum operations, Cook Inlet area, Alaska:
U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series I-
1 019, 3 sheets.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, National interim pri-
mary drinking water regulations: Federal Register, v. 40, no.
248, Wednesday, December 24, 1975, Part IV, p. 59566-59587.
132
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
....... w w
Depth Iron
Location Date (ft.) (mg/L)
Sec. 8, T.12 N. ' 9-30-77 68 6.2 1
R. 1 1 w.
Sec. 20, T.12 N., 6-23-78 320 0.441
R. 11 w.
Sec. 3, T. 12 N. ' 9-30-77 97 1 • 8 1
R. 11 w.
Sec. 1 ' T. 11 N., 11-13-70 177 2.4 4
R. 11 w.
Sec. 1 ' T. 11 N. , 10-04-66 100 1 • 6 1
R. 11 w.
Sec. 25, T.13 N., 11-18-76 515 1 • 5 1
R. 10 w.
Footnotes: 1 = dissolved
2 = residue on evaporation at 180°C.
3 = calculated
4 = total
Hardness Dissolv.
as Caco 3 Color solids
(mg/L) (units) (mg/L)
290 12 354 2
32 200 883
75 40 982
40 10 2183
46 5 1573
41 12 1713
Where do we go from here?
Joseph W. Leonard
Dean. College of Mineral and Energy Resources. West Virginia Univ ••
Morgantown. West Virginia
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to you on this
occasion of the "Focus on Alaska Coal--1980", and it is also a
pleasure to have the opportunity to revisit my long time friends
here at the University of Alaska.
The subject of coal has been of interest to me from the time that
I first mined coal at age seventeen as a means to work my way
through college and obtain a degree in Mining Engineering. My
association with coal stretches back over a period of thirty years
beginning as a coal miner in the Pennsylvania Anthracite Mines,
where I progressed to an Assistant to the Divisional Superintend-
ent. My work in the mines was followed by a varied career in
production, engineering and academia. I suspect my fascination
with coal has a genetic basis. My family has been associated with
coal for over five generations both as coal miners and mine bos-
ses. Maintaining the tradition is my oldest son who is a mining
engineer and my youngest son who is studying to be a mining engi-
neer.
After this short introduction, I would like to share with you a
few lessons that I have learned which may be relevant to the
development of Alaskan coals. One of the early lessons that I
learned is that few people want to use coal. In 1948 when I went
to work as a coal mine laborer, the company that I worked for was
operating twenty-six deep mines and a large number of surface
mines. It had been, at one period in its long history, the
wealthiest corporation in the world. By 1955, the same company
could claim only two deep mines and a greatly reduced number of
surface mines with thousands of men permanently unemployed. Many
of the unemployed miners had long previously converted their homes
to oil and gas heating but continued to vigorously support the use
of coal as long as it was being used by someone else. The company
went into bankruptcy.
This situation resulted from the fact that abundant foreign oil
and domestic natural gas became available as a result of victories
in war and our nation's expanding international role. The public
then immediately took steps to change from the less preferred and
less costly coal to the more preferred but higher costing oil and
gas. History teaches us that the industrial revolution in England
and Europe, where large tonnages of coal were first used in the
manufacture of steel, was brought about mainly because the then-
preferred forest and wood supplies had been depleted.
134
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Another lesson that I learned was that the reason for resistance
to the use of coal derives basically from the fact that it is a
solid and that it contains ash. The liquid and gaseous hydrocar-
bon fuels do not have these problems. In addition to the tradi-
tional problem of coal being the least preferred fuel, other
problems have developed to hinder the usage of coal through the
numerous environmental regulations of recent years. Add to these
problems the increased difficulty of mining coal as a result of
the many new safety laws and regulations, and it is not difficult
to understand the origin of the somewhat cynical cliche' that is
frequently passed through the coal industry that "you cannot mine
it and you cannot burn it".
There are historic difficulties in getting society to use abundant
and low-cost coal when other preferable but higher-cost fuels are
available. It is probably safe to predict, therefore, that since
coal was the first of the fossil fuels mined it will probably also
be the last.
Moreover, I have long suspected that our national planners have
rightfully taken the position that it is always best to use some-
one else's irreplaceable natural resources, if they are available,
rather than our own. To those areas, regions and people who
depend upon coal for an immediate livlihood, or as a hope for the
future, this rational plan often seems extremely irrational. The
net result of this attitude is that the huge reserve of coal that
we have within our borders has historically provided us with
energy independence. However, we need to remember that this
independence is based on a nonpreferred fossil fuel. This
nonpre!erred fuel independence has caused great dependence on the
rapidly depleting and uncertain supply of preferred fuels which in
turn causes repeated boom and bust cycles in the coal industry.
This nation's luxurious habit of using coal when necessary, and
not us1ng it if at all possible, is a major factor in our current
depression. We are probably looking at a translation of the boom
and bust cycle of the coal industry into the national economy. It
might be said that the boom and bust cycle disease is spreading.
We can hope that the wide scale swings in coal usage during the
past years will be somewhat dampened in the future as a result of
all forms or conversion, as well as a result of export demands,
but it is quite unlikely that these cycles will ever completely go
away. I predict that the economic health of the nation in the
future will correlate directly with the economic health of the
coal industry. This will be a direct reversal of trends of the
recent past, where a heal thy national economy correlated with a
weak coal industry.
Currently, in the Appalachian coal fields, we continue to operate
at high tonnage levels which are comparable with those of the 1973
boom period. Current production, however, is substantially below
industry capacity, and overall coal realization value is down as a
result of weak demand for metallurgical coal. Failure to reach
capacity is due in large measure to overloaded export facilities,
135
caused by a demand for lower valued steam coals. Although there
is currently a growing and impressive overseas market for steam
coal, it appears that our port facilities are currently inadequate
to handle this developing demand. This current demand is so
great, as a result of the Middle Eastern War, that as of a few
days ago there were 12,500 railroad cars waiting to serve 92 ships
in the Port of Norfolk. Some ships waited for as long as 35 days,
with loading delay cost well over one hundred million dollars.
So much for the bad news. Now, let's talk about the good news.
Or, where do we go from here? Tnere is no doubt about the exten-
siv~ future use of coal, including Alaskan coal. The extensive
use of your coal, like the use of your oil, will undoubtedly reach
a maximum tonnage when many of the nation's other coal fields are
at and beyond maturity. In the meantime, a great deal of work
needs to be done. Motivation for the type of work that needs to
be done can easily be derived from studying the experiences of
Minnesota, Illinois and West Virginia, to name a few.
Many years ago at the University of Minnesota, during a period
when the reserves of direct shipping iron ores appeared to be
unlimited, research was undertaken on the beneficiation of the
iron bearing Taconites. This research must have looked irrelevant
at the time that it was undertaken. Almost forty years of work
went into Tacon1te research before the actual use of this extreme-
ly finely disseminated iron ore was realized. When the seemingly
inexhaustable direct shipping iron ores of Minnesota were finally
depleted, private industry turned extensively to the years of
documented research conducted by the University of Minnesota, and
used these findings as a basis for giving birth to a whole new
Taconite based industry in that state. This industry continues to
flourish and grow.
The experience of the State of Illinois closely follows tnat of
Minnesota in that it was once believed that none of the Illinois
coals could be coked. Nevertheless, the State of Illinois under-
took thirty to forty years of research work to overcome early
doubts. This work eventually had a major impact on getting sig-
nificant quantities of Illinois coal used in coke production.
Hence, the usage of Illinois coal in coking is alive and well
today thanks to far sighted research policies.
A final and very recent example can be shown by some universities
like West Virginia University that, along with a number of federal
agencies, conducted much research over many years on the mining,
preparation and utilization of coal, involving both gasification
and liquefaction. The payoff to many years of coal research is
evident in the many already-in-place mine site power stations, and
the scheduled new liquefaction plants that are planned for
development in different parts of the United States. Hence, one
of the nation's first full scale coal-to-liquid commercial plants
will be jointly constructed at Morgantown, West Virginia by the
federal government and private American industry, as well as with
German and Japanese government participation.
136
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The lesson that is clear for Alaska is that with oil flowing, and
with the availability of financial resources, the development of
more knowledge and understanding of Alaskan coal is needed. Al-
though an excellent beginning has been made in your School of
Mineral Industry, this is only a basic beginning. There is need
for much more applied research involving a substantial commitment
of resources. There is an obvious need for more mining explora-
tion research derived through extensive drilling programs, and
making liberal use of mathematical based sampling theory. There
is also a need for coal cleaning studies, mineability studies,
transportation studies and world market studies.
Consideration should be given to the development of a complete
coke testing facility with pilot scale coke test oven and petro-
graphic laboratory. Tests of Alaskan coals with blends of other
world coals could shed much light on some possible interesting
combinations. Extensive coal characterization studies are needed
to see how Alaskan coals differ from other comparable coals.
Differences in coal properties determine whether coal will or will
not be used. Cold weather extraction and transportation studies
as well as studies based on the geographic position of Alaska
relative to present and future markets are obvious and logical
needs.
An extensive compilation of the foregoing types of research can do
much to hasten the time when Alaskan coals will be used. With an
expected gradual increase leading to large increases in the use of
Alaskan coals, the state will greatly benefit by the many new
developments taking place in the coal industry today. With such
present and future developments, large-scale production of Alaskan
coal may not suffer from the many problems encountered in other
coal industries of the world.
Finally, coal has always been a civilizing influence. Where there
are large reserves of coal such as the billions or trillions of
tons that are estimated to occur within Alaska's borders, we can
fully expect the eventual development of large permanent popula-
tion centers. Many of the great population centers of the world
were literally built and maintained on top of coal reserves. Gold
rushes, oil rushes, and religious movements have had a powerful
effect on the spreading and redistribution of population; but
perhaps the greatest rush of all is the coal rush. It appears
that Alaska's pending coal rush will be the next great and excit-
ing event to happen to your state.
137
Geology and coal resources of the
lower Lignite Creek area
Steve W. Denton
Company Engineer. Usibelli Coal Mine. Healy. Alaska
Introduction
The Lower Lignite CreeK Basin is located four miles north of
Healy, Alaska. It is the site of present mining and will be the
site of much future mining in the Nenana Coal Field. The coal
be~ri~g group in the Nenana Coal Field is of Tertiary age, over-
laln 1n some areas by several thousand feet of Tertiary gravels -
the Nenana gravels.
In areas mined by surface methods the Nenana gravels are eroded
off, and up to one hundred feet of Quaternary outwash gravels
overlay the coal bearing formations. The coal bearing group is
divided into five formations: Healy Creek, Sanctuary, Suntrana,
Lignite and GrubstaKe. The Healy Creek formation is the oldest,
at early Miocene age; the Grubstake formation is the youngest, at
late Miocene or early Pliocene age.
Only two members of the coal bearing group--the Healy Creek and
Suntrana--have been mined, and it is unlikely that the other
members contain economic deposits of coal.
Geology
Lignite Creek, near its mouth, lies on the north limb of a west-
plunging anticline which has brought the coal bearing formation
near enough to the surface to allow surface mining of the Suntrana
formation. Mining is presently in progress on the south side of
Lignite Creek in the Poker Flats area. The coal bearing formation
is cut off to the south by a fault having perhaps several thousand
feet of vertical displacement, with the upthrust side to the
north. South of this fault, Nenana gravels are exposed at the
sur race.
The Lower Lignite Basin is bordered on the west by the Nenana
River and on the southeast by an outcropping of the Birch Creek
schist. A syncline north of the Lower Lignite Basin causes the
Nenana gravels to be exposed to the north, making the coal bearing
group too deep for surface mining. The coal bearing group con-
tinues its surface exposure to the east on either side of Lignite
Creek, and to the northeast towards Jumbo Dome, on hornblende da-
138
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cite intrusive. The Lower Lignite Basin therefore extends about
three miles in an eastwest direction, and about two miles north
south. (Figures 1, 2 and 3.)
The Suntrana formation is well exposed throughout the Lower Lig-
nite area, with all six of the coal seams in the formation out-
cropping within the Lignite Creek valley. For about one half mile
north and south of Lignite Creek, the Suntrana formation is ex-
posed on the surface. Over much of the plateaus on either side of
Lignite Creek, and particularly to the south in the Poker Flats
area. the coal bearing formation is overlain by twenty to sixty
feet of outwash gravels.
In addition to the large fault south of the Lower Lignite Basin,
which can easily be traced for ten miles to the east, there is
evidence of much local secondary faulting. Small thrust faults
have been observed in the active pit area. A series of about
three thrust faults striking roughly eastwest, with the overthrust
side to the south, caused the lowest coal seam in the active pit
to be stacked nearly triple thickness when the fault followed the
weakness at the footwall of the coal seam. About two thousand
feet to the west a single thrust plane was observed with the
overthrust side to the north. Drilling data indicates that we can
expect to find more faulting as mining progresses. The final
structure may prove to be very complex.
The Suntrana Formation
The Suntrana formation contains the strippable coal seams in the
Lower Lignite Basin. There are six coal seams in the Suntrana
formation designated by numbers one through six (the lower seam
being number one). Partings between seams average eighty feet
between one and two; thirty feet between two and three; eighty-
five feet between three and four; and one hundred fifty feet
between four and six. Partings are typically coarse, pebbly
sandstone near the hanging wall of the coal seams, grading to fine
sandstone and ending with a clay and silt bed from two to fifteen
feet thick at the footwall of the next coal seam. Parting sand-
stones are chiefly of poorly consolidated quartz and black chert,
which deteriorates rapidly when exposed. (Figures 4 and 5.)
Coal seams six, four and three (averaging twenty-one, twenty-one
and seventeen feet thick respectively) are presently being mined,
and hold the bulk of surface mineable reserves for the Lower
Lignite area. Three, four and six seams are subbituminous C coals
averaging eight thousand Btus per pound, six percent ash, twenty-
seven percent moisture and 0.2 percent sulfur. Five seam is very
thin or absent in the Lower Lignite Basin. Two seam is about
seven feet thick, of poor quality and thus will not likely be
mined. One seam contains mineable reserves near its outcrop but
mining will be complicated by two clay and bone partings within
the seam.
139
-
11 •~rm,TT1,n-r, ,T1T 11TT,"i"'i'"'i'"'• iTTl11
~~
Mt. McKinlf!'(j
National Park
Fig. 1 Map of
---
H ea I y
--
Jumbo Domt>
~
lEiY
--
-
'1 J . . \.
-
.......... r-. --........ _
'\...
I
---
--
I
AOL 21545
1.'
,
' '
/ ' / \
TWO ,-.
,' BULL ,' :
: RIDGE I 1
I,...... / I
/7 ,: / \\ ,' : ,
I I ,.' 1 I I \-.. "'
I '--------I I I : : '\ .. ;""' .... __ ., .. -/
' r-, , ... \ ........ ~ .. '...'
c.-' ',,'
r--·-
R £ §-!'-.--. -_,; . .S.-~-....__________ -
~"7---,
POKER
FLATS
_ ... -............
I
'-
/
/
AOL 20GJJ
·------------------_____ ,
Fig,
' '
2 Lower Lignite Basin
NENANA GRAVEL
---...... ____ _
-· N
0
GRUBSTAKE ana LIGNITE FORMATIONS
'--. -. ,' :
' ' ' I
'
.
' ' .. -... -... _ --,
, I , -\ I~-, .. "'' ,.,._1 , .. '
,.... ,/ ,' ,,... {r.:..=_-_:_.
------· '-·--' ,...._ CR££_!5----.. /
/...--Nl.~------· ·,_,..--·-· ' ~l , _..,..-\ ..... .---·---~.-,1°/ SUNTRANA FORMATION 1
I\ , / \, ·....._ ___ ? ,' BIRO/
-----'..--',, 1.) --.9/ ; CREEK i~\ \ -+----L-~--t-\SCHIST \D-. \ ' ----. \t~\ ''-~--~--------------------~--\
\ \ \ NENANA GRAVELS 0
L.F_I g~·--=3---=G:...e=--=o--'1--'o:......!I'-.L.......:;..o~f. the __ b__o w l!_r:_L __ lg __ n i_t ~ B a~.l..!!_
--- --- --
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-------------------------------------------------~---
2000'
1500'
PokPr Flats
1000'
Two Bull RidqP
Fig.4 Structural Section~ of Upper Suntrono .Farmntian
ot Lower Lignite
21' 6 5£AM
ISO'
21' 4 5£AM
85'
17' 3 5£AM
30'
7' 2 S£AM
80'
Fig. 5 Typical Section of Suntrona Formation
at 0 ok!'r Flo t s
141
Coal Resources
Exploration is fairly extensive in the Lower Lignite area, and
proven reserves of approximately eighty million tons exist at a
stripping ratio of less than five to one. The active mining area
at Poker Flats has design reserves of twenty-eight million tons at
a stripp1ng ratio of 4.5 to one. The Two Bull Ridge area, about
one and one half miles northeast of Poker Flats, has proven re-
serves of tnirty-eight million tons at a stripping ratio of 3.6 to
one. The remaining reserves are located in smaller pockets
throughout Lower Lignite.
In addition to proven reserves of eighty million tons, the re-
source potential of Lower Lignite may be even greater. There are
limited exposures of the Healy Creek formation in the area, and
the potential for both surface and subsurface reserves exists, as
the Healy Creek formation was mined extensively in the Healy River
valley to the south. Where the coal bearing group contacts the
Birch Creek schist there is often a thick coal bed lying directly
on the schist, the resource potential of which has not yet been
analyzed. The area within the Lower Lignite Basin with surface
exposure of eitner coal bearing formation or Nenana gravels, which
overlays the coal bearing group, covers about five square miles.
Assuming a conservative total coal thickness of fifty feet below
tnis area, the resource potential might be as high as 250 million
tons at depths up to several thousand feet. It is unlikely that
this resource will be developed in the near future, but develop-
ments in underground mining and insitu gasification might make
this resource recoverable at a later date.
Future Development
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.'s operations will likely center around
Lower Lignite for at least the next twenty-five years. Present
proven reserves of eighty million tons could last for twenty years
at theoretical maximum output for Usibelli.
Exploration drilling is presently concentrated around Lower Lig-
nite and will continue for several years into the future. During
the 1980 season, detailed outcrop mapping was initiated at Lower
Lignite and will extend for the next couple of years to the east
up to the Lignite Creek drainage.
Min1ng activity by Usibelli in Lower Lignite began in 1976 at the
presently active Poker Flats pit. Reserves in that pit will last
thirty-five years at present production rates. The next area
which will likely be mined is the Two Bull Ridge area northeast of
Poker Flats, where another fifty years of production is possible
at present production rates. Hopefully, the demand for coal from
Lower Lignite will increase and the life of the area will be
shortened. After Lower Lignite is mined out, Usibelli holds
142
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
jl
additional reserves east of Lower Lignite that most certainly will
be developed.
Conclusion
Mucn work has been done on geologic mapping and exploration of the
Lower Lignite Basin by both industry and government concerns.
This work has been valuable in the development of coal mining in
Lower Lignite. As mining progresses we discover many hidden
geologic features which will yield a detailed picture tnat could
only be seen by physically uncovering the coal.
Refereaces
Wanrhaftig, Wolfe, Leopold and Lanphere, The Coal Bearing Group
in the Nenana Coal Field, Alaska: U.S. Geological Bulletin
1274-D, 1969.
Wanrhaftig, Geologic Map of the Healy D-4 Quadrangle: U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey, 1970.
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc., Exploration and Operating Data, 1974-
1980.
143
Remaining coal resources of the Matanuska field
Benno J.G. Patsch
Placer Amex, Inc., San Francisco
Exploration drilling for oil and gas has shown Cook Inlet Basin to
be a major coal basin (Fig. 1 ). The Matanuska coal field is the
very northeastern part of the basin extending easterly from the
Little Susitna field at Houston, past the Wishbone Hill district
near Sutton, and continuing past Chickaloon to Anthracite Ridge.
These coals occur in the Tertiary Chickaloon formation. Because
of structural deformation, and to a small extent because of ig-
neous intrusions, the rank of these coals increases from subbitu-
minous in the Little Susitna Field, to bituminous at Wishbone
Hill, to some anthracite at and beyond Chickaloon.
The Matanuska coals had an important influence on the history of
development of Southcentral Alaska. The extent of these coals had
been known before 1900. Together with gold at Fairbanks, they
were an important reason for the start of construction of the
Alaska Railroad as a private venture in 1903. Development of the
Matanuska coal field became important to fuel the trains. A
branch line reached Eska by 1917, however, railroad construction
did not get far until the Federal Government took over and fin-
ished it in 1923.
The U.S. Navy became interested in Matanuska coals as fuel for its
ships. First mining was done by the government in 1913 for a Navy
test. First commercial production was in 1916 from along Moose
Creek.
In 1920, the Evan Jones Coal Mine at Jonesville (Fig. 2) was
opened to become the largest producer in the field; it stayed in
almost continuous operation until its closing in 1968. During its
48 year active life the mine produced about 6 million tons of
washed coal. Since 1934, the earliest date for which records are
available, 2,330 different men worked at the mine.
The following is a very brief review of the various coal districts
within the Matanuska field.
The Little Susitna District is a two to three mile wide strip
along the southern slope of the Talkeetna Mountains at the west
end of the field. Several coal beds are known to exist but they
are thin, less than three feet, and the one known nine foot bed is
reported to be quite dirty. Mining has been done on a small-scale
at four locations, one of these is at Houston and is now mined
out. Some coal prospecting permit activity has taken place during
recent years, but these permits have by now been relinquished.
144
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. :r. ..
I
I
I I
I 152°
I
... -..... .,. -_,
ALAS~<A
CENTRAL ALASKA
NENANA~-.. ~~-:_ ......... , --""''·•
SUSITNA' _,-,
C~.~: :' MATANUSKA -... __ .. \;::-:.
,,~ ,''
I
BELUGA-\
145
~COOK INLET
Q
ALASKA
COAL AREAS
Figure 1
LOCATION MAP Fiqure 2
The Chickaloon and Anthracite Ridge districts are at the east end
of the field. During the early days of coal development these
areas were extensively mapped and explored. The district is
heavily faulted and is intruded by dikes and sills. Coal beds are
therefore very chopped up, and would be difficult to mine except
on a very small scale. One 100 acre coal lease exists in the
district, and land status books show several sections of land to
be under coal prospecting permit. The possible resource base is
25 million tons (Barnes, 1967).
The Wishbone Hill district accounts for the bulk of the estimated
coal resources of the Matanuska field. Barnes (1967) tabulates 52
million tons of indicated resources, plus 54 million tons of
inferred resources. Of this total, nearly half is held under
lease by the Evan Jones Coal Company. Four other coal leases in
the Wishbone Hill district are recorded in the state land status
records.
Placer Amex, Inc. purchased an interest in the Evan Jones Coal
Company in 1956, and from 1959 to the closing of the mine in 1968
was the managing joint venture partner of the property. The
property still maintains one coal lease which covers a natural
min1ng block of the remaining underground coal reserves.
The generalized plan of the geologic structure of Wishbone Hill
coals is snown in Figure 3. Several coal beds occur in a "canoe
shaped" syncline which is cut by several transverse faults. In
the early days, coal was mined from underground as shown in the
schematic cross section in Figure 4, or as shown in a more refined
vers1on in Figure 5. In 1952, strip mining was first attempted
along the north limb of the syncline and by 1959 all underground
operations had been phased out, with coal coming from deep open
pits.
The Evan Jones Coal Mine was closed down in 1968, following dis-
covery of oil and gas in Cook Inlet and the eventual conversion to
natural gas of the power plants at the two large military bases
near Anchorage, which at that time represented about 95$ of the
company's coal market. All equipment and plants were sold at that
time, and the Alaska Railroad pulled the rails from Palmer to the
mine.
At the present time there is not market for the remaining coal.
However, since this is one of the highest quality steam coal
reserves in Alaska, Placer Amex is constantly monitoring possible
developing markets in the local and Anchorage areas as well as for
export. Because of current national and world energy problems,
the day of reactivating the mine could be approaching.
To reopen the mine, a complete, new, underground mine and wash
plant would have to be engineered, built and equipped. Some
factors favorable to reopening the mine are the existence of
substantial remaining reserves of good quality steam coal with
established highway and railbed access, existing power and a local
146
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3
PLAN VIEW
(NO SCALE)
N +
A
PREMIER COAL
UNDERGROUND
MINE TUNNEL -_
Figure 4
u
"' (/)
I
I
I
I
WISHBONE HILL
SCHEMATIC CROSS-SECTION
(NO SCALE)
147
A'
PREMIER COAL SERIES
JONESVILLE COAL I
Figure S
GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE SECTION THROUGH WISHBONE HILL) MATANUSKA
COAL FIELD, ALASKA (AFTER BARNES, U.S.G.S BULL . 1016).
(NO SCALE)
ESKA COAL
SERIES
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
labor pool and infrastructure. For export, the harbors at Anchor-
age, Whittier or Seward are possibilities, all with established
ra i 1 road access.
The remaining Evan Jones coal reserve is estimated to consist of
some 30 to 50 million recoverable tons of good quality, compliance
bituminous steam coal, which for years had been sold under washed
coal specifications of:
Moisture (as received)--8.5% Max.
Ash (dry)--15% Max.
Btu (dry)--12,090
S--0.4 -0.5%
Ash Fusion--2,800° F.
The coal beds are steeply dipping, averaging 30° to 45°, and the
beds can be gassy. An innovative mining method is needed for
production. A few years ago the company completed a preliminary
economic analysis for putting the mine into production at a rate
of 500,000 tons/year of clean coal, and using hydraulic mining and
hydraulic coal transport to the surface.
Escalated to present costs, sucn an operation would require an
investment approaching $50 million and produce coal at somewhat
more than $2.00 per million Btu. This is not cheap except in
comparison to imported crude, which now costs between $5.00 and
$6.00 per million Btu.
A hydraulic mining method (Figs. 7, 6) was studied because other
methods are difficult in steeply pitching seams. It is also a
safer method when mining is done on the retreat and with ventila-
tion forced into the gob to reduce dust and gases. Hydraulic
min1ng, as envisioned, is in use at the Balmer Coal Mine in Brit-
ish Columbia and also in Russia and Japan. Under certain condi-
tions, hydraulic mining can have higher productivity and better
resource recovery. However, extensive testing of the method would
be necessary at the property to make certain that hydraulic mining
will work. Following testing, design and permitting, a new mine
could be put into production in two years.
In conclusion, first future production from the Matanuska field
would likely come from the reopening of the Evan Jones Mine. At a
proposed rate of half a million tons per year, there is in excess
of 50 years of life left in the property to supply utility coal
for the Anchorage area, or steam coal for export. The Chickaloon
district could possibly supply some specialty coal and even an-
thracite on a small-scale. The aerial extent of the Matanuska
field is large so that there is room for yet undiscovered coal at
depth.
149
Figure 6 HYDRAULIC MINE PLAN
Figure 7 PROPOSED HYDRAULIC MINE LAYOUT
150
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
References
Barnes, F.F., Coal Resources of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Sur. Bull.
1242-B, 1967.
Tucker, R.L., Final Report, Evan Jones Coal Company, 1968.
Horton, A.G., The Evan Jones Coal Company, 1958.
Fothergill, W.C., An Economic Analysis of the Proposed Underground
Mining of Coal at the Evan Jones Coal Property, 1975.
Luteijn, A., Evan Jones Coal Co., Preliminary Economic Analysis,
1976.
.Ackncwledgsent
The content of this paper is based on a perusal of reports by
others, largely the u.s. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of
Mines and others, as well as internal company reports.
151
Reconnaissance survey for coal near Farewell,
Alaska
E.G. Sloan, G.B. Shearer, J.E. Eason and C.L. Almquist
U.S. Geological Survey. Anchorage
Abstract
The U.S. Geological Survey conducted reconnaissance surveys for
coal in the Farewell area in 1977. Most of the area studied is
covered by coarse granular Quaternary sediments, unconformably
overlying the Tertiary sedimentary rocks. Outcrops of bedrock are
sparse and occur only in river bluffs, a few residual hills in the
Deepbank Creek area, and snall stream valleys where surficial
deposits have been sufficiently eroded to expose the underlying
bedrock.
Outcrops of subbituminous coal were found along the Little Tonzona
River and along the unnamed tributaries of Deepbank Creek. An
outcrop of bony coal was found along the Windy Fork of the Kusko-
kwim River.
The surveys indicate the presence of a potentially large resource
of subbituminous coal in the Farewell area. Neither the areal
extent of the coal bearing rocks nor the maximum depth of their
burial is known. If the steep dips recorded at the outcrops are
regionally representative, most of the resource would lie far
below the surface; however, the observed attitudes may simply
reflect localized tilting and faulting adjacent to the Farewell
fault.
Introduction
A reconnaissance survey for coal was conducted in August 1977 by
the U.S. Geological Survey in the Minchumina basin around Fare-
well, Alaska. The survey area is along the northern front of the
Alaska Range from Big River to the western boundary of Mt. McKin-
ley National Park (pl. 1). Survey work was hampered by dense
smoke from a large forest tundra fire in the area.
Most of the area studied is covered with coarse granular Quater-
nary sediments that unconformably overlie Tertiary sedimentary
rocks. Outcrops of bedrock are sparse and occur only in river
bluffs, a few residual hills in the Deepbank Creek area, and small
stream valleys where the surficial deposits have been sufficiently
eroded to expose the underlying bedrock.
152
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---- - ---- -- -----
t J.;L. ·~ ·~ ~
.~ ·• lit! ,. _ ..
~~ ....
ERA Helicopters, Inc., of Anchorage, Alaska, supplied contract
helicopter support. Field operations were based at Farewell Lake
Lodge. Sample analyses were performed by the Department of Energy
(formerly the Bureau of Mines) Coal Laboratory in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Previous Investigations
Coal bearing rocks were found in the Farewell area by Brooks
(1911) in 1902 when he traversed the northern foothills of the
Alaska Range from the South Fork of the Kuskokwim River to Mt.
McKinley. Brooks mapped small enfolded exposures of Tertiary
rocks in the valleys of the Little Tonzona River and Pingston
Creek and also reported coal outcrops immediately southwest of the
junction of the two forks of the Kuskokwim River. Priestly
reported considerable quantities of lignitic coal exposed in the
Big River valley (Brooks 1910, 1911 and 1925).
Fernald (1960) briefly described the surficial geology of the
Farewell area and located the Farewell fault but did not identify
any Tertiary rocks or coal. Sainsbury and MacKevett (1965)
reported thick, nonmarine sedimentary rocks near the White
Mountain mercury mines. W.H. Condon reported coal bearing rocks
exposed for several kilometers along the Cheeneetnuk River,
including a 2 meter wide exposure of bright, brittle coal of
probable bituminous rank (Barnes, 1967).
Gary Player (written communication, 1970) conducted a
reconnaissance survey of the Farewell area in 1970 and reported
exposures of Tertiay coal bearing rocks from the Big River to the
Little Tonzona River. A 59 meter sequence of coal bearing rocks
was reported along the Little Tonzona River. Thirty meters of
this sequence was described as clean, subbituminous coal. Player
reported a second exposure of coal bearing rocks along the banks
of an unnamed tributary of Deepbank Creek. Float and outcrops
suggest at least one bed of coal, 6 meters or more thick, there.
Geologic Setting
The area described is on the southeastern edge of a gently sloping
piedmont surface north of the Alaska Range. The piedmont merges
into the lowlands of the upper Kuskokwim River valley. The pied-
mont and the lowlands form the Minchumina basin, which is part of
an area of low relief stretching from the upper Tanana basin in
the north to the Holitna lowlands in the southwest. Most of the
piedmont and lowlands is covered with coarse granular sediments
deposited in glacial moraines, outwash slopes, flood plains and
alluvial fans (Fernald, 1960). Outcrops of bedrock are limited to
residual hills, river bluffs and stream valleys where erosion of
surficial gravels has exposed the bedrock.
154
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
The Farewell fault separates the Minchumina basin from the Alaska
Range. This right lateral strike slip fault is part of the Denali
fault system. The Farewell fault is the major structural feature
in the area and is thought to be responsible for the tilting and
folding of the Tertiary coal bearing sequences that lie north of
the fault.
South of the fault, Paleozoic siltstones, argillites and
limestones, intruded locally by porphyritic granitic stocks and
dikes, form the Alaska Range. North of the fault, Devonian
limestones and shales are exposed near White Mountain and the
Farewell airstrip, and Tertiary nonmarine coal bearing sequences of
conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, volcanic rock and coal outcrop
in scattered places from the Big River to Kantishna.
Rocks immediately south of the Farewell fault are severely
deformed, as expressed in the chevron and overturned folds found
in the area. Rocks north of the fault appear to be less deformed
and are generally tilted and contain minor bedding plane faults as
in the Little Tonzona outcrop, or are folded into gentle synclines
as in the Windy Fork outcrop.
Coal Occurrence
Outcrops are sparse throughout the region. Few continuously
exposed stratigraphic sequences extend more than a few hundred
meters. Outcrops of coal were found in stream bank cuts along the
Little Tonzona River and along the drainages of the unnamed
tributary creeks of Deepbank Creek (plate 1). An outcrop of bony
coal (ash content, 30-62 percent) was found along the Windy Fork
of the Kuskokwim River.
All samples were collected from hand dug trenches that extended 15
to 60 centimeters into the outcrop. Bed moisture was preserved by
sealing samples in polyethylene lined canvas bags.
Little Tonzona River ~
An isolated exposure of Tertiary nonmarine sedimentary rocks crop
out along the southwest bank of the Little Tonzona River in Sec.
27, T. 31 N0 R. 20 W., Seward Meridian. The Tertiary strata
strike N. 73 E. and dip 47°-63° NW. Three minor bedding plane
faults with associated drag folds occur in the section (plate 2).
Seven seams of coal, each at least one meter thick, are exposed in
this outcrop. Areas of disturbed bedding are not included in the
calculations, although they probably represent additional coal
beds. Coal samples were taken from shallow trenches and analyzed
by the Department of Energy Coal Laboratory in Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania (Table 1). Heating values for the coal ranged from 8,466
to 9,517 Btu per pound on a moist ash free basis and from 7,848 to
155
... Nw
.,..,. ....
'•
·~, ·.
50 FEET
A o I
15 METERS
EXPLANATION DETAIL-&" DETAIL .. A.
SCHEMA TIC SECTION OF OUTCROP
DISTURBED AREA
AT UTTLE TONZONA RIVER
• COAL
• CLAY
l2ll SLTY CLAY
• BONE
• GRAVEL COVER
PLATE 2 ------
------------------ -
Table 1 ~oal Anal:t!IS (@II 11!!!12litl ll!!fUtbuadl
A.--Little Ton zona Outcrop T. 31 N., R. 20 W., Section 27, Seward Meridian
-------Proximate Analysts----------------------Ultimate Analysts----------------
Thickness ** Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Oxygen
Sam~le I {meters) Q!2. USDOE I ill Conditions• BTU/1 b {Mod) Matter_ ~rbon Ash H.):drogen Ca rbo'l. Nitrogen __L!.ru!l Sulfur ~
TS-A-77-1 1.8 35• K80540 0.5 A 7,848 25.3 35.6 32.3 6.8 6.0 46.9 0.5 38.8 1.0 6.8
B 10,505 47.7 43.1 9.2 4.3 62.8 0.7 21.8 1.3 9.2 c 11 ,564 52.5 47.5 4,7 69.1 0.8 24.0 1. 5
D 8,466
TS-A-77-6 2,7 47" K80541 0.5 A A,137 19.1 40.1 30.9 9,9 5.7 48.1 0.7 33.8 1.7 9.9
B 1Q,OS8 49.6 31!. 1 12.J 4.5 59.4 0.9 20.8 2.1 12.3 c 11 ,466 56.6 43.4 5.1 67.7 1.0 23.7 2.4
D 9,111
TS-A-77-7 1.3 47° K80542 o.s A 7,947 22.5 37.? 30.7 1!.9 6.1 46.7 0.7 36.5 1.1 8.9
B 10,259 41.0 39.6 11.4 4.6 60.3 0.9 21.3 1.4 11.4 c 11 ,586 55.3 44.7 5.2 68.1 1.0 24.0 1.6
D 8,790
TS-A-77-8 6.8 47° K80543 0.5 A 8,295 21.5 41.0 29.8 7.7 6,1 48,4 0.7 35.9 1.2 7.7
B 10,564 52.2 38.0 9.8 4.7 61 .6 0.9 21.4 1.6 9.8 c 11.707 57.9 42.1 5.2 68.3 1.0 23.7 1.8
...... D 9,047
lJ1
-....! TS·A-77-13 3.1 67" K80544 0.5 A 11,018 21.5 40.3 30.1 8.1 5.9 47,5 0.6 36.5 1.4 8.1
B 10,217 51 .4 38.3 10,3 4.5 60.5 0,8 22,1 1.8 10.3 c 11 ,392 57.3 42.7 5.0 67.5 0.8 24.7 2.0
D 8,784
TS-A-77-15 2.3 67° K80545 0.5 A 8,164 16.0 40.7 31.6 11.7 5,4 48.8 0.7 32.1 1.2 11.7
8 9, 724 48.5 37.6 13.9 4.3 58.2 0,9 21.3 1.4 13.9 c 11 ,21)5 56.3 43,7 5.0 67.5 1.0 24.7 1.7
D 9,347
TS-A-77-16 7.9 67" K80546 0.5 A 8,(122 19.6 40.7 31.8 7.9 5.7 47.9 0.7 36.7 1.1 7.9
B 9,974 50.6 39.5 9.9 4.4 59.5 0.9 24.0 1.4 9.9 c 11 ,067 56.2 43.8 4,9 66.0 1..0 26.6 1.5
0 8,768
TS·A-77-18 3.7 67" K80547 0,5 A 11,210 14.5 41.8 32.1 11.6 5,3 48.3 0.5 33.1 1.1 11.6
B 9,598 48.8 37.6 13.6 4.3 56.5 0.6 23.7 1. 3 13.6 c 11 ,1 08 56.5 43.5 5.0 65.4 0.7 27.4 1.5
D 9,388
TS-A-77-20 4.8 67" K80548 0.5 A 8,237 15.3 43.6 30.2 10.9 5.4 47.9 0.6 34.4 0.7 10.9
B 9,728 51.5 35.6 12.9 4,4 56.5 0.7 24.5 0.8 12.9 c 11,169 59,1 40.9 5.0 64.9 0.9 28.2 1.0
D 9,337
TS-A-77-22 1,0 67° K80549 0,5 A 8,075 20.0 42.5 31.1 6.4 5.7 47.8 0.6 38.8 0.7 6.4
B 10,095 53,1 38.9 8,0 4.4 59.8 0.8 26.3 0.9 8.0
**Free Swelling Index (FSI) c 10.972 57.7 42.3 4.7 65.0 0.8 28.6 1.0
D 8,673
B. --0ut..c..-ops in the Dcepbank Creek Area -T. 30 N., R. 20 W., Se~tlon 13, Seward Meridian
TS-A-77-24 1.4+ 38° K80550 0.5 A 8,186 21.5 35.0 35.9 6.6 5.7 49.1 0.7 37.2 0.7 6.6
8 10,429 45.9 45.7 0.4 4.2 62.5 0.8 23.0 0.9 8.4 c 11.386 50.1 49.9 4.6 68.2 0.9 25.1 1.0
D 1:1,813
TS-A-77-27 6.3 55° K80551 0.5 A 8,828 14.7 42.9 35.7 6.7 5.5 52.6 1.0 34.0 0.2 6,7
B 10,354 50.3 41.8 7.9 4.6 61.7 1.2 24.5 0.3 7.9 c 11 ,240 54.6 45.4 5.0 66.9 1.3 26.6 0.3
D 9,517
c.--Windy Fork Outcrop -Samples arP. Bony Coal -T. 27 N., R. 26 W., Section 19, Seward Merf dian
TS-A-77-29 .5 37° K80552 0.5 A 6,627 3.3 25.5 28.8 42.4 3.5 38.4 1.2 14.3 0.2 42.4
B 6,856 26.4 29.7 43.9 3.2 39.7 1.3 11.7 0.2 43.9 c 12,212 ~7. 1 52.9 5.7 70.8 2.2 20.9 0.3
D 12 ,232
TS-A-77-32 2.7 40° K80553 0.5 A 4,123 3.4 29.6 8.9 58.1 2.5 26.2 0.6 12.5 0.1 58.1
B 4,270 30.6 9.2 60.2 2.2 27.1 0.6 9.8 0.1 60.2 c 10,724 76.9 ~3. 1 5.6 68.1 1.5 24.6 0.3
D 11 ,071
TS-A-77-35 2.9 40° K80554 0.5 A 6,357 3.7 24.5 28.4 43.4 3.4 38.4 0.9 13.8 0.2 43.4
f-' B 6,602 25.4 29.6 45.0 3.1 39.9 0.9 10.9 0.2 45.0
U'l c 12,013 46.3 53.7 5.6 72.5 1.7 19.8 0.3 ct:J
D 11 ,971
TS-A-77-37 6.3 40° K80555 0.5 A 5,551 2.5 23.8 22.8 50.9 3.2 32.9 0.9 12.0 0.2 50.9
B 5,694 24.4 23.4 52.2 2.9 33.7 0.9 10.0 0.2 52.2
c 11 ,910 51.0 49.0 6.2 70.5 1.9 21.0 0.5
D 12,336
TS-A-77-39 4.6 40° K80556 0.5 A 7,228 3.5 26.8 30.2 39.5 3.7 41.4 1.0 14.1 0.3 39.5
B 7,487 27.7 31.4 40.9 3.4 42.9 1.1 11.4 0.3 40.9 c 12,671 46.9 53.1 5.8 72.5 1.8 19.3 0.6
D 12,616
TS-A-77-41 10.5 40° KB0557 0.5 A 5,981 2.8 23.4 26.5 47.3 3.3 35.8 0.9 12.4 0.2 47:3
8 6,153 24.0 27.3 48.7 3.1 36.8 0.9 10.2 0.2 48.7 c 11 ,994 46.9 53.1 6.0 71.8 1.8 19.9 0.4
0 12,234
TS-A-77-43 3.9 40° K80558 0.5 A 3,968 1.9 18.7 16.6 62.8 2.5 23.9 0.7 1 o. 1 0.1 62 .a
8 4,043 19.1 16.9 64.0 2.3 24.3 0.7 A.6 0.1 64.0
c 11 ,224 53.0 47 .o 6.4 67.6 2.0 23.9 0.2
D 12,338
TS-A-77-45 5.2 40° K80559 0.5 A 8,438 3.7 31.2 35.2 29.9 4.2 48.7 1.2 15.6 0.4 29.9
B 8,766 32.5 36.5 31.0 3.9 50.6 1.2 12.8 0.4 31.0
c 12.711 47.1 52.9 5.7 73.4 1.8 18.5 0.6
0 1 2 ,4 73
TS-A-77-50 2.2 39. K80560 0.5 A 5,504 4.0 24.8 23.5 47,7 3.3 33.6 1.3 13.7 0.4 47.7
• Sample Conditions: A -As received B 5,735 25.8 24.5 49,7 2.9 35.0 1.4 10.5 0.4 49.7
B -Moisture Free c 1 1 ,409 51.3 48.7 5.9 69.6 2.8 21.0 0.8
C -Moisture-Ash Free D 11 ,363
0 -Mo1st-Ash Free, calculated usfr.9 Moist, Hm-free Btu • (Btu -505)/[100 -(1.08A + 0.555)] X 100 -----us .. alucili' thP.-cci .... alys .. -- -- --- -----
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8,295 Btu per pound on an as received basis. Sulfur content
varied considerably from bed to bed, ranging from 0.7 percent to
1.7 percent (as received). The outcrop is described in detail
below.
OUtcrop Description in the Little Tonzona River Area
(from youngest to oldest)
Lithology
Coal
Clay
Coal
Clay
Covered
Fault zone
Covered
Coal
Measured
Thickness
Description (meters)
Dull, grayish brown; amber inclusions 1.0
1-2 mm in diameter; very woody with
whole log casts visible; sample #TS-
A-77-22; top of bed not exposed.
Dark gray; silty; highly plastic. 1.1
Dull, grayish brown to black; numer-8.8
ous amber inclusions 1-2 mm in diame-
ter; very woody, especially in the
upper portion of the bed with log
casts visible; 0.3 meter bony coal
parting occurs 3.7 meters above base
of unit; sample #TS-A-77-20 was taken
above the the parting and sample #TS-
A-77-18 was taken below the parting;
overall equivalent thickness of coal
for classification standards is 8.2
meters.
Light gray to brown, highly plastic, 0.2
little or no silt content. Bottom of
clay not exposed.
Coal float in moderate quantity. 4.3
Mostly composed of folded and/or pul-3.9
verized coal with some clay partings;
amount and direction of displacement
unknown. (See p1, 2A)
Gravel cover. 0.6
Reddish brown; moderately woody with 7.9
some areas of vitrain present; coal is
uniform throughout bed with no partings
present; sample #TS-A-77-16; top and
bottom of bed not exposed.
159
Lithology
Covered
Fault zone
Clay
Coal
Fault zone
Clay
Coal
Covered
Measured
Thickness
Description (meters)
Gravel cover. 1.2
Folded and faulted clay and coal; coal 2.54
is pulverized; no indication of large-
scale offset.
Dark gray to black; silty; plastic. 0.9
Dark gray to brown; moderately woody, 5.9
especially in the upper part of the
unit; bands of vitrain present, espe-
cially in lower part of unit; 10 centi-
meter, light gray, highly plastic clay
parting occurs 3.4 meters from bottom
of the unit; sample #TS-A-77-15 was
taken above the parting and sample
#TS-A-77-13 was taken below the part-
ing. Strike is N. 73° E., dip 67° NW.
Overall equivalent thickness of coal
for classification standards is 5.3
meters.
Highly contorted coal and clay; coal 0.9
is pulverized and folded; thin layer
of gravel, similar to overlying grav-
els, underlies distorted beds; no
evidence of repeated section. Over-
lying coal seems to be a continuation
of the same bed as the coal involved
in the folding (see p1. 2B).
Light gray; highly plastic; little or 0.08
no silt content.
Dull brown, with bright bands of vi-6.8
train; two dark gray, highly plastic
clay partings, one 2.4 em thick, 4.3 m
above the base, and the other 1.2 em
thick, 3.9 m from the base of the unit;
ironstone concretions less than 5$ by
volume; sample #TS-A-77-8; bottom of
bed not exposed; overall equivalent
thickness of coal for classification
standards is 6.7 meters.
Gravel cover; 20$ of float is coal. 13
160
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lithology
Coal
Clay
Covered
Coal
Description
Dull-dark-brown, with numerous bands
of vitrain. Two dark gray, highly
plastic, silty clay partings: one
is 0.15 meters thick and occurs 1.3
meters stratigraphically above the
base of the bed; the other is 0.2
meters thick and occurs 2.7 meters
above the base of the bed. Sample
#TS-A-77-7 was taken in the upper
1.3 meters of coal. Sample #TS-A-
77-6 was taken in the lower 2.7
meters of coal. Overall equivalent
thickness of coal for classification
standards is 3.5 meters.
Light gray; highly plastic, little
or no silt; bottom of clay bed not
exposed.
Gravel cover; 40% of float is coal.
Dull-gray-black; very woody; bedding
somewhat distorted, with minor undu-
lations present; strike is N. 38° E.,
dip 35° NW.; sample #TS-A-77-1; top
and bottom of bed not fully exposed.
Summary and Comparison of Little Tonzona Coals
Measured
Thickness
(meters)
4.2
0.3
19
1. 8
Seven coal beds, each at least 1.0 meter thick, were measured in
the Little Tonzona outcrop. Calculated on the basis of U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 633 (Bass, Smith and Horn, 1970), these
coals yield an aggregate thickness of 34.5 meters, or approximate-
ly 41 percent of the measured interval. Of the remaining 49.5
meters of interval, 38.1 meters were covered--the underlying bed-
rock could not be determined, and 7.3 meters were in faulted
areas.
Analyses (Table 1) indicates that, except for the sulfur content,
the coal is similar in rank and quality to Tertiary Alaskan coals
in the Nenana field; the Little Tonzona coal contains about three
times the percentage of sulfur in coal from the Nenana field.
161
Upper Tributaries Q( Deeobank Creek ~
Outcrops are sparse through Sec. 13, T. 30 N., R. 20 W., Seward
Meridian. Coal beds are the dominant outcrop forming rock, usual-
ly occurring in 1 to 1.5 meter outcrops of highly weathered coal.
Complete thickness was almost impossible to ascertain, owing to
heavy vegetative cover. Samples were taken on a 1.4 meter bed and
a 6.3 meter bed. The two measured outcrops are described below.
First Outcrop in the Deepbank Creek Area
Lithology Description
Coal Highly weathered; reddish brown;
vitreous; weathers into large
flat plates; strike N. 35° E., dip
38° NW.; sample #TS-A-77-24; top and
bottom of bed not exposed.
Measured
Thickness
(meters)
1. 4
The second outcrop sampled is along the east bank of another
tributary of Deep bank Creek, Sec. 13, T. 30 N., R. 20 W., Seward
Meridian, where a 7.9 meter section is exposed around a small
knoll and in a stream channel (pl. 3).
Lithology
Coal
Shale
Second Outcrop in Deepbank Creek Area
(from youngest to oldest)
Description
Dark-gray-black; vitreous, lower
part of coal increasingly woody,
coal surfaces are slickensided;
strike N. 60° E., dip 48-55° NW.;
sample #TS-A-77-27; top of bed not
exposed.
Very dark gray; carbonaceous; bot-
tom of bed not exposed.
162
Measured
Thickness
(meters)
6.3
1. 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXPLANATION
SCHEMA TIC SECTION OF
OUTCROP AT UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
OF DEEPBANK CREEK
• COAL
SHALE
CONGLOMERATE
-------
Nw ...
PLATE 3
Summary ~ Comparison Q[ Deepbank Creek Coals
Weathered samples (Table 1) taken from outcrops along the upper
tributaries of Deepbank Creek are comparable in rank and quality
to Tertiary Alaskan coals of the Nenana field. The sulfur content
is lower than for the coals from Little Tonzona and is roughly the
same or slightly higher than for the Nenana coal. The dip of
bedding is steep (48-55°); however, owing to the proximity of the
outcrop areas to the Farewell fault, the steep dips recorded may
not be representative of regional structural attitudes. Addition-
al information from drilling would be necessary to determine both
the structural configuration and thickness variation of the coal
as it extends into the Minchumina Basin.
Windy fQr.k lli.£
Thick beds of bony slickensided coal crop out along the west bank
of the Windy Fork of the Kuskokwim River.
A stratigraphic section was measured in the west limb of a north
trending syncline. Conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and bony
coal are the dominant components of the 267.5 meters of section
measured. The section is described below and illustrated on Plate
4. The sample analyses are in Table 1.
Lithology
Bony coal
Covered
Conglomerate
Measured Stratigraphic Section
in the Windy Fork Area
(from youngest to oldest)
Measured
Thickness
Description (meters)
Dull black with bands of vitreous 2.2
material; slickensided; interval
of high vitrinous material in the
center 0.6 meters of bed; strike
is N. 30° W., dip is 39° NE.; sam-
ple #TS-A-77-50; top and bottom of
bed not exposed.
Gravel and vegetation cover. 4.7
Light brown to tan; contains sand-31.5
stone stringers; sandstone stringers
become part of a fining upward se-
quence from pebble conglomerate to
fine grained sandstone in upper third
of the bed; contains wood fragments
and fragments of coal as lag deposits;
164
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
;I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
.2m. Bony coal
Covered
14.1m. Coverid
23.8m. Shale, coal
2. 1m. Sandetone,
sit atone
7.1m. Shale, coal
3.8m. Covered
,.
A
.. A . ~ ... ---~
~ 1e.em. Shale, coal
£& ~m. Sandetone, ~ dtatone
.-~=. 1.3m. Bony coal
2 .. 4m .. Senct.tone
23.2m. Shale, coal
S..tone,
aandetone
2m. Shale, coal
\ .. .-·;;;~ 2m. Sltatone, r-...-.-eandatone ..... , ....
·m· ··-
~-10.2m. Sltatone,
aandetone, coal
9.2m. Sltatone,
sandstone, coal
&.3m. Coat
,...-........-.... .am. Slt•tone
3.9m. Bone
.8m. Sltatone
1 O.Sm. Bony coal
4.1m. Bony cOli
165
1.8m. Sandstone
:· 13.4m. Covered
3.9m. CoverM
2m. Sendstone
I [) 2.em. Coal, Mndetone
F
0
-•• 6 4.am. Coal, ... tone
pZ5 w
PH 1.5m.. 80JiwOMI
2.7&~
.&n. -·-
14.4ra. .........
BonyCMI
.m.~
EXPI.ANA TION
WN)YFORK
STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN
18 CLAYSTONE
SANDSTONE
-SLTY CLAY
• BONE
• BONYCOAL
• COAL I
• SHALE
nl SLTSTONE
CONGLOMERATE
PLATE 4
I
Measured I,
Thickness
Lithology Description (meters) I
Conglomerate channel deposits identifiable; upper 1.
(continued) and lower contacts not exposed. I Covered Gravel and vegetation cover. 14.5
Conglomerate, Cobble to pebble conglomerate, 5.6 I sandstone grading upward into a medium to
fine grained sandstone. Gradational
sequence repeated several times. I Conglomerate is light brown to tan,
subangular to subrounded; sandstone
is light brown to tan, top of bed II not exposed.
Coal, shale Interbedded, individual beds 2 to 4 23.6
centimeters thick; coal frequently I has bright bands of vitrain; shale
is dull-gray-black carbonaceous;
coal comprises 85% of upper half of I unit and 40% of lower half; strike
N. 30° W.; dip 41° NE.; top of in-
terval not exposed. I Sandstone, Gray weathering to brown; sandstone 2. 1
siltstone is fine siltstone to medium grained
and grades upward into siltstone. I
Shale, coal Interbedded, beds 2-4 em thick; coal 7.1
frequently has bright bands of vi-I train; shale is dull-gray-black,
carbonaceous; 40-50% coal; bottom of
bed not exposed.
I Covered Heavy vegetation cover. 3.8
Coal, shale Interbedded, beds 3-5 em thick; coal 16.6 I has numerous bright bands of vitrain;
shale is dull-gray-black, carbonaceous;
coal comprises 85% of upper half and I 40% of lower half; strike N. 30° W.,
dip 41° NE.; top of interval not ex-
posed.
Sandstone, Sandstone is light gray to tan, very 0.9 I
siltstone fine grained, grades upward into a light
gray siltstone. I
I
166 I
I
I Bony coal Contains fine grained sandstone lenses; 1. 3
slickensided; bony coal intervals from
5-35 em thick.
I Sandstone Light gray to tan; plant fossils; sand-2.4
stone is coarse grained in lower portion
and becomes finer upward, gradational
I contact with bony coal.
Shale, coal Interbedded; individual beds 2-60 em 23.2
I thick; coal is dull-gray-black with
same bands of vitrain, comprises 30% of
the interval.
I Siltstone, Siltstone is gray, weathering to brown; 1. 8
sandstone sandstone is medium grained; contains
plant fossils and thin coal stringers.
I Shale, coal Interbedded shale and coal; 30-40% coal. 2.0
I Siltstone, Interbedded; siltstone is gray, weath-2.0
sandstone ering to brown; sandstone is gray,
weathering to brown, medium grained,
I
contains plant fossils and thin coal
stringers.
Siltstone, Interbedded; coal 10% in lower part and 10.2
I sandstone, up to 60% in upper; sequence grades up-
coal ward into overlying sandstone.
I Siltstone Dark gray, weathering to brown; con-0.9
tains sandstone stringers and plant
fossils.
I Coal, shale Interbedded; individual beds 2-10 em 2.9
thick; coal is dull brown, with some
bands of vitrain; shale is dark gray.
I Coal comprises approximately 75% of
the total bed.
I
Siltstone, Interbedded; individual beds less than 9.2
sandstone, 10 em thick; vitreous coal makes up
coal 50% of the interval; gray fossilifer-
ous brown weathering siltstone makes
I up 20% of the lower half of the unit,
increasing to 40% in the upper half of
the unit; fine grained, gray sandstone
I is 30% of the lower half of the unit,
decreasing to 10% in the upper half of
the unit.
I Coal Vitreous; highly fractured; slicken-5.3
sided; a 0.1 m fossiliferous siltstone
parting 0.8 m above base is gray weath-
I
I 167
Lithology
Coal
(continued)
Siltstone
Bone
Siltstone
Bony coal
Bony shale
Sandstone
Bony coal
Sandstone
Covered
Bone
Covered
Sandstone
Measured
Thickness
Description (meters)
ering to brown. Sample #TS-A-77-45;
overall thickness of coal for classifi-
cation standards is 5.1 m.
Gray, weathering to brown; fossilifer-0.8
ous.
Carbonaceous shale with coal; coal 3.9
fragments vitreous, slickensided, car-
bonaceous shale dull black, slicken-
sided; sample #TS-A-77-43.
Dark gray; carbonaceous; contains wood 0.6
and plant fragments.
Dull-gray-black with bright bands of 10.5
vitrain; fragmented, slickensided;
contains 10$ sandstone lenses and
partings; sample #TS-A-77-41.
Dark gray, with bands of vitrain; 60% 5.3
shale, 40% coal.
Dark gray, weathering to light gray; 3.6
fine grained.
Dull-gray-black with numerous bands of 4.6
vitrain; slickensided; contains 10%
partings of sandstone and shale, with
sandstone partings more numerous near
top; sample #TS-A-77-39.
Dark gray, weathering to buff gray; 1.6
fine to medium grained.
Coal float present. 13.4
Dull gray with bands of vitrain; 6.3
slickensided; sample #TS-A-77-37; top
and bottom of bed not exposed.
Coal float present.
Gray brown, weathering dark brown to
tan; medium grained; contains plant
fossils.
168
3.9
2.0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Lithology
Coal,
sandstone
Coal,
sandstone
Bony coal
Sandstone
Bone
Siltstone
Sandstone
Bony coal
Claystone
Measured
Thickness
Description (meters)
Dull gray with vitrain bands; contains 2.9
thin stringers of sandstones; thickness
of individual coals range from 2-10 em
thick; sample #TS-A-77-35.
Interbedded; coal is highly fractured, 4.8
slickensided, vitreous; sandstone is
grayish brown, fine grained.
Dull-gray-brown; woody; contains con-1.5
cretions of ironstone up to 30 centi-
meters in diameter.
Grayish brown, weathering to light 9.9
brown, fine grained.
Dull-gray-black with bands of vitrain; 2.7
numerous clay partings; sample #TS-A-
77-32.
Dark gray, weathering to light gray; 0.5
contains wood fragments; coarsens
downward into very fine grained sand-
stone.
Dark gray, weathering to light gray 14.4
or tan; very fine grained; strike N.
20° E., dip 37° SE.
Numerous clay partings (10$); sample 0.5
IITS-A-77-39.
Light gray; contains wood fragments; 0.2
bottom of bed not exposed.
St.mlary and Conclusions
The data indicate the presence of a large resource of subbitumi-
nous coal in the Farewell area. Neither the areal extent of the
coal bearing rocks nor the maximum depth of their burial is known.
If the steep dips recorded at the outcrop are regionally represen-
tative, most of the resource would lie far below the surface, and
mining by conventional methods would probably not be economic;
however, the observed attitudes may simply reflect localized tilt-
ing and faulting adjacent to the Farewell fault.
169
The presence of bituminous coal on Windy Fork, as well as reports
of bituminous coal farther southwest along the Cheeneetnuk River,
suggests that the coal tends to increase in rank southwestward
from the Little Tonzona River outcrop.
The extent, depth of burial and actual (unweathered) quality of
the coals in the area cannot be determined without drilling.
References
Barnes, F .F., 1967, Coal resources of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey
Bull. 1242-B, 36 p.
Bass, N.W., Smith, H.L. and Horn, G.H., 1970, Standards for the
classification of public coal lands: U.S. Geol. Survey Circular
633, 10 p.
Beikman, H.M., 1974, Preliminary geologic map of the southwest
quadrant of Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Field Studies Map
MF-611.
Brooks, A.H., 1910, Alaska coal and its utilization: U.S. Geol.
Survey Bull. 442-A, p. 47-100.
___ 1911, The Mount McKinley region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey
Professional Paper 70, 234 p.
___ 1925, Alaska's mineral resources and production 1923: U.S.
Geol. Survey Bull. 773-A, p. 3-52.
Capps, S.R., 1919, The Kantishna region, Alaska: U.S. Geol.
Survey Bull. 687, 116 p.
Fernald, A.T., 1960, Geomorphology of the upper Kuskokwim region,
Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1071-G, p. 191-279.
Herreid, Gordon, 1968, Geology and geochemical investigations
southwest of Farewell, Alaska: Alaska Div. of Mines and Miner-
als Geological Report 26.
Sainsbury, C.L., 1965, Previously undescribed Middle(?) Ordovi-
cian, Devonian(?) and Cretaceous(?) rocks, White Mountain area,
near McGrath, Alaska, .in Geological Survey Research 1965: U.S.
Geol. Survey Professional Paper 525-C, p. 91-95.
Sainsbury, C.L. and MacKevett, E.M., Jr., 1965, Quicksilver depos-
its of southwestern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1187, 89 p.
Wahrhaftig, Clyde, Wolfe, J.A., Leopold, E.B. and Lanphere, M.A.,
1969, The coal bearing group in the Nenana coal field, Alaska:
U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1274-D, p. 1-30.
170
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mining, processing and marketing of coal from
Jarvis Creek Field
Paul A. Metz
Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Unlv. of Alaska,
Fairbanks
The Jarvis Creek Coal Field is located on the north peak of the
Alaska Range about 30 miles south of Big Delta, Alaska. The field
includes about 16 square miles. Access is available by gravel
road.
Wahrhaftig and Hickox (1955) estimated 5.9 million tons of indi-
cated coal and 7.5 million tons of inferred coal were available.
They correlated the Jarvis Creek coal bearing rocks with those in
the Nenana field.
In 1970 the US. Bureau of Mines conducted limited drilling.
Further drilling was done by Owen, Loveless and Associates in
1977, which blocked out more than 1 million tons of strippable
coal.
The coal is subbituminous C, with a heating value between 8,000
and 9,000 Btu per pound and an ash content of 5% to 13%. From
bottom to top of the mining section, the sequence includes 10 feet
of coal, 5 feet of interburden, 2 feet of coal, 1 foot of inter-
burden, 2 feet of coal, 1 foot of interburden, and 2 feet of coal.
The section has a strike length of 4500 feet and a width of about
400 feet. The 10 foot seam requires no washing. Since the
material above this seam must be stripped anyway, coal from the
thinner seams should be washed. Some washability tests have
already been run. Present plans call for crushing to minus two
inches and washing the minus 2".
From the recent drilling program a mine plan for Jarvis Creek is
proposed that would include stripping and production of 500 tons
of coal per day on a seasonal basis from May through September.
Current reserve estimates indicate a 20 year mine life with a
stripping ratio of 5 to 1. Coal preparation would initially be
limited to crushing and screening, with washing initiated later.
Mining, coal preparation and support facility capital costs are
estimated for 0, 5, 10 and 15 years and are 1.4, 1.1, 1. 7 and 1.6
million dollars respectively. Estimated annual operating costs
for the operation are approximately 1.7 million dollars.
Local coal production will provide less expensive energy for
Alaskans, and will also produce local jobs and allow cash assets
to remain in local communities.
The full text of this presentation will be published as a supple-
ment to these proceedings.
171
Coal for Alaska Villages
Cleland N. Conwell
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Fairbanks
Don M. Triplehorn
Professor of Geology, Unlv. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Introduction
On the world scene, wood was used for heating through the 17th
century. With the advent of the industrial revolution in the 18th
century, coal began to replace wood. By the late 1880s it was the
dominant fuel. In the middle half of the 20th century, oil re-
placed coal and dominated the fuels market, almost completely
replacing coal in the transportation segment of industry. Today
price controls and the high price of oil have again focused atten-
tion on coal.
The use of coal in Alaska lagged behind that of the rest of the
U.S. during the early part of the 20th century. By 1947 the
importance of coal in the U.S. and the world was declining. In
Alaska, however, coal use and production increased from 100,000 to
900,000 tons per year from 1938-67. Although the steam powered
river boats and mining ventures operating around the turn of the
century used wood, coal did play an important part in Alaska's
development.
Coal was an important fuel in the Chignik fishery, and a coal mine
operated at Chignik from 1880 until about 1914. In rural Alaska
as many as 20 coal mines were in operation in 1910, and probably
more than 60 coal mines have operated and closed in Alaska (Fig.
1). The village of Wainwright mined coal on the Kuk River as
illustrated in Figure 2. Coal from the Meade River mine provided
fuel for Barrow until 1947. Other villages mined or scavenged
coal from Alaska's beaches and riverbanks until wood and coal were
replaced by oil. Many individuals, particularly on the Kenai
Peninsula and near Wainwright, still scavenge coal.
In Alaska's villages the need for fuel for home heating increased
as the design of native homes changed from sod huts to the more
conventional types with more space and less insulation. The
increased demand for energy in these villages and the escalating
price of oil may force a return to coal usage.
Fuel Pricing
The pricing of oil and coal is complex because both vary greatly
in physical and chemical properties. The price of oil is influ-
172
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
Eignre 1. A coal mine operating near Cape Lisburne in northwestern Alaska
in 1904 (Collier, 1906).
Figure 2. Mining and sacking coal on the Kuk River south of Wainwright,
Alaska prior to 1930 (Smith and Mertie, 1930).
173
enced by specific gravity, which is expressed in degrees according
to an American Petroleum Institute formula. Low sulfur "sweet"
oil demands a premium price over high sulfur "sour" oil. Oil is
subject to both international and domestic price controls, based
on an artificially controlled OPEC price. Table 1 indicates
selected world oil prices as of September 1, 1980.
Crude oil was in adequate supply and at a fairly constant average
price of about $3.00 per barrel during the 1960s (about $0.54/mil-
lion Brit1sh thermal units (MBtus)). In 1973 OPEC abruptly in-
creased the price of crude oil from $3.01 to $5.11 and then to
$11.65 per barrel. This was the beginning of a rapidly escalating
price for oil and a dual pricing system in the U.S. Today's OPEC
base price is $30.00 per barrel with an average price of about
$32.00 per barrel ($5.52 per MBtus), an increase of over 1,000
percent in current dollars. Figure 3 shows the dramatic price
increase of world oil from 1978 to date.
In general coal prices are a producer to supplier negotiated
contract price per ton, but cost per ton may be misleading in
evaluating coal as a fuel. On a comparative basis (dollars per
Btus) the price is influenced by the rank of coal, which may vary
from less than 6,000 Btus for lignite to over 14,000 Btus for a
low volatile bituminous or semianthracite coal. Coal costs also
vary according to producing area, from a low of about $5.00 per
ton in Montana and South Dakota to a high of $56.00 per ton in
Arkansas. Because lower rank coals are usually mined at lower
cost, this also affects the cost per ton. For valid comparison,
fuels must be evaluated on a MBtu basis.
Coal has not increased in price as dramatically as oil. In 1970
the average U.S. price of coal was about $7.00 per ton for 12,200
Btu coal ($0.28 per MBtus). The price of coal has increased in
current dollars to about $30.00 per ton for an 11,000 Btu coal
($1.37 per MBtus). Figure 3 indicates the increase in price per
MBtus and the widening cost gap that favors coal as a fuel.
There is only one direct comparison of oil vs. coal in Alaska.
Coal is available on the retail market in Fairbanks at $46.00 per
ton for an 8,000 Btu coal ($2.87 per MBtus). Heating oil is
available at $1.05 per gallon ($7.01 per MBtus). Thus coal is
about 60 percent less expensive than oil in Fairbanks. The fuel
savings for some Alaskan villages could be much greater with a
change from oil to coal, especially for those near coal fields or
convenient shipping routes.
Alaska Coal Fields
Figure 4 shows the location of Alaskan coal fields. Alaska has
two major coal fields, the Northern field and the Cook Inlet-
Susitna field. There are lesser but still large coal fields in
many other areas of the state. Coals in small fields such as
174
I
II
II
I
II
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1. Selected world crude prices ($/bbl)
(from Oil and Gas Journal)
Saudi light 34° •••
United Arab Emirates-Murban
Iranian light 34° ••••
Iraq--Basrah light 35°.
Kuwait blend 31° ••••
Algeria Saharan 44° •••
Nigeria--Bonny light 37° ••
Libyan Es Sider 37° •
Indonesia--Minas 34°. • • ••••••
Venezuela--Tia Juana 26°. • •••
Ecuador--Oriente 30° •••••••••
*United Kingdom--Forties 36.5° ••••••
*Norway--Ekofish 42° • • •••••••••
*Hexico--Isthmus 34°
Malaysia--Miri 38° ••••••
*Canadian heavy 22° ••
*U.s.s.R.--Romash-Kinskaya 32.4° ••
30.00
31.56
35.00
31.96
31.50
37.00
37.00
36.78
31.50
29.88
34.08
36.25
37.15
34.50
36.30
30.90
36.00
*Not members of the Organization of Petroleum Export Countries (OPEC)
nations. Prices are F.O.B. point of loading. The weighted price of for-
eign oil delivered to the u.s. is about $32.00 per barrel.
The u.s. also controls the price of oil and although the present average
price is about $17.00 per barrel, some U.S. oil companies demand and receive
above-OPEC prices, as illustrated in table 2.
Table 2. Selected U.S. crude prices ($/bbl)
Alaska--North Slope upper tier 27°
North Slope free market 27° •••
Cook Inlet (Drift River) 35° •
California heavy (Kern River) 13° ••
Wyoming Sweet ••
West Texas sour.
West Texas intermediate. •
Oklahoma sweet • • • •
Gulf Coast sweet •
Michigan sour. •
. . . . . . . . .
14.27
20.76
33.28
24.30
38.00
36.00
38.00
38.00
38.00
35.00
North Slope upper tier oil is price controlled. North slope free market
is F.O.H. Alyeska Pump Station No. 1 (Prudhoe Bay).
175
c:
0
E
I
I
I
I
$5.52
/
/ .
l
I
$2.93
....
Q)
a.
.. ·· oPEC_'?~\./ ........ /
I-·-·-·-·-· /~··· ....
~
0
0 / U.S. 0.~-~----·······/ $1.3 7
_,-0.54 08~~-~>··-··············-cool
........................
"0.28
1970 72 74 76 78 1980
Year
Figure 3. Cost of coal, average u.s. crude oil and OPEC crude oil in
dollars per MBtu's.
51 MoltP'Itw I ·,
)
51 Poul d
Prrbilol Is. •0
Figure 4. Location of Alaskan coal fields.
176
EXPLANATION -Cool fields
Crosses represent isolated occurrePc~s
of ccol of un~nown extent
0 ~0 100 ·~ 200 lr!ltl ..
1__,1...__.l__L_____j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Healy are well-known. In spite of the paucity of data, there is
sufficient information to select villages as candidates for con-
version from oil to coal.
Cost of Coal vs. Cost of Oil
For comparison of coal with oil, an assumption will be made that
reserves are adequate in each area selected for mining, and that
coal can be mined on a smallscale in an arctic region for $30.00
per ton. This cost reflects an escalation for 1981 based on
extensive cost analysis by Bottge (1977) for a coal mine near
Wainwright (9,350 Btu coal or $1.60 per MBtus). Dee Lane of the
Rural Community Action Program provided the wholesale cost of fuel
in selected rural villages. These figures have been updated to
show approximate retail cost on October 7, 1980.
Estimated mining and transportation costs of coal to selected
villages, and 1980 fuel oil costs are shown in Table 3. The fuel
costs are compared by the common denominator of dollars per MBtu.
The following areas have been selected as mine sites.
1. Wainwright for the Arctic Ocean coast
2. Cape Dyer for the Chukchi Sea
3. Unalakleet for Norton Sound
4. Herendeen Bay for the Bering Sea
5. Nulato for the Yukon River
6. Anaktuvuk Pass for the one village.
Savings made on a MBtu basis by changing from oil to coal are show
in Table 3. Of course, every mine developed must be appraised on
a site specific basis.
Coal is available for use in Alaskan villages, and the savings in
cost by switching from oil to coal is easily demonstrated. A
factor favoring local coal over imported fuel oil is physical and
political availability. Many economists believe the present U.S.
policy subsidizes foreign oil producers. A policy change bringing
U.S. prices to the level of foreign oil would place an additional
financial burden on Alaskan villages. Another consideration is
the political instability of the Middle East, which could lead to
rationing of petroleum products.
Oil is the primary fuel base in the transportation industry.
Current technology and our dependence on air transportation may
preferentially mandate oil supplies to the transportation indus-
try. This may dictate a change to coal for heating and power
generation where it is readily available. Unfortunately changes
canot occur overnight.
Another argument for using coal is that mining wages are paid to
local workers. The dollars for fuel would circulate within the
state rather than drain "Outside" (of Alaska).
177
Table 3. Comparative cost of coal vs heating oil
Cost of coal
Cost of delivered
heating oil to village Cost per Cost per
Village Mine per gallon (dollars/ton) HBtu's oil MBtu's coal
Wainwright Wainwright $1.50 $30.00 $10.00 $1.67
Point Lay Local 1. 50 30.00 10.00 1.25
Point Lay Wainwright 1. 50 60.00 10.00 3.33
Point Hope Cape Dyer 1.50 39.00 10.00 1.07
Kavalina Cape Dyer 1.75 59.00 11.67 2.11
Kotzebue Cape Dyer 1.35 78.00 9.00 2.78
1--' Teller Unalakleet 1.60 70.00 10.67 3.50 -....! co Nome Unalakleet 1.35 60.00 9.00 3.00
Unalakleet Unalakleet 1.50 30.00 10.00 1. 50
Goodnews Bay Herendeen Bay 1. 30 90.00 8.67 3.75
Togiak Herendeen Bay 1.50 80.00 10.00 3.33
Dillingham Herendeen Bay 1.35 80.00 9.00 3.33
Anaktuvak Pass 30 miles north 2.50 39.00 16.67 1.95
Nulato Nulato 1.57 30.00 10.47 1.67
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Applications of Coal
Coal must compete with oil in convenience of use as well as price.
The coal stove for heating and cooking is readily available, but
inconvenient. An available solution may be a coal stove for
heating and cooking, with a back up oil system for use when occu-
pants are away for an extended period.
The second area of consideration is the generation of electrical
power. The coal fired steam electric generator loses its competi-
tive edge over its oil fired equivalent because of higher capital
cost and environmental concerns. Good coal fired steam turbine
units as small as 25 hp are available, but there is greater price
escalation with decreasing size compared to diesel generators or
gas turbines. Obviously each size must be evaluated separately.
For example, manufacturers quote in a range of $175.00 per kw for
a large gas turbine. A similar coal fired unit might run $2,000
per kw. However, if there is a use for waste heat, the economics
of steam power generation rapidly change to favor coal.
Low Btu coal gas can be used in a gas turbine for power genera-
tion, and the waste heat used to produce steam for electrical
power. It can also be directly used for home heating. A small
city the size of Nome or Kotzebue should be considered for such an
installation.
SUggested Coal Progna
Alaska has a vast coal resource, but each project must be site
specific and information must be developed for each mine site.
Because politics and cost may dictate a return to coal, an ex-
panded coal program is required. The state or federal Geologic
Survey could expand the exploration of coal fields, particularly
in areas such as Nulato, Unalakleet and Cape Dyer. Research is
required for competitive utilization of coal in electrical power
generation; here again the research should be site specific.
SmEary
In summary, most Alaska villages could use the readily available
Alaskan coal resource. Research might start with a stronger coal
geology program to better understand the coal resource base,
followed by site specific coal development programs to implement
the conversion from oil to coal for heat and electrical power.
179
References Cited
Bottge, R.G., 1977, Coal as fuel for Barrow, Alaska: A prelimi-
nary study of mining costs: U.S. Bur. Mines Open File Rept. 88-
77, 71 p.
Collier, A.J., 1906, Geology and coal resources of the Cape Lis-
burne region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 278, p. 40.
Oil and Gas Journal, 1980, Statistics: Oil and gas jour., v. 78,
no. 39, p. 158.
Smith, P.S. and Mertie, Jr., J.B., 1930, Geology and mineral
resources of northwestern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 815,
p. 312.
180
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mining and conversion of homes to coal for home
heating at AtK.asuk, Alaska
Howard Grey
Moaning-Grey & Associates. Anchorage
The community of Atkasuk is located approximately 75 miles south
of Barrow on Alaska's North Slope--the Arctic Coastal Plain (Figs.
1 & 2).
Access to the community is by plane, however, cat trains or other
all terrain vehicles may be used during the winter months.
Atkasuk has a current population of about 100 people, residing in
some 21 homes. Other facilities include a power generating sta-
tion, warm storage shop, a small store, a combination school and
community meeting building and a safety building or jail.
At the present time, residents burn fuel oil for heating purposes.
The fuel oil is also used in heating the various community build-
ings. A conservative fuel estimate for a single family dwelling
averages 2 1/2 barrels per month or some 30 barrels per year. In
addition, the school and other municipal structures consume
another 900 barrels or so per year. Total consumption for the
village, exclusive of power generation and vehicle use, is
approximately 1500 barrels or 63,000 gallons annually.
Planned expansion of the community will further increase this use.
At the present time, plans call for construction of a much larger
school facility, 4-plex apartment building and a number of addi-
tional single family residences.
Fuel last year was selling for about $2.10 a gallon, resulting in
an average cost for each family of some $3,000.00 per year. Heat-
ing expenses for the entire community are somewhat in excess of
$130,000 per year.
A locally operated coal mine would supply most of these heating
requirements at a lower cost, while at the same time providing
employment of local residents in the mining, transport and dis-
tribution of the fuel.
Atkasuk was selected as a pilot project for the North Slope at the
request of the local residents and under Borough sponsorship, due
to the availability of a nearby coal source with existing drilling
and related exploration and test information.
Historically, coal from the Meade River deposits was used by the
local people for their hunting and fishing camps. Before the
1940's, residents of Barrow depended on driftwood and petroleum
181
residue from Cape Simpson as a fuel source. However, because of
an increase in population, an acute fuel shortage occurred.
Because of this shortage, an examination of the Meade River depos-
its was made in June, 1943 by the Bureau of Mines. At that time
they concluded that the coal was of sufficient quality and quanti-
ty to be mined economically and supplied to Barrow. Hydraulic
stripping was suggested as the appropriate mining method and the
necessary equipment was purchased and delivered by tractor drawn
sleds during the winter of 1943-44. That winter, some 100 tons of
coal were dug by hand from exposures along the river and sledded
to Barrow for distribution to the residents.
The following spring, hydraulic equipment was used to remove about
2500 cubic yards of overburden from an area along the banks of the
river immediately south of the town site. This pit produced about
45 tons before flood waters covered the coal deposits. Late rains
in the fall again flooded the pit and caused another halt in
mining, and subsequent abandoment of this mining method (Aerial
Photo, Fig. 3).
During the winter of 1944-45, the Alaska Native Service enlarged a
prospect shaft and mined some 500 tons of coal from one 60 by 65
foot room. A room and pillar type of underground mining proved
satisfactory, with the frozen soils providing needed support and
warmer underground temperatures allowing winter operations. Un-
derground mining proceeded in subsequent years, producing between
400 to 2,000 tons of coal annually. The mine was shut down in
1964 when natural gas wells were brought into production near
Barrow.
Surficial geologic conditions in the vicinity of the Meade River
Mine are relatively uncomplicated. In general, Pleistocene depos-
its of sands and silty sands overlie the Cretaceous series that
contain the coal beds. Prior to the deposition of the Pleistocene
sands, the Cretaceous beds--a part of the Umiat Formation composed
primarily of clay and coal with interbedded shales and
sandstones--were warped into a broad anticline dipping about 1° in
an easterly direction.
Locally, erosion due to meandering of the Meade River has stripped
some of the clay and higher coal so that in some cases the present
seams appear as truncated beds, dipping below the old erosional
surface. (Proposed Site Plan, Fig. 4; cross sections, Figs. 5 &
6.)
Four seams have been identified in the mine area through outcrop
and drilling information. The upper bed is about 34 inches in
thickness, the second some 5 to 6 feet thick and two lower seams
about 1 foot each. The coal seams are separated by beds of clay.
All of these contain a fairly good quality subbituminous coal.
During our initial investigation, three areas in the vicinity of
the original mine were incorporated into the mining plan (Fig. 4).
182
I
I
I·
I·
I
I
•:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~~~ '.!.'' ·~ ·~·· ....
••• oC I,.,. II, .. ,
ct'' ,.~ •• .....
.. ,
0 .....
I
I
I
i
~
. ,.,.
.11-
23
, __ .
1 .,
1'.
SCALI IN MIUI ..
110" ....
"~ ~ .. '
\12-
24
I <-;:I'-·,____.-
4 .... '\ ·,
:-_-.2f> . ._.,· \2$
u / <--,1_
-·--/1: ··3.Q· .,-. .......... __ .---' I '
-. ·/ .s----
.. ....
... r .,'-..
', 3~
-· .. 3'
-l ---,
10 II ,.
1\ , ...
16 (--15 -,.
..
""
. ....
183
'!.''
. .,. .
., ·~· '!"' '!r '!.'' '\"" MTER: W•hnltlg. 1965
"'"'G• I' ... .t,.co,.,r
o,., ...
s
..,..
....
ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN
2 ARCTIC FOOTHILLS
A. NORTHERN SECTION
B. SOUTHERN SECTION
3 BROOKS RANGE
A. DE LONG MOUNTAINS
B. CENTRAL BROOKS RANGE
....
WATER AREA OUTSIDE NPR-1
··-········· NPR-4 LAND BOUNDARY
-PROVINCE BORDERS
••-•-• SECTION BORDERS
Figure 1
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF THE NORTH SLOPE
. , ... . ,.,.
23
..
""
\ . ..
I
SCALE
1"= 1 Hi le
Figure 2
VICINITY fo'.AP
From:U.S.G.S. Topographic,..~,
Meade River (B-3), Alaska
L
~/ ~ Estimated Reserves
~ Measured Reserves
•
0
Exploration Borings
Existing Structures
Cross Sections
MEADE RIVER
Scale
1"= 200'
Fig. 4 PROPOSED MINE SITE PLAN
ATKASOOK, ALASKA
-==-__:_:_ _ _.:... _ _;........; ____ .......;; _______ ...... ...-;. _____ ..;;..,;;,;;,;._===::..______:=------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A A'
13
65
55
45
35
3 1' i·. '· •\
. r. . . .. 1 . . , . r r ~ . ,) I·• ! --' . -: :-: : ·;-;~. . .' ," ·: : ·. . ·. . . . : ' .. : ...... · .. . . . . . . .·
eEAOE ~ ..•• • •••.. · .•. •·.·•. ••·• ..... • > ,._, ............ • .. ·.·• •• i > ·.·· .. ·. . .· "' • ·. · .. · •.••.•
RIVER//£///// ;0// h/j//~SL///////~ /~//// ~0
/ . -. .
25 B'
// / / / COAL
""'/~---__:..:.----1..-.ll----~-----------------~
75 6
65
55
45
35
25
~Organic Tundra ~Surface I SP-~N:I Silty-Sand Vc~Jclay ~Subbituminous ~Coal
75
65
55
45
35
25
75
65
55
45
35
25
SCALE
10 6
._r.r:·' .r. t ... ( .
SCALE
1"= 20' Verticle
1 '= 50' Horizontal
Figure 5
CROSS SECTIONS
MEADE Rl VER AREA
ATKASUK, ALASKA
'"--" :::·-_-:_-.·.:-.-·.::._·:,-:. ,'.
COAL -----------..:.. -----------------------------------------L........
fi""T1.Tl Organic Tundra
~Surface I SP-SN I Silty-Sand ~~~Silty-Clay ~Subbituminous
L.:.:_JCoal
1"• 20' Vert1cle
1"• 100' Horizontal Figure 8 CROSS SECTIONS
MEADE Rl VER AREA
ATKA A AS
185
These total approximately 19 acres in size. Initial coal recovery
would begin within Area One, containing a measured reserve of some
36,000 short tons. At a maximum coal use, Area One would supply
community needs for about 70 years. An addi tiona! 65,000 tons
could probably be blocked out in the remaining areas, Two and
Three. However, more exploration would be necessary before mining
could progress into these sections (Fig. 7).
Due to numerous factors, including costs, safety, equipment on
hand and the size of the operation, a surface mine was planned for
this area. In general, stripping ratios are satisfactory, on the
order of 3 to 1 on the measured reserves in Area One.
Mining operations would commence in the depression cut by the
hydraulic stripping previously mentioned. Removal of top soil,
overburden and coal would proceed outward from an initial semicir-
cular cut, which would be about 300 feet in length (Fig.8,9,1n).
Because of the frozen or permafrost condition of the subsurface,
overburden removal will be accomplished by a strip and thaw
method. In other words, successive stripping would proceed after
a newly exposed area has thawed to an appropriate depth. Overbur-
den would be pushed toward the initial reclamation area in the
southern part of the depression.
Suitable topsoil would be removed and stockpiled directly adjacent
to the initial reclamation area. Once the predetermined reclama-
tion elevation is reached, the topsoil would then be regraded and
compacted for seeding. In this manner, the mine would expand in a
northerly and westerly direction, with simultaneous reclamation.
Overall, the impact of this coal mine on the residents of Atkasuk
is considered very favorable. The mine will bring with it in-
creased employment, lowering of fuel costs, strengthening of the
local economy and a general decrease in dependence on imported
goods. Depending upon the success of this program, we would
expect to see similar conversions in other communities on Alaska's
North Slope and, hopefully, elsewhere in Alaska.
186
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)
o Exploration Borings
MEADE RIVER
SCALE
1"= 200'
0 Existing Structures
,·
H
Overburden-Coa 1
Ratio {Approx.) Figure 7
LEGEND
Scale 1"= 100'
STRIPPING RATIO
OF PROPOSED MINE
Initial Reclamation
Area
Surface Excavation
Coal Recovery Area
Limits of Area
~ Where Coa 1 Was
Previously Mined
Cross Section
{See Fig. 3.3-2)
187
\
Figure 8
MINING AND RECLAMATION SCHEME
FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION
ATKASUK, ALASKA
•
..L___ ~lEAD~ RIVER
,f ..!:r.:_s~:_ Topography
-....:--.. -.-. -. -. -.-.-.. -. ....,. .. -----:---:----:---:--. -.. -:-.. -:-: .-:-:,;:.,-.
~'<<:·~ : .. ~. ·: :\ ~ l·t~~~~.n~ ·. · .. '. ··.: :' · ·: ·' .· j/~?~~i ~~i~g sb~~~e~~1 0 ~ottom
FR::JNT VIEW
Scale
1"= 50' Horizontal
1"= 20' Vertical
CROSS SECTION
Scale
1 "= 20' Hori zonta 1
1"= 20'. Vertical
Figure 9
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF
PROPOSED FREEZE DAM
ATKASUK , ALASKA
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-------------------1
A
70 ~ .
60 1 ---------------------------------
50 1
40 Coal
SCALE
1"= 60' Horizontal
1"= 20' Vertical
Present Topography (Approx.)
Post ~lining Topography (Approx.)
188
------------
,;;
Area Where Coal Was Previously Nined
Figure 10
FINAL TOPOGRAPHY
MEADE RIVER MINE
ATKASUK, ALASKA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Palynology and coal
Rena McFarlane
Graduate Student, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
Coal researchers should be aware of the value of pollen. Pollen
and spores trapped in coal during its formation may store informa-
tion on its mode of deposition, past climate, age and physio-
graphic environment. Most important to coal developers is how
pollen stratigraphy provides a basis for coal seam correlation.
Pollen is transported by water, wind, insects and birds. It will
settle out and be preserved in anaerobic and acidic environments.
Best preservation occurs where post depositional oxidation is
minimal and compaction of sediments is not severe enough to cause
distortion. Most coals are favorable environments for preserva-
tion, with the exception of high rank coals. Metamorphism will
cause a gradual carbonization of pollen and spores. In these high
rank coals it is hard to isolate the pollen from the matrix with-
out damaging them.
Pollen grains are extracted from coal by a series or chemical and
mechanical treatments. Acids and bases are used which dissolve or
disaggregrate mineral and certain organic fractions of the matrix.
Pollen grains have a tough resistant outer wall that enables them
to withstand chemical treatment. Organic materials are destroyed
by oxidation using, for example, nitric acid and potassium chlo-
rate. Heavy liquid flotation is used to separate different densi-
ty fractions. At the end of these treatments, microscope slides
are made ot the residue.
The pollen extracted from coal will represent a particular floral
assemblage. The differentiation of floral assemblages through
time depends on replacement of one assemblage by another because
of the introduction of new groups, in addition to the extinction
and movement or migration of old groups. Correlating a coal seam
may depend on recognizing the pollen assemblage changes from coal
to coal. These changes include variation in the species (or
genera) content, variation in the stratigraphic ranges of the
different pollen and changes in the relative abundance of pollen
and spore types. Correlation is made when assemblages are match-
able and abundances reasonably similar.
The two main groups of Alaskan coals that have been examined
palynologically are the North Slope Cretaceous coals and the
Tertiary coals ranging from Homer to Healy. Work in this field is
very limited. Most all quantitative palynological work in the
state has been restricted to Quaternary problems.
189
An abstract published in 1969 (Ames and Riegel, 1969) is the only
published mention of coal seam correlation using palynology done
in the state. This study correlated four seams in the Matanuska
Coal Field, on opposite sides of the Premier Fault, over a dis-
tance of about 2, 000 feet. Several U.S. Geological Survey open-
file reports have been published on the lithology and palynology
of Tertiary rocks near Capps Glacier (Adkison, Kelley and Neuman,
1975) Homer, (Adkison, Kelley and Newman, 1975) and the Kenai
peninsula (Adkison and Neuman, 1973). These are qualitative stu-
dies of both coal and rock units. Checklists of the genera iden-
tified are provided.
Jack Wolfe has made significant contributions in the field of
Tertiary paleobotany in Alaska (Wolfe, 1972, 1977, 1980). Most of
his work deals with megaplant fossils but palynological findings
are often used. The palynological work, however, entails an
overview om many lithologic units, coal and rock. Wolfe has
demonstrated many climatic trends during the Tertiary, including
the loss of dominance of warm temperate broad leaved forest trees
after mid-Miocene, and the proliferation and abundance of cool
temperate families such as Bethulaceae (birch). Wolfe has proven
that megafossil plants are more clearly dianognostic of the Seldo-
vian Homerian and Clamgulchian stages, but microfossils are more
useful in determining stage assignments for subsurface samples
(Wolfe, 1966).
Some coal seams from the Nenana Coal Field were examined palynolo-
gically by Leopold (Wahrhaftig and others, 1969). Checklists of
pollinating flora from the Miocene age Suntrana Formation showed
that the percentage of flora now exotic or foreign (or extinct) to
Alaska was 49%. Palynological information suggests that by Qua-
ternary time the flora of southern Alaska was modernized on a
generic basis (Leopold, 1969).
A Penn State group studied the palynology and petrography of
certain coals of the Arctic Slope of Alaska including Meade River,
Kuk Inlet and the Umiat area (Dutcher, Trotter and Spackman,
1957). A more detailed description of the Cretaceous pollen and
spore assemblages in Kuk and Meade River was done by Stanley
(Stanley, 1967). The microfossils in this study were useful in
making age assignments for the deposits.
A master's thesis on the petrography and palynology of seam num-
bers 6, 5 and 4 of Usibelli Coal Mine, Nenana Coal Field, is
currently underway by the author. The work is supported by the
Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, University of Alaska. Coal
samples have also been collected by another graduate student,
Steve Hardy, from the area to be flooded by the proposed Susi tna
Dam project. These samples have been processed for pollen and
spores, but not examined. It is hopeful that they will be ex-
amined soon. Results from these slides may indicate interesting
areas to be more intensively collected and studied before the area
may be flooded if the Dam is built.
190
I
I
I
II
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following plate shows photographs of Tertiary age pollen and
spores extracted from seam number 6, Nenana Coal Field. All of
these genera are extant in Alaska. However, today some of them
are restricted to warmer climates.
References
t1/ Adkison, W.L., Kelley, J.S. and Ne;::tman, K.R., 1975, Lithology and
palynology of Tertiary rocks exposed near Capps Glacier and
along Chui tna River, Tyonek quadrangle, Southern Alaska: U.S.
Geol. Sur. Open-file Report 75-21, 58 p. w
Adkison, W.L., Kelley, J.S. and Ne)lman, K.R., 1975, Lithology and
palynology of the Beluga and Sterling Formations exposed near
Homer, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Sur. Open-file Re-
port 75-383, 239 p.
v Adkison, W.L. and Ne).nllan, K.R., 1973, Lithologic characteristics
and palynology of Upper Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks in the
Deep Creek Unit well, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Sur.
Open-file Report, 73-1, 271 p.
Ames, H,. and Riegel, W., 1962, Palynological investigation of
coals from the Chickaloon Formation, Alaska: Pollen et Spores,
v. 4, p. 328.
Dutcher, R.R., Trotter, C.L. and Spackman, W ., 1957, Petrography
and palynology of certain coals of the Arctic slope of Alaska:
Rept. Arctic, Inst. North Am., 37 p.
Stanley, E.A., 1967, Cretaceous pollen and spore assemblages from
northern Alaska: Rev. Paleobotan, Palynol., v. 1, p. 229-234.
Leopold, E.B., 1969, Late Cenozoic palynology in: Aspects of
palynology, Tschudy and Scott, eds., p. 377-438, Wiley Intersci-
ence Publ. Co., N.Y.
Wahrhaftig, Clyde, Wolfe, J.A., Leopold, E.B. and Lanphere, M.A.,
1969. The coal bearing group in the Nenana coal field, Alaska:
U.S. Geol. Sur. Bull. 1274 D, p. D1-D30.
Wolfe, J.A., Hopkins, D.M. and Leopold, E.B., 1966, Tertiary
stratigraphy and paleobotany of the Cook Inlet region, Alaska:
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 398-A, p. A 1-A29.
Wolfe, J .A., 1972, An interpretation of Alaskan Tertiary floras,
in Graham, Alan, ed., Floristics and paleofloristics of Asia and
Eastern North America: Elsevier Pub!. Co., Amsterdam, p. 201-233.
Wolfe, J.A., 1977, Paleogene floras from the Gulf of Alaska
Region: U.S. Geol. Sur. Prof. Paper 997, p. 108.
191
Wolfe, J.A. and Tanai, T., 1980, The Miocene Seldovia Pt. flora
from the Kenia Group, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper
1105, p. 52.
Pollen and Spores from the Suntrana Formation,
Nenana Coal Field
Figure
PLATE 1
(all figures, 1 em . 02 mm)
1. Picea (spruce)
2. Tsuga (hemlock)
3. Drosera
4. Sphagnum (moss)
5. Polypodiaceae (fern)
C/ ./-' Onagraceae
? ~ Tilia (linden or basswood)
/ Y. Ilex (holly)
9. Itea
10. tricolpate grain
11. Salix (willow)
192
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
~I
: '
I
I
1-
II
I
II
I ,
I
I
I
<t
6
~,a:s
" 'itt • . . ' ., .
9
1
1 2
..
3
4 5
.,
. .
8
7
' ., ~; ~
'
10 11
193
Petrological, mineralogical, and chemical
characterizations of certain Alaskan coals
and washibility products
P.O. Rao and Ernest N. Wolff
Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Unlv. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Abstract
Petrological, mineralogical and chemical characterization provides
basic information needed for proper utilization of coals. Since
many of these coals are likely to be beneficiated to reduce ash,
the influence of coal washing on the characteristics of the washed
product is important.
Twenty samples of Alaskan coal seams were used for this study.
The coals studied ranged in rank from lignite to high volatile A
bituminous with vitrinite/ulminite reflectance ranging from 0.25
to 1.04. Fifteen raw coals were characterized for proximate and
ultimate analysis, reflectance rank, petrology, composition of
mineral matter, major oxides and trace elements in coal ash.
Washability products of three coals from Nenana, Beluga and Mata-
nuska coal fields were used for characterization of petrology,
mineral matter and ash composition.
Petrological analysis of raw coals and float sink products showed
that humodetrinite was highest in top seam in a stratigraphic
sequence and higher towards the top of a seam. Suberinite was
identified in all tertiary and Cretaceous coals studied. Signifi-
cant differences were found in the petrology, mineralogy and ash
composition of float sink products, indicating that in evaluating
coal resources it is not adequate to characterize the raw coals
alone. Characterization of float sink products will help under-
stand the nature of the product obtainable from the raw coal
rather than coal as mined.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted under the sponsorship of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy (USDOE) under contract No. ET-78-S-01-3197. Sample
collection and washability studies were conducted under a separate
USDOE sponsored study with the cooperation of Joseph A. Cavallaro
and Albert W. Deurbrouck, Pittsburgh Mining and Technology Center,
USDOE. Laboratory investigations were assisted by Kyle Morrow and
Jane Smith, students in geology, Sam Yang and Sam Chang, graduate
students in mineral preparation, and Namok Veach, State Division
of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
194
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Thanks are due to Dr. Earl H. Beistline, Dean, School of Mineral
Industry, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for his interest and
encouragement in coal investigations, and to Dr. Syed Akhtar for
his interest and review of the manuscript.
Introduction
Coal utilization is dictated by the characteristics of the coal.
Among the characteristics most generally sought are the proximate
analysis, ultimate analysis, mean maximum reflectance of vi tri-
nite, coal petrological composition, composition of ash, both
major oxides, minor as well as trace elements, nature and concen-
tration of mineral matter in coal, and finally the washability
characteristics that permit evaluation of the coal to its amalna-
bility to reduction of ash and sulfur and improvement in heating
value. It is also important to know the characteristics of the
washed coal in terms of coal petrology, ash and mineral matter
composition, since they would be different from the raw coal.
Twenty samples--collected under the washability characterization
program sponsored by the Department of Energy (Rao and Wolff,
1, 2)--were used for this study. Two samples were selected for
total characterization as described above. Twelve samples were
selected for raw coal characterization. Ash analysis and vitri-
nite reflectance were determined for the five remaining samples.
Coal Fields Sampled
The twenty samples used for this study were collected for the
Department of Energy Washability study program. Six hundred pound
channel samples were collected and transported to the laboratory
in heavy-duty plastic bags in gunny sacks. Details of sample
location, geology of the area, the stratigraphic section and
complete washability data are presented elsewhere by Rao and Wolff
(1, 2). Certain essential information is reviewed here for com-
pleteness. Figure 1 is a map of Alaska showing major coal re-
source areas and sampling locations.
Nenana ~ Field
The Nenana coal field is located about 110 miles south of Fair-
banks on the Parks Highway at Healy. The field extends 80 miles
in the eastwest direction and is one to thirty miles wide (3, 4,
5). The coal bearing formation consists of sandstones, silt-
stones, claystone, shale and numerous thick coal beds and is
divided into five formations by Wahrhaftig et al., (6). Samples
numbered UA-100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 119 were collected in
this field at Usibelli Coal Mine.
195
Figure 1. Sampling location and major coal resource areas in Alaska.
------ -------- - --- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jarvis Creek ~ Field
The Jarvis Creek coal field is located about 125 miles southeast
of Fairbanks on the north side of the Alaska Range. The coal
field is 16 square miles in area and the site of sporadic mining
activity. It is about 6 miles via a pioneer gravel road from the
Richardson Highway, Mile 242. The coal field has been mapped by
Wahrhaftig and Hickcox (7). It is Tertiary in age and has been
correlated to the Healy Creek formation of the Nenana coal field,
100 miles to the west.
The coal bearing formation consists of a sequence of interbedded
lenses of poorly consolidated sandstone, siltstone, claystone and
conglomerate. Although there are numerous coal beds, those with
thicknesses exceeding 2-1/2 feet are rare.
Matanuska ~ Field
Matanuska coal field is about 45 miles northeast of Anchorage on
the Glenn Highway. In the Upper Matanuska Valley the coal in-
creases in rank from high volatile A bituminous at the Castle
Mountain Mine, to anthracite at the Anthracite Ridge. The coal in
the Wishbone Hill District of the Lower Matanuska Valley is high
volatile B bituminous. The coal seams are limited to the Chicka-
loon formation of Tertiary age. This formation consists of nonma-
rine rocks that include all gradations from coarse sandstone and
conglomerate to claystone. It is concealed by a mantle of Quater-
nary deposits or by a capping of younger Tertiary conglomerate
(8, 9).
Coal was mined extensively in this area until 1968 when the Evans
Jones coal mine ceased operations.
There are two coal beds exposed at the Castle Mountain Mine (not
operated since the early 1960's). The lower bed, 7.0 feet thick,
was sampled (UA-107). Another coal seam was sampled at the Pre-
mier Mine (UA-108) and is from a region highly faulted and at the
creek of an anticline.
Northern Alaska ~ Field
The great bulk of Alaska's coal resources lie in the northern
Alaska field, north of the Brooks Range. Coal bearing Cretaceous
rocks are known or inferred to underlie about 58,000 square miles
(Barnes, 10). Coal beds of potential economic significance are
confined almost entirely to the Corwin formation. The Cretaceous
rocks include sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, shale and coal.
Although these rocks are mostly of marine origin, nonmarine coal
bearing rocks predominate in some areas and intertongue with the
marine rocks.
197
Wainwright
Sample No. UA-109 was from an outcrop on the east bank of the Kuk
River, about 14 air miles from Wainwright. The seam is 5 feet
thick and the bottom of the seam is approximately 4 feet above the
river level. The stratigraphic position of this bed has not been
definitely established, but according to Barnes (10) it is be-
lieved to be in rocks correlative with the Chandler formation.
Coal outcrops have been described and in fact some have been mined
for a distance of 10 miles along the Kuk River. There are two
principal beds exposed at the outcrops with approximately 10 feet
of coal. The individual beds ranging in thickness from 2 to 6
feet with 10 to 50 feet overburden outcrop along the Kuk River
(Tonges and Jolley, 11 ).
Meade River
Coal outcrops along the west bank of the Meade River near the
village of Atkasuk. Coal for shipment to Barrow has been mined
during the forties and early fifties in an open trench and under-
ground. The u.s. Bureau of Mines has done extensive drilling in
this region and delineated the coal bearing areas for mining
purposes (Sanford and Pierce, 12). Four coal seams have been
identified in this locality. The top No. 1 bed is 34 inches
thick, the No. 2 bed is 5 to 6 feet, the lower No. 3 and No. 4
beds are approximately 12 inches and the beds are separated by 1
to 2 feet of clay ( 12). The seam that is sampled for this study
is No. 2 bed {UA-110).
Sagwon Bluff
Rocks in the Sagavanirktok quadrangle are part of a thick sequence
of submarine volcanic and nonmarine carbonate rocks of Mississip-
pian through Tertiary age. Coal has been reported in Ignek forma-
tion of Cretaceous age and Sagavanirktok formation of Tertiary
age. The sampled coal outcrop (UA-114) was from the bluffs on the
Sagavanirktok River adjacent to the Trans Alaska Pipeline. The
sampling location has not been mapped in detail and the age of the
formation in which the coal occurs has not been determined (Creta-
ceous to Tertiary).
Broad Pass Coal Field
Broad Pass coal field is located near Broad Pass station, 166
miles south of the Alaska Railroad and Parks Highway. The field
may be divided into two basins. The Costello Creek Basin (Wahr-
haftig, 13) is on the west side of the railroad and covers about
seven square miles.
Coal Creek Basin is located on the east side of the Alaska Rail-
road and lies in an area three miles long and one mile wide
198
I
I
I
I
I
I I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(Hopkins, 14). About 1 1/2 square miles are known to be underlain
by coal bearing rocks.
Coal was mined from the basin until the mid-1940's. The sample
collected (UA-111) was from an outcrop near the former Coal Creek
mine. The seam is 8 feet thick and is covered by unconsolidated
sediments. Access to the locality is via an old wagon trail from
the Parks Highway. The trail crosses several streams and its use
is limited to four-wheel-drive vehicles.
.IJ.ttl..e. Tonzona Cogl ~
Occurrences of coal near Farewell were first observed by Brooks
(15) in 1902. Capps (16) described 20 foot thick coal beds in
Tertiary nonmarine sedimentary rocks south of Kantishna. The
Little Tonzona coal bed, however, was first described in 1977 by
Player ( 17) and recently by Sloan et al., ( 18).
Coal beds occur in Tertiary nonmarine sandstone, siltstone and
volcanic rocks in widespread isolated exposures north and south of
Farewell fault, from big River northeast to Kantishna and beyond
(Player, 17). The sampled seam occurs in an isolated exposure of
Tertiary nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the southwest bank of the
Little Tonzona River. Beds strike N60°E to N70°E and dip 55° to
70° northwest. The total stratigraphic thickness measured by
Player is about 195 feet, and the sample (UA-112) was collected
from the exposed portions of the coal seam.
Tramwu .BaJ:: ~ Occurr_e_nQ.e.
Occurrence of coal near Tramway Bar was first reported by Schrader
( 19) in 1899 and has been mined for local use (Smith and Mertie,
20, p. 316). The occurrences are at the northeastern part of the
Yukon-Koyukuk Province. The province is a broad tract of Creta-
ceous and Tertiary rocks that stretch across westcentral and
southcentral Alaska from the Brooks range to the Yukon River delta
(Patton, 21 ).
Coal is exposed along the north bank of the Koyukuk River in three
seams, a 3 foot seam, an 8 inch seam and a 17 1/2 foot seam. The
top portion of the 17 foot seam was covered and was difficult to
sample. The bottom 13 feet of the seam was sampled, including
bands of interbedded shale. The coal bed dips at 56° and the
sample was cut horizontally across the seam at a level six feet
above the river.
Cook Inlet Sedimentru:y Basin
Nonmarine sedimentary rocks of Cook Inlet basin exceed 18,000 feet
in thickness, and in some parts of the basin they may extend to
27,000 feet. The rocks outcrop as far north as Peters Hills and
199
continue south to Homer, forming a belt 200 miles long and 70
miles wide. Although these formations are known to be coal bear-
ing since the early 1900's, recent discoveries of petroleum and
gas fields sparked intensive drilling that resulted in a greater
understanding of the geology of these Tertiary rocks.
From purely geographical considerations the sedimentary basin is
divided into three coal fields: a) Kenai field, b) Beluga field
and c) Yentna field. The coal is of Tertiary age and is limited
to the Kenai group (formerly Kenai Formation). Coal is interbed-
ded with coarse to fine grained sandstone, siltstones and occa-
sional conglomerates. The Kenai Group is subdivided into four
formations which include (from older to younger) Hemlock Conglom-
erate, Tyonek, Beluga and Sterling Formations.
a. Kenai coal field. Much of the Kenai lowland is underlain by
coal bearing rocks. Coal exposures are found extensively on steep
bluffs along the east shore of the Cook Inlet, rising at places to
200 feet above the beach. Barnes and Cobb (22) made a detailed
study of those outcrops and presented extensive sections of these
exposures. The beds are not massive in thickness; Barnes, how-
ever, identified at least 30 beds ranging in thickness from 3 to 7
feet.
Coal has been mined in the Homer district since 1888. There has
been no mining since 1951 when the Homer Coal Corporation ceased
operations. Some residents of the Homer areas still collect coal
from the beach for domestic use, particularly after a severe
storm. The sample collected (UA-118) is from the Cabin Bed and
the location is equivalent to locality 117 of Barnes (22). The
seam is 6 feet thick and has about 5 feet overburden at the
sampling location. The seam outcrops on a vertical face, and
sampling was accomplished with the aid of technical rock climbing
equipment.
b. Beluga coal field. Barnes (25) defined the Beluga-Yentna
region as the broad lowland west of lower Susi tna River that is
bounded on the north and west by the Alaska Range, and on the
south by Upper Cook Inlet and the Chakachatna River. The Beluga
Coal field is part of Cook Inlet sedimentary basin and is located
approximately 60 miles west of Anchorage on the northwest shore of
Cook Inlet. The field can be subdivided into three coal bearing
regions. Region 1, the Three Mile Creek Basin, located about 6
miles from Cook Inlet, contains approximately 22 steeply dipping
seams averaging 10 feet in thickness. Region 2, the Chuitna
Basin, is located about 17 miles from Cook Inlet. There are at
least two mineable coal beds, one of which exceeds 40 feet in
thickness, outcropping along the Chuitna River. Region 3, the
Capps Basin, lies 26 miles from Cook Inlet. This area has two
seams in the Tyonek formation: the Upper Capps Bed with an aver-
age thickness of 17 feet, and the Waterfall Bed (Capps Bed of
Barnes) with an aggregate thickness from 20-49 feet. The latter
has an average mineable thickness of 30 feet, with interburden
varying from 80 to 280 feet. Sample No. (UA-113) was from this
200
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
seam and represents the bottom 30 feet of the seam. The top 6
feet is dirty and will be sampled separately in future investiga-
tions.
The lower part of the Tyonek Formation is well exposed south of
the Capps Glacier and the section is described by Adkison, Kelley
and Newman (23). The location is about two miles north of the
sample location of UA-113. These beds were designated part of the
type section of the Seldovian stage by Wolff, Hopkins and Leopold
(24).
c. Yentna coal field. There are numerous outcrops of the Kenai
Group in the northern part of the Beluga-Yentna region. Much of
the area is covered by a mantle of Quaternary deposits, Barnes
(25) concludes, "outcrops of the Kenai Formation (now Kenai
Group), though mostly of small extent, are so widely distributed
as to leave little doubt that the formation underlies much of the
lowland areas". Occurrences of coal in the Fairview Mountain area
were first described by Capps ( 16). An outcrop on Chicago Gulch
was determined by Wolff, Hopkins and Leopold (24) to be Seldovian.
Of all the coal outcrops in the region, the thickest was Locality
2, described by Barnes (25). The bed is 55 feet thick and has no
visible partings. The middle part of the bed was covered with
gravel and could not be reached for sampling. The part of the bed
below (UA-115) and above (UA-116) were sampled separately. The
sampled outcrop is approximately 23 air miles from Peters Creek
and access was via helicopter. Peters Creek is about 25 miles on
Peters Creek Road from the Cache Creek Station on the Parks High-
way.
Laboratory Procedures
Sample Preparation
Figure 2 is a flowsheet of procedures used in the laboratory for
processing samples for washability studies (Rao and Wolff, 1, 2).
Washability products of 1 1/2 inches to 100 mesh materials were
used in this study. Raw coal and float sink products crushed to
20 mesh were used for petrographic analysis. Samples pulverized
to 60 mesh were used for the preparation of low and high tempera-
ture ashes. High temperature ash was prepared by oxidizing pul-
verized coal in quartz boats at 750°C. This ash was used for the
determination of all major oxides, trace and minor elements.
Mineral in coal was isolated by oxidizing pulverized coal at a
temperature less than 150°C, using LFE model LTA-302 low tempera-
ture asher in excited oxygen plasma to obtain essentially unal-
tered mineral components of coal. The ash was further pulverized
in an agate mortar covered with alcohol, to prepare for x-ray
diffraction and infrared spectrometric analyses.
201
50 g
Analyze Total and Pyritic
Sulfur and Heating Value and Ash
50 g
Analyze Total
and Pyritic
Sulfur Heating
Value and Ash
Proximate
Ultimate
Sulfur Forms
Heatinn Value
Free S;tC>llfng l11dex
Hardgrove r.rindability
Analy~es (Jf Ash
Fusibilit of A~h
202
50 g
Analyze Total and Pyritic
Sulfur and Heatinq Value and Ash
Equilibrium
Bed Moisture
Petroqraphy
(Future)
FIGURE 2
Sample Bank-Store
Under Nitrogen for
Future Research
1# can
Flowsheet for wa~hability
characterization.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal Petrology
Procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), specifications 02797-72, 02798-72 and 02799-72,
were generally followed for petrological studies. Coal samples
crushed to 20 mesh were made into 1" diameter pellets using epoxy
binder under pressure. Grinding of the pellets was done on 120
micron diamond lap followed by 30 micron metal bonded diamond lap
with Buehler automet for 2 minutes. Polishing was done using
automet with 1 micron and 0.05 micron alumina suspensions for 2
minutes each stage, followed by one minute of polish with dis-
tilled water flooding.
A special technique was needed for preparation of thin sections of
subbituminous "C" coals, since these coals dry out and crack with
normal procedures. Blocks of coal with 1" x 2" face x 1" thick
were ground with 30 micron diamond lap followed by 1 micron alumi-
na and finished with .05 micron alumina. The piece was kept wet
all the time (stored under water) to prevent drying and resultant
cracking. A glass slide is cleaned with acetone and dried, the
polished face is rinsed with a jet of acetone quickly wiped clean
and glued to the face of the glass slide with a few drops of
methyl methacrylate adhesive, commonly sold as super glue and
other trade names, while applying heavy pressure with the thumb.
After five to ten seconds, pressure can be released and the slide
covered with a wet paper towel for 10 minutes. The coal piece is
cut off with a diamond saw leaving coal on the slide, one to two
mm thick. The slide was held in a plastic slide holder and ground
on 30 micron diamond lap while carefully applying pressure to
whichever side appeared opaque. The slide could be ground down
within a few minutes. Further thinning was done on 1 micron
alumina. The face was finished with .05 micron alumina. The
slide was cleaned (wiped with a tissue) and immediately covered
with a glass slide, again using super glue.
The procedure should be completed rapidly. Long soaking in water
will allow the adhesive to peel off and the coal to dry out and
fracture severely while in air. From the time the block is glued
to the glass slide the section should be processed to completion.
Reflectance Measurements
All polished sections were dried in a dessicator prior to measure-
ment of reflectance. Low rank coal particles fracture badly due
to dessication. Reflectance apparatus consisted of Leitz ortho-
plan microscope with MPV-3 system (Figure 3), with a motorized
drive for the stage. A square leaf diaphram with a 5 micron
square measuring area of the specimen was used. All reflectance
measurements were made using a filter to give peak transmittance
at 546 nm wave length. Bausch and Lomb Company optical glasses
203
were used as reflectance standards. Maximum reflectances were
measured in oil for 100 vi trini te/ulmini te particles using two
pellets.
Petrological Analysis
Terminology and procedures approved by the International Committee
for Coal Petrology (26) and Stach's textbook of coal petrology
(27) were followed. Brown coal terminology was used for all
subbituminous and lower rank coal, and hard coal terminology was
used for bituminous coals. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the macerals
of brown coals and hard coals (26). A thousand points were count-
ed between 2 pellets for petrological analysis. Point counts were
made under both normal incident light and fluorescent incident
light excitation (blue light) for liptinite macerals and fluores-
cent vitrinite. The fluorescence system consisted of Leitz SmLux
microscope, ploempak fluorescence incident light illuminator and
1 OOw mecury lamp, fit ted with I2 cube (Figure 4). Figures 5, 6
and 7 show the occurrence of various macerals. Figure 8 shows
fluorescence colors of liptinite macerals in fluorescence (blue
light). In reflected light, examination of fluorescence of lipti-
nite macerals makes their identification unambiguous.
Determination of Minerals bY X-Ray Diffraction
An internal standard method recommended by Rae and Gluskoter (28)
was used for the quantitative analysis of minerals in low tempera-
ture ash. A Phillips Norelco X-Ray diffraction system with CuK
Ni-filtered radiation at 40 Kv, 15 rna was used.
Mineral matter residue obtained from low temperature ashing was
first ground in an agate mortar to minus 200 mesh. As an internal
standard, 0.02 grams of finely powdered pure fluorite was mixed
with 0.1 grams of sample on a weighing paper, followed by hand
mixing grinding in an agate mortar for 25 minutes under ethanol.
The back packed cavity mount technique described by Rae and Glus-
koter (28) was used and was found effective in avoiding orienta-
tion of powdered grains along the preferred cleavage faces of
minerals.
A preliminary scan of the samples from 2° to 60° revealed that the
minerals in the samples were quartz, calcite, dolomite, siderite,
kaolinite, illite and expandable clay.
The calibration curves of two series of standard mixes (Rae, 29)
were used. The first set (Standard QCD) of standards consisted of
quartz, calcite and dolomite and the second set (Standard PSA) of
plagioclase, siderite and analcime. Details of preparation of
standards and standard curves were presented by Rae (29).
204
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figure 3. Leitz orthoplan microscope with MPV 3 reflectance measurement system
and vario-orthomat photomicrographic camera system.
Figure 4. Leitz Sm-Lux microscope for reflected light fluorescence examination
of Liptinite macerals.
205
TABLE 1. Summary of the Macerals of Brown Coals (26)
Group Maceral Maceral Subgroup Maceral
Textinite
Humotelinite
Ul mi nite
Attri n ite
Humi nite Humodetri n ite
Densinite
Gelinite
Humoco 11 in i te
Corpohuminite
Sporinite
Cutinite
Resinite
Liptinite Suberinite
Alginite
Liptodetrinite
Chlorophyllinite
Fusinite
Semifus i ni te
Inertinite
Macrinite
Sclerotini te
Inertodetrinite
206
Submaceral
Texto-Ulminite
Eu-Ulminite
Porigelinite
Levi gel inite
Phlobaphinite
Pseudophlobaohinite
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2. Summary of the Macerals of Hard Coals (26)
GrouE Maceral ~1acera 1 Submaceral
Vitrinite Telinite Telinite 1
Telinite 2
Telocollinite
Gelocollinite
Collinite Desmocollinite
Corpocollinite
Vitrodetrinite
Exinite Sporinite
Cutinite
Resinite
A 1 gin i.te
LiEtodetrinite
Inertinite t·1 i c r i n i te
Macrinite
Semifusinite
Fusinite Pyrofus in i te
Degradofusinite
Sclerotinite
Inertodetrinite
207
A. Corpohuminite bodies, partly
dense(D) and partly porous(P)
in a root section (UA-103)
C. Pholbaphinite (P) cell fillings
and thick suberinites (S) cell
walls of a cortex (UA-101)
E. Large and small corpohuminites
(C)(UA-113)
B. Phlobaphinite(P) and suber-
inite (S) in a traverse section
of root bark (UA-113)
D. Phlobaphinite (P) with thin
suberinite (S) cell walls
(UA-103)
F. Corpohuminites (C) in ulmi-
nite (U)(UA-113)
Figure 5. Photomicrographs of Beluga and Nenana coals showing corpo-
huminites and associated macerals. Oil Immersion 500 X
208
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
~
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
II
Autocthonous resinite (R) in
cell tissue (UA-100)
C. Exsudatinite (E) filling
cracks (UA-110)
E. Alginite (A) and cutinite (C)
(UA-113)
B. Resinite (R) cell fillings sur-
rounded by thin cell walls (UA-108)
D. Alginite (A) embedded in
ulminite (UA-110)
F. Sporinite (S), cutinite (C),
inertodetrinite (1), in humo-
detrinite (H) (UA-100)
Figure 6. Photomicrographs of Beluga, Nenana, Matanuska and Northern
Alaska coals showing liptinite and associated macerals. Oil
Immersio n 500 X
209
A. Sclerotinite (S) and
Exinite (E)(UA-113)
C. Porigelinite (P) filling fusi-
nite (F) cell lumens (UA-109)
E. Typical Eu-ulminite (UA-119)
B. Increase in reflectance (t ) of
ulminite tissue possibly due to
fungal activity (UA-100)
D. Corpocollinite (C) filling
cell lumens (UA-113)
F. Macrinite (M) filling fusinite
(F) cell cavities (UA-109)
Figure l Photomicrographs of Beluga, Nenana and Northern Alaska coals
showing various macerals. Oil Immersion 500 X
210
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
A. Suberinite B. Resinite filling cell cavities.
Same as Figure 6B.
C. Exsudatinite filling fractures.
Same as Figure 6C.
D. Alginite. Same as Figure 60.
Figure 8. Photomicrographs of liptinite macerals in fluorescence (blue
light excitation) reflected light, air.
211
An internal standard of 0.2 grams of fluorite powder and a clay
mixture diluent containing equal amounts of kaolinite, montmoril-
lonite and illite were added to the series of standard mixes. The
standard mixes were pulverized by an automatic mortar grinder for
120 minutes in order to obtain an optimum grain size. The mounted
standards were x-rayed from 14° to 34° with a scanning speed of
1/4 degrees per minute and a chart speed of 1 inch per minute.
Integrated peak height intensities of each mineral were measured
in recorded chart units with 500 counts full scale. The reflec-
tions of minerals used for peak height measurements were quartz
(101) 3.34°A. calcite (104) 3.04°A, dolomite (104) 2.89°A, sider-
ite (104) 3.15°A and fluorite (111) 3.15°A. Three mounts were
prepared for each standard mix and each mount was x-rayed twice.
The average value from the six patterns was used for the calibra-
tion curves.
The calibration curves were constructed by plotting the respective
peak height intensity ratios of these minerals with fluorite·as
the ordinate, and grams of the respective minerals per 0.2 grams
of fluorite as the abscissa.
Identical settings of x-ray diffractometer and recorder were used
for samples and standards. Percentages of the minerals were
obtained by referring directly to their respective calibration
curves, using internal standard sample peak height ratios (Rao,
29).
Infrared Spectrophotom~tr~ Detenmina~ ~KaQlinit~
Procedures described by O'Gorman and Walker (30) and Gong and Suhr
(31) were used. Kaolinite used for the preparation of standards
was pulverized wet in an agate mortar and the minus 2u.. fraction
separated by sedimentation. LTA samples were pulverized in an
agate mortar wetted with ethanol. A 1 mg sample or standard was
mixed with 200 mg of KBr and pelletized in an evacuated die with
pressure maintained at 10 tons/sq. inch for 10 seconds. The
pellets were scanned, using a Perkin-Elmer model 283B double beam
grating infrared spectrophotometer. Kaolinite is determined using
the 910 em -1 peak. The baseline method (O'Gorman and Walker, 30)
was used. The baseline is obtained by connecting the background
lows on either siide of the peak with a straight line. Standard
curves were drawn of absorbance vs concentration of kaolinite, and
these gave an excellent straight line relationship.
Determination of Chemical Callposi tion of Ash
Atomic absorption and emission spectrochemical procedures were
used for the analysis. Procedures outlined by Rao (29) were
generally followed and are briefly described below. For atomic
absorption analysis, sample digestions were made by both lithium
metaborate fusions and hydroflouric acid digestions.
212
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Atomic Absorption Analysis
A Perkin-Elmer model 603 atomic absorption spectrophotometer was
used. In the lithium metaborate fuSion procedure: (Meldin, Suhr
and Bodkin, 31) 0.2 g of coal is mixed with 0.8 g of lithium
metaborate and fused for 10 minutes in a graphite crucible at
950°C. The fusion is dissolved in 80 ml of 4% HN0 3 solution while
stirring over a magnetic stirrer. The solutions are transferred
to polyethylene bottles, capped tightly and are used for the
determination of Si02, A1 20~, Fe 2o3, CaO, MgO, Ti02 and MoO, using
standard analytical proceaures.
Digestion HitO Hydrofluoric ~
0.5 gms of coal ash is weighed and transferred to a 3" diameter
Teflon evaporating dish. The sample is moistened with 2 ml dis-
tilled water. After an addition of 4 ml perchloric acid, the dish
is heated on a hot plate until nearly dry. The dish is cooled and
1 ml perchloric acid and 10 ml HF are added and evaporated to near
dryness. The dish is cooled and 1 ml HC10~ and 5 ml 5% boric acid
solution are added and swirled to make sure that all the sample is
loosened from the bottom of the dish. Any sticking residue is
loosened with a polyethylene covered rod. The dish is now heated
until dense fumes evolve, without allowing the residue to dry.
The dish is cooled and the residue is taken into solution with 20
ml 25% HC1 and made up to 50 ml. Sodium and potassium were
determined using cesium nitrate as deionizer. Copper and nickel
were also determined with these solutions.
Emission Spectrochemical Analysis
A Jarrel-Ash, Model 78-090, 1.5 meter Wadsworth grating spectro-
garph with a reciprocal linear dispersion of 5.4 A0 /mm in the
second order was used. The exposures were recorded in the second
order between 2100 A0 and 4850 A0 using spectrum analysis No. 1
emulsion 35 mm film. The exposed films were processed for 3
minutes at 68° F in D-19 developer using a Jarrel-Ash photoproces-
sor. The emulsion was calibrated and attenuated using a 7 step
rotating sector having a transmission ratio of 1.585 between
steps.
All samples were analyzed in duplicate on separate films. Stand-
ards were burned in triplicate, spaced in between samples. Stand-
ard analyzed rocks were analyzed to check the accuracy of the
procedure. Percent transmission of the lines was measured with a
Jarrel-Ash microphotometer using a 12.5 micron slit. Background
corrections were made for Pb, Ga, Mo, Sn, V, Ag and Co. No
corrections were made for the background for Ba, B or Cr since the
background level for these elements was very low at the step
measured.
213
The total energy method was used in which only one exposure is
needed for the determination of all elements. 20 mg of coal ash
was mixed with 60 mg of graphite buffer mix (SP-2 graphite con-
taining 20% LiF) in a wig-L-bug mixer. 20 mg of the arc mix was
loaded into electrodes and packed. Duplicate exposures are made
for each sample.
Discussion of Results
The coals studied range in rank from lignite to high volatile 'A'
bituminous. Table 3 presents proximate and ultimate analyses of
20 coal samples (Rao and Wolff, 1, 2). Table 4 shows washability
analyses of 38mm x 100 mesh coals, UA-1 07, 113 and 119 used for
the study (Rao and Wolff, 1, 2).
Petrology
Vitrinite reflectance of the 20 coals studied is shown in Table 5,
mean maximum reflectance varied from 0.25 to 1.04. Table 6 shows
petrology of subbi tuminous and lignite rank coals. Total humi-
nites in the coals range from 80% in UA-100 to 94.1 in UA-106.
Corpohuminites include both phlobaphinite and pseudo phlobaphi-
ni te. Humodetrini te was highest in UA-1 00 and UA-1 01. This is
explained by the fact that these two samples are from the upper
portion of No. 6 seam (the uppermost seam at the lower Lignite
Creek), indicative of changes in the environment causing physical
degradation of humic matter and eventually ending conditions for
the formation of coal.
High concentration of fluorescent huminites in UA-112 might have
resulted from impregnation of liptini tic material in humini te.
These coals showed highest concentration of resinite. Resinite
particles up to a centimeter have been identified in the field.
Suberinite was found not only in Tertiary coals, but also in
samples UA-109 and UA-110 of Cretaceous age.
Samples UA-109 and UA-110 from the northern Alaska coal field are
the only coals where a significant amount of alginite has been
identified. First petrographic work on these two coals was re-
ported by Dutcher, Trotter and Spackman (33). Coal samples from
Lower Lignite Creek i.e., UA-100, UA-101, UA-102 and UA-119 showed
the highest concentration of inertinite, in excess of 11%, and
much of it as inertodetrinite.
Tables 8 and 9 show distribution of macerals in various density
factions of low rank coals. Humodetrinite concentration is lowest
in 1.3 specific gravity floats and increases with increasing
density. This is due to the fact that processes responsible for
214
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
physical degradation of humic matter also brought in detrital
inorganic material that caused increase in density of coal parti-
cles.
Another observation is that suberinite is concentrated in higher
density fractions. Suberinite is generally found in root tissues.
The roots were coalified in place and the places roots were grow-
ing best were where there was inorganic material admixed with the
original peat. Fusinite and semifusinite concentration increased
for higher density fractions. The same is true for inertodetri-
nite. For UA-119, total inertinite concentration was 3.7% for 1.3
specific gravity float and increased to 19.7% for 1.6 specific
gravity sinks, showing that beneficiation can result in substan-
tial reduction in inert macerals, thereby concentrating reactive
macerals in clean coal.
Table 7 shows the petrology of bituminous coals from Matanuska
Coal field. These coals are very high in vitrinoid macerals.
Table 10 shows petrology of various washability products. The
concentration of pseudovitrinite is highest in lowest density
fraction. Pseudovi trini te occurs in a pure form, free from ad-
mixed detrital minerals, and thus explains this phenomenon. As
was the case with UA-113 and UA-119, inertodetrinite was highest
in the intermediate density fractions.
Mineral Matter
Tables 11 and 12 show distribution of mineral matter in raw coals
and float sink products. Quartz and kaolinite were the major
minerals identified. Calcite and siderite were identified in a
few instances. Bituminous coals UA-1 07 and UA-1 08 showed high
concentrations of both quartz and kaolinite, showing higher de-
grees of crystallinity brought to the coal by coalification pro-
cesses. In the upper Lignite Creek, of the two samples UA-103 and
UA-104, the top seam in the series, UA-103, showed higher kaoli-
nite. In the lower Lignite the lower No.4 Seam UA-119 showed
only 5% kaolinite. However the No. 6 Seam (the top seam) had 31%
kaolinite for the upper portion (UA-100), 18% for the lowest
portion (UA-1 02) and 15% for the middle portion (UA-1 01 ). Both
siderite and calcite were found in UA-104 and UA-112. The sample
UA-109 had low total ash content and thus accounted for a small
portion of the total mineral matter. The balance was presumably
noncrystalline that could not be detected by x-ray diffraction, as
well as other clay minerals. The same is true for several other
samples.
The float sink products show gradual increase in quartz with
increase in density. Distribution of kaolinite is, however, dif-
ferent and varied with rank of coal. For bituminous coal UA-107,
kaolinite was highest in lowest density fraction, and decreased
with increase in density. For subbituminous "C" coals UA-113 and
UA-119, the lowest density fraction showed lowest kaolinite and is
215
presumed to be due to the noncrystalline nature of the mineral
matter in the 1.3 floats of these samples.
Composition Q( ~ ~
Table 13 presents concentrations of major elements in the ash of
raw coals. Samples UA-115 and UA-116 are lignites with very low
ash and have the lowest silica. Most of the inorganic matter in
these two samples consists of alumina, calcium, magnesium and iron
oxides.
UA-109, also a low ash coal, showed the lowest alumina. Siderite
was the only significant mineral phase identified from x-ray
diffraction patterns of LTA of the samples, and was also detected
in the polished sections during petrographic analysis. The sample
also showed anomalously high concentrations of MgO and Na 2o and
very low concentrations of Ti0 2• CaO is high in the ash of low
rank coals, particularly lign1tes and subbituminous C coals.
Coals of subbituminous B and higher rank showed considerably lower
concentrations of CaO.
Table 14 shows concentration of major oxides calculated as percent
of raw coals. Concentrations of Si0 2 and A 1 2 0~ generally vary
with ash content of the coal. Coals oT subbitum!nous C and lower
rank coals showed higher concentrations of CaO compared to higher
rank coals. Coals from upper Lignite Creek, UA-1 03 and UA-1 04,
showed very low concentrations on MoO compared to other coal from
this field.
Tables 17, 18 and 19 show distribution of major oxides in ashes of
float sink products. Concentration of Si0 2 increases with in-
crease in density. All three coals showea higher iron in 1.3
specific gravity float ash compared to intermediate density frac-
tions. All the coals showed highest concentrations of CaO and MgO
in 1.3 float ash; concentration decreased with increase in densi-
ty. CaO in 1.6 sink ash for UA-107 again increased, apparently
due to the presence of CaO as carbonates. Difference in concen-
tration of CaO in various density fractions is quite spectacular.
For example, UA-113 shows 34.9% of CaO for 1.3 specific gravity
float ash and reduced to 2.4% for 1.6 sink ash, indicating ash
composition can be dramatically changed in beneficiation proces-
ses. On the contrary, concentrations of NazO and K~ is lower in
1.3 float ash fraction (UA-113 and UA-119J compared to higher
density fractions, indicating that these elements are not tied to
the organic matter. Calcium was probably introduced into coal as
calcium humate and explains such high concentrations of CaO in 1.3
specific gravity floats of low rank coals.
Tables 20, 21 and 22 show distribution of major elements expressed
as percent float sink products. With the exception of calcium,
all elements showed increased concentrations with increase in
density, showing that concentrations of these elements in a washed
coal would be less than raw coal. Calcium, however, showed dif-
216
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ferent behavior. Low rank coals UA-113 and UA-119 showed high CaO
in the intermediate density products. Major oxides analyses,
however, are more useful when evaluated as concentrations of ash,
since it is what matters most in predicting the behavior of ash in
combustion processes and evaluating possible uses for the ash as a
byproduct.
Table 15 shows the concentration of various trace elements. Anom-
alously high concentrations of boron were found in two seams from
upper Lignite Creek, UA-103 and UA-104, and two cretaceous coals
from Northern Alaska, UA-109 and UA-110. Table 16 shows concen-
tration of trace elements as percent of raw coals. Samples from
upper Lignite Creek UA-103 and UA-104, samples from Jarvis Creek
UA-1 06. Broad Pass UA-111 and Little Ton zona UA-113 showed much
higher barium compared to others.
Tables 23, 24 and 25 show concentration of trace elements in
various float sink products. In general, boron, barium, cobalt,
molybdenum and nickel showed higher concentration in the ash of
lower density fractions.
Tables 26. 27 and 28 show concentrations of trace elements ex-
pressed as concentrations in float sink products. All elements
show increase in concentrations with increase in density, showing
that beneficiation of these coals will result in partial elimina-
tion of trace elements from raw coal. This finding is in agree-
ment with the findings of Cavallaro et al., (24) for coals from
other parts of the country.
S1.11111ary
Twenty samples of Alaskan coal seams, collected under a separate
U.S. Department of Energy sponsored project, were used for this
study. The purpose of the investigation was to conduct a general
survey of basic characteristics of Alaskan coals and to determine
the change in these characteristics brought about by coal prepara-
tion processes. The characteristics presented in the report in-
clude proximate analysis, ultimate analysis, vitrinite reflec-
tance, petrology, concentration of mineral matter obtained by low
temperature ashing (LTA), major, minor and trace elements in high
temperature ash (HTA). In addition, washability analysis of three
coals, one each from Nenana. Beluga and Matanuska coal fields,
were sink floated at 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 specific gravities and the
products were analyzed for petrographic composition, minerals in
LTA and composition of ash (HTA).
Conclusions
The reflectance rank of the coals studied ranged from a low of
0.22 for lignite to 1.04 for high volatile A bituminous coal.
217
Huminite macerals in the subbituminous coals and lignites ranged
from 80 to 96.3%. Humodetrinite was highest in the top seam in a
coal bearing sequence. Suberinite was found in all tertiary brown
coals as well as Cretaceous coals from northern Alaska. Float
sink products showed the lowest concentrate of inertinite and
humodetrinite in 1.3 specific gravity floats and increased with
increasing density. Petrology of bituminous coals showed very
high concentrate of vitrinite macerals. LTA of bituminous coals
showed a higher concentrate of kaolinite and quartz compared to
brown coals. Concentration of major oxides in the ash float sink
products showed major differences, particularly for CaO, ranging
in one instance from 34.9% in 1.3 specific gravity float ash and
falling down to 2.4% in 1.6 specific gravity sink ash. Similar
major differences were observed in petrology and mineralogy, indi-
cating that total characterization of washability products (rather
than raw coal alone) is necessary in evaluating the behavior of
washed coal in utilization.
218
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----- -- ------
TAOLE 3
Proximate and Ultimate Analyses of Raw Coals
Coal
Field
Nenana
Poker Flat PH
No.6 Seam
Top
Nenana
Poker Flat Pit
No.6 Seam
Middle
Nenana
Poker Flat Pit
No.6 Seam
lower
Nenana
Moose Seam
Nenana
Caribou Seam
Nenana
No.2 Seam
Jarvis Creek
Ober Creek
Ma tanuska
Castle Mountain
Mine
lo~/Cr Seam
Ma tanuska
Premier Mine
Thickness
ASTM Meters Sample Moisture Volatile Fixed Ash
Rank (feet) ~umbers Basis* % Matter,% Carbon,% %
Subbit.C U.98 UA-100 1 23.61 32.80 26.54 17.05
(3.2) 2 42.94 34.74 22.32
3 55.20 44.72
Subbi t. C 5.58 UA-101 1 25.23 35.71 31.40 7.66
(18.3) 2 47.76 41.99 10.25
3 53.22 46.78
Subbit.C 1.00 UA-102 1 25.68 34.12 29.83 10.37
(3.3) 2 45.91 40.14 13.95
3 53.36 46.64
Subb1t.C 6.58 UA-103 1 21.42 36.02 34.88 7.68
(21. 6) 2 45.85 44.38 9. 77
3 50.81 49.19
Subbi t.C 5.06 UA-104 1 21.93 35.88 32.85 9.34
( 16. 6) 2 45.96 42.08 11.96
1 52.20 47.80
Subb1t. C 8.47 UA-105 1 26.76 33.12 32.25 7.87
(27 .8) 2 45.23 44.03 10.74
3 50.67 49.33
Subbit.C 3.05 UA-106 1 20.58 36.20 34.16 9.06
( 1 0) 2 45.58 43.01 11.41
3 51.45 48.55
hv Ab 2.13 UA-107 1 l. 78 28.23 52.20 17.78
(7) 2 28.75 53.15 18.10
3 35. 10 64.90
hv Db UA-108 1 5. 87 35.73 43.96 14.44
2 37.91j 46.70 15.34
l 44.84 55. 16
Heating
Value
BTU/lb. C,%
7022 40.59
9193 53.14
11834 68.40
8136 46.00
10882 61.64
12124 68.68
7516 43.87
10113 59.03
11752 58.60
8953 51 .69
11393 65.78
12627 72.90
8567 49.44
10973 63.33
12464 71.93
7966 46.41
10876 63.38
12185 71.01
8746 49.83
11012-62.75
12430 70.U3
12258 69.33
12480 70.59
15238 86.19
11101 63.63
11794 67.60
13864 79.85
--
fl,% N,%
5.93 0.56
4.30 0.73
5.54 0.94
6.30 0.61)
4.65 0.80
5.18 0.89
6.05 0.59
4.28 O.BO
4.97 0.93
6.34 0.81
5.02 1. 03
5.56 1.15
6.10 0.69
4.67 0.88
5.30 1.00
6.42 0.63
4.68 0.86
5.24 0.96
5.84 0.80
4. 45 1.00
5.02 1.13
4.66 l. 64
4.54 1.68
5.54 2.05
5.11 1.14
4.73 1.21
5.59 1. 43
-
0,%
35.70
19.29
24.84
39.24
22.50
25.07
38.99
21.77
25.30
33.33
18.25
20.18
34.30
18.99
21.57
38.50
20.11
22.54
33.42
19.07
21.53
6.13
4.62
5.65
15.33
10.75
12.70
--
Sulfur
Pyritic Total
0.01 0.17
0.01 0.22
0.01 0.28
0.01 0.12
0.01 0.16
0. 01 0.18
0.01 0.13
0.01 0.17
0.01 0.20
0.01 0.15
0.01 0.15
0.01 0.21
0.02 0.13
0.02 0.17
0.03 0.20
0.02 0.17
0.02 0.23
0.03 0.25
0.31 1.05
0.39 1. 32
0.44 1.49
0.09 0.1!6
0.09 0.47
0.11 0.57
0.04 0.35
0.04 0.37
0.05 0.43
-
----------------
1/IOLE J (con L i nued)
Prox lma te and Ul t it11a te Ana lyses of Raw Coals
Thickness Ilea ting
Coal ASTM Meters San~ple r1ois ture Volatile Fixed fish Value Sui fur
field RMlk (feet) Numbers na sis* % ~1dtler,X Carbon,% X ()TU/lb. C,l lt,l N,X 0,% Pyritic Total
Nol'thern 1 20.28 30.20 44.75 4. 77 9292 54.79 5. 71 1.13 33.32 0.08 0. 2£
/\Iaska Subbi t. ~ 1.5 UA-109 2 37.08 56.13 5.99 11655 68.73 4. 31 l.42 19.20 0.10 0. 35
l<aitMrlght (5) 3 40.29 59.71 12398 73.10 4.58 1. 51 20.43 0.10 0.35
Northc.-n 1 17.88 30.30 48.22 3.60 10425 li0.04 5.07 1. 35 28.71 0.06 0. 43
Alaska Subblt.B 1.5 UJ\-110 2 36.90 5£l. 72 4.38 12695 7 3.12 4.72 1.64 15.61 0.07 0. 53
Meade River ( 5) 3 38.~9 61.41 13277 76.47 4.94 1. 71 16.33 0.08 0. 55
Broad Pass 1 28.32 33.53 24.08 14.07 6395 38.14 6.06 0.54 41.04 0.03 0.15
Cuill Creek Lignite 2.4 UA-111 2 46.77 33.60 19.63 8921 53.21 4.04 0. 75 22.16 0.04 0.21
SeJtn (8) 3 SB.20 41.60 11100 66.20 5.03 0.93 27.58 0.05 0.26
Lit t 1 e 1 21.21 37.59 30.36 10.84 7663 45.02 5.BO 0.64 36.59 0.06 l. 11
To mona Subblt.C 36.7 UA-112 2 4 7. 72 38.53 13.75 9725 57. 14 4.34 0.81 22.56 0.06 1.40
CoJl bed (127) 3 55.33 44.67 i 11277 66.25 5.03 0.94 26.15 0.09 1. 63
Oeluga 1 23.65 35.20 33.34 7. 81 8327 47. 9B 6,25 0.54 37.213 0.01 0.14
Waterfall Subbi t.C 9.1 UA-113 2 46.10 43.67 10.23 10907 62.B4 4. 71 0. 71 21.33 0.01 0.18
N SeJm (30) 3 51.35 4!l.65 12151 70.01 5.25 0.79 23.74 0.01 0.21
N
0
Nl)rthern 1 14.71 15. 74 15.65 53.90 3591 20.98 3.37 0.53 21.16 0.04 0.06
A 1 i\S ka hv Cb 2.0 U!\-114 2 1 B. 45 1fl.36 63.19 4210 24.60 2.02 0.62 9.~0 0.05 0.07
~Jg~;on B I u ffs (6. 5) 3 50.13 49.87 11439 66.83 5.49 1.67 25.£ll 0.14 0. 20
Yen tna 1 29.80 36.26 28.61 3.33 7943 45.20 6. 76 0. 53 44.07 0.01 0.11
Locd1ity 2 L i gn1te 3.0 UA-115 2 54.50 40.76 4.74 11315 64.39 4.67 0. 75 25.10 0.01 0.15
l.o;~er ( 10) 3 57.21 42.79 ll£l79 67.59 5.11 0. 79 26.35 0.01 0.16
Yentna 1 29.86 39.29 26.43 2.42 0017 45.48 6.89 0.49 44.67 0. 01 0.05
Locality 2 Lignite 3.0 Ufl-116 2 ~6.02 40.~4 3.44 11429 64. [l4 5.06 0. 70 25.139 0.01 0.07
Upper ( 10} 3 58.02 41.98 111337 67.16 5.24 0. 73 26.79 0.01 0.08
Tr antHay 1 6.38 24.29 33.54 35.79 7263 42.72 3.62 0.55 17.18 0.04 0.14
Oar hv 8 4.0 UA-117 2 25.94 35.83 38.23 7758 4 5. 64 3.10 0. 59 12.29 0.04 0.15
( 13) 3 41.99 58.01 12559 73.68 5.02 0.95 19.90 0.07 0.25
J<ena i 1 23.01 35.63 32.71 8.65 (!028 47.23 6.07 0.62 37.20 0.01 0.23
CaL in Subbl t. C 1.8 UA-118 2 46.20 42.49 11.23 JOWl 61.35 4.54 0.61 21.77 0.01 0.30
Bed (6) 3 52.13 47.87 117 4 7 69.11 5. 11 0.91 24.53 0.01 0.34
Nen,lna 1 25.29 32.51 32.55 9.85 7779 45.26 6.30 1.13 37. II 0.02 0.33
Poker Flat P1t Subblt.C 7.3 UA-119 2 43.52 43. JO 13.18 10412 60.61 4. 64 1. 51 19.62 0.02 0.44
tlo. 4 Scom (24} 3 50. 1 J 49.87 11993 69.131 5.34 1.74 22.60 0.03 0.51
* 1 is Equilibrium bed moisture basfs
2 Is t1oi5tur·e-free basis
3 is Moisture-ash-free basis -- --- --- - --- --- --- -
-------------------
TABLE 4. Hashabil ity Aalyses of 38mm x 100 ~1esh Coals Used for the Study.
SPECIFIC CUMULATIVE
GRAVITY ACTUAL PRODUCTS CUMULATIVE FLOAT SINK
Sink Float Wt. % Ash % Btu/lb
Sulfur eercent
Pyritic Total 1n.%
Sulfur eercent
Ash % Btu/lb Pyritic Tota1 Wt. % Ash %
N
Washability Analyses of Lower Seam (UA-107), Castle t·1ountain t1ine,
N Upper ~1atanuska Valley, ~1atanuska Coal Field, Alaska
t-' Raw Coal Bed Moisture= 1.78%
1.30 46.49 5.46 14712 0.02 0. 51 46.49 5.46 14712 0.02 0.50 100.00 18.63
1.30 1.40 23.95 12.14 13741 0.03 0.40 70.44 7.73 14382 0.02 0.49 53.51 30.07
1.40 1.60 13.46 27.75 11262 0.05 0.43 3.90 10.94 13801 0.03 0.48 29.56 44.60
1.60 16.10 58.71 5254 0.15 0.40 100.00 18.63 12492 0.05 0.47 16.10 58.71
\4ashability Analyses of Water Fall Seam {UA-113)
Beluga Coal Field, Alaska
Raw Coal Bed Moisture = 23.65
1.30 41.23 4.86 11652 0.01 o. 15 41.23 4.86 11652 0.01 0.15 100.00 9.45
1.30 1.40 51.44 9.04 10877 0. 01 0.24 92.67 7.18 11222 0.01 0.20 58.77 12.67
1.40 1.60 5.31 32.39 7029 0.01 0.24 97.98 8.55 10995 0.01 0.20 7.33 38.12
1.60 2.02 53.17 5031 0.04 0.20 100.00 9.45 10874 0.01 0.20 2.02 53.17
\olashability Analyses of No. 4 Seam (UA-119)
Usibelli Coal Mine, Nenana Coal Field, Healy, Alaska
Raw Co a 1 Bed ~1oi s ture = 25.29
1.30 21.50 5. 54 11441 0.03 0. 21 21.50 5.54 11441 0.03 0.21 100.00 11.27
1.30 1.40 71.29 10.88 10644 o. 01 0.30 92.79 9.64 10829 0.01 0.28 78.50 12.85
1.40 1.60 6.99 32.24 7978 0.02 0.86 99.78 11.23 10629 0.02 0.32 7 0 21 32.28
1.60 0. 22 33.49 7771 o. 13 0. 51 100.00 11.27 10623 0.02 0.32 0.22 33.49
TABLE 5. Vitrinite Reflectance.
~lean
t~aximum
Sample ASTM Reflectance
No. Rank -Romax Vl v2 v3 v4 v5 v6 v7 va V9 vlO v11
UA-100 Subbit. c 0.29 4 57 23 16
UA-101 Subbi t. c 0.32 5 40 33 22
UA-102 Subbit. c 0.33 1 31 60 8
UA-1 03 Subbit. c 0.41 1 2B 71
UA-104 Subbit. c 0.42 25 74
UA-105 Subbit. c 0.32 11 26 49 14
UA-106 Subbit. c 0.39 3 51 46
UA-107 hv Ab 1. 04 20 71 9 UA-108 hv Bb 0.63 1 18 75 6
UA-109 Subbi t. B 0.57 6 59 33 2
UA-110 Subbi t. B 0.52 42 42 15 1
UA-111 Lignite 0.28 9 63 26 8
UA-112 Subbi t. C 0.27 26 47 25 7
UA-113 Subbit. C 0.25 3 85 11
UA-114 hv Cb 0.54 14 74 12
UA-115 Lignite 0.33 28 66 6
N UA-116 Lignite 0.22 46 37 14 3 N UA-117 hv flb 0.66 N 14 67 19 UA-118 Subbit. C 0.31 41 53 6
UA-119 Subbit. C 0.25 24 58 18
TABLE 6 . Petrology of Subbituminous and Lignite Raw Coals.
... ell c: ell ell ell ell ...
ell ell .... ell
ell ell ell ... Uell ell ·~ ell ell ... ell ... ell ell ... ...
.... ... ... "'""' ... c: .... ... ... ·~ ... ... I I·~ c:
ell ·~ I·~ c: ell·~ ·~ c: c: 0 QJ c: oc:
c: c: 0 c: I·~ '-<= ~ c: ._ c: c: c: ';;~ I C: c: ...... ·~ +'·~ ~ ... ....J
~ ._ •r-•r-ell·~ ._ ._._ "''-q;
0. • o.·~ 0'-o·~ 10·~ QJ
e:o e: ._ e: E:+' ~ e: ..-e: J:l ..... "' 0 "' ... 0. I: Ill "' ~c: u ell ... +'QJ 1-
IOZ ~ Qj 0 ~ ~ell ~:l 0~ :l :l ~ 0. QJ o·~ ell~ ~ u·~ "' c: QJ oc: 0
Vl ::::> <.!: u~ :I: ""0 u..::: I-::I: Vl u q; Vl "' 1-....J Vl ..... u.. Vl+-> :£ -""0
,__ 1-
UA-100 37.6 18.9 1.8 12.3 9.4 80.0 0.8 0.4 0 2.4 0.6 4.2 0.9 3.1 0.3 1.1 10.4 15.8 100.0
UA-101 49.5 12.9 1.6 13.4 6.8 B4.2 0.4 0.2 0 3.6 0.4 4.6 1.0 0.7 0.2 0 9.3 11.2 100.0
UA-102 61.3 9.4 3.0 5.8 0.6 80.1 0.7 0.4 0 4.6 0.8 6.5 3.2 1.2 0 0 9.0 13.4 100.0
UA-103 80.3 11.6 0.3 2.4 0 94.6 0 0.2 0 4.2 0.4 4.8 0 0 0.6 0 0 0.6 100.0
UA-104 81.3 7.6 1.8 1.8 0.2 92.7 0 0 0 3.8 0.4 4.2 0 0.2 0.8 0 2.1 3.1 100.0
UA-105 69.7 12.4 0.9 3.8 0.2 87.0 0.4 0.1 0 4.8 0.8 6.1 1.0 0,8 0.3 0 4.8 6.9 100.0
UA-106 81.7 9.3 0.6 2.5 0 94.1 0.1 0.1 0 3.5 0.6 4.3 0 0 0.2 0 1.4 1.6 100.0
UA-109 75.2 2.3 8.8 . 3 0 86.6 0 0.1 0.7 2.2 0.8 3.8 3.5 2.4 0.2 1.2 2.3 9.6 100.0
UA-110 69.3 4.0 18.6 .7 0 92.6 0 0.4 0.4 1.5 1.7 4.0 2.4 0.8 0 0 0 3.4 100.0
UA-111 29.1 35.8 0.3 8.5 17.0 90.7 0 0.5 0 4.6 0.8 5.9 0 0 0.5 0 2.9 3.4 100.0
UA-112 36.4 34.0 0.4 3.0 15.4 89.2 0.8 0.8 0 5.8 1.4 8.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0 1.1 2.0 100.0
UA-113 65.7 18.3 2.5 3.4 0 89.9 0.4 0.3· 0 3.5 0.4 4.6 0 0.5 0.7 0.1 4.2 5.5 100.0
UA-119 54.6 26.3 2.0 1.1 0 84.0 0.2 0.3 0 3.3 0.4 4.2 0.9 1.3 0 0 9.6 11.8 100.0 - - --- ---- - -
-- - - -- --
£ZZ I
Specific I
0'1 .J:> w Gravity
Sink Float I "'~ w
0"\<..11""'-J"""-1 cc
___. .,J:::. ___. (Jl Ulminite )>)> Sample I I
I..OW\.0--' No. -l a a
)> co ...... I c:o
__. N--'--' r-
""'-.~ --' .,J::. ""'-.~ Gel inite rro
I..ONO\W ~ ...... co -oa Vitrinite
Corpo-<.n N I N..;::a.wo :;::
"' oom...o.:::. huminite "' :::.-~~ Pseudo-"' w~
Humo-:r. NW vitrinite
--'OWO detrini te
WNW"""-' cT Fluorescent I '< ? Fluorescent > a~ Vitrinite aaaa Huminite ~
"' '<
"' \0 \0 Total \.0 \0 ""\0 Total C1) N~ I V-'OWW "' Vitrinite Huminite ...... \0 -l
\OW""'-1<..11 0 )> ...., c:o r-
(/') rro
"' Culinite aaa Suberinite 3 ...... -c ~a I wwcao ~
C1)
Alginite " c a a C1)
? Cul inite )> cT
I ""'l ooow 0
~a Spori ni te w 0 I Alginite N<..n <0 aaaa '< n
""'l 0 <= a a Res i nite ....,
N..;::a.NW Sporinite "' :::.-...... 0\ c:o __...;::.. __. m C1) a. cT I <=
cT Total 3
0--'--' 0 Resinite 0 w~ ~.
Liptinite ~
0'\--'W""'-1 w a~ 0 co <=
"' 3
Total 3 Semi-:;;o I wrnw.:=:. a a "' Liptinite Fusinite ~ aCONO'I (/') w ... :::.-n
0 0
~ "' Semi-a Fusinite oaa ~
fusinite <0 a"' II <..T1 (Jl (J1 0 n Selero-0
~ a a ti nite-~a Fusinite n
C1)
.:::.--'00 ~
cT ? Macrinite ""'l
Sclero-"' a lJ1 I aao cT
tinite ~
0--'--' N 0 Inerto-~ ~N
"' detrinite ~1acrinite a<..n oaaa 0 ....,
Inerto-3: Total li --' W N--' "' ~~
detrinite n Inertinite NNU'l""'-1 C1) wa
""'l
"' Vl
WWW--' Total I Inertinite a a TOTAL __. \0 __, 1..0 a a
a a
--' __, --' __. I 0000 TOTAL aaaa
aaao
I
I
I
TABLE 9. Washability Analyses of Sample UA-119, Crushed to 38 rnm, Showing Concentrations of ~1acerals.
...... ...... <= QJ QJ
"' QJ QJ ...... QJ QJ QJ QJ ......
u 0 QJ QJ QJ ...... u QJ QJ ·~ QJ QJ ...... QJ ...... QJ QJ ...... ......
·~ »~ ...... ...... ...... "' ...... ...... <= ...... ...... ...... ·~ ...... ..,.. I I·~ c
4-.._, LL ·~ ·~ I·~ c QJ·~ ·~ ·~ <= ·~ <= ·~ 0 QJ <= 0 <= ............ <= <= 0 <= I·~ ,_ <= ~ <= ,_ <= <= ·;: c ~·~ I c <= ,_ ...... ....... ~ ~ ...... -' U>""" 0..·~ 0 ,_ o·~ rc·~ QJ ·~ , ...... .,... .,... QJ·~ ,_ ,_ ,_ "'"-<:(
QJ "' <= E ,_ E E.._, "' E .._,E ..0 '; C> 0 "' ...... 0.. E "' V1 ~ <= u QJ ...... ...... QJ 1-c...s.... .,.... QJ 0 :::l :::l QJ ~ :::l 0 :::l :::l ::;: 0.. QJ o·~ QJ :::l :::l u·~ "' c QJ oc 0
Vl tel Vl ::l ~ u..c: :I: "0 LJ..I 1-:I: Vl '-' Vl "" 1--' Vl 4-LL Vl ...... :::: ~ "0 ~--~ 1-
N
N 1.3 81. 5 9.8 0.8 0.7 0 92.8 0 0.3 0 3.1 0.1 3.5 0.5 1.1 0.2 0 1.9 3. 7 100.0 .p-
1.3 1.4 66.2 12.5 2.0 4.9 0 85.6 0. 7 0.6 0 3.6 0.4 5.3 2.3 1.7 0 0 5.1 9.1 100.0
1.4 1.6 54.8 22.2 0.3 9.8 0 87.6 1.1 0.7 0 2.4 0.7 4.9 0.9 1.2 0.1 0 5.3 7.5 100.0
1.6 57.2 12.1 0.9 4.8 0 75.0 0.8 0.8 0 2.6 1.1 5.3 6.4 8.3 0.3 0 4.7 19.7 100.0
TABLE 10. Washability Analyses of Sample UA-107, Crushed to 3B mm, Showing Concentrations of Macerals.
...... ...... <= QJ
"' QJ QJ QJQJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ ...... u 0 ...... ...... u ...... ...... QJ QJ ...... QJ ...... QJ QJ ...... ...... ·~ ·~ »~ ·~ I·~ V>·~ ·~ ...... ...... ...... ·~ ...... ...... I ·~ I·~ c 4-...... LJ.. c: 0 c QJ c <= ·~ ·~ <= ·~ c ·~ 0 QJ c 0 c ·~ "0 ·~ ,_.~ ~·~ c c c ~·~ I <= <= ,_....., ·~ ....... ~ ~ ...... -' U>""" ,_ :::l ,_ 0 ,_ "',_ ,_ , ...... QJ·~ ,_ ,_ ,_ "'"-<:(
<lJ<OC ...... QJ ...... "' ...... ...... ...... C> 0 "' ...... 0.. EVI "' ~c u QJ ...... ...... QJ 1-0..5-•r-V>·~ o·~ :::l ::;: 0.. QJ o·~ QJ :::l :::l QJ·~ "' c QJ 0 c 0 Ul <..!: Ul > c..> LJ..:> 1-> u Vl "" 1--' Vl LJ.. LJ.. Vl ...... ::;: ~ "0 1-~ 1-
1.3 62.7 35.0 0 97.7 0 0 0.3 0.7 1.0 0 0.2 0.1 0 1.0 1.3 100.0
1.3 1.4 62.9 31.3 0 94.2 0 0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.8 0 0 3. 1 5.0 100.0
1.4 1.6 76.9 19.9 0.2 97.0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 0 0 1.3 2.5 100.0
1.6 Bl. 6 10.8 0.7 93.1 0 0.1 0.3 5.9 6.3 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 0.6 100.0
--- ------ ----- - - - --
- -- --- - - --- ------ --
TAOLE 11. Distribution of Minerals in Low Temperature Ash
of Raw Coals and Float Sink Product.
~i!.!!!E.le No. Product Quartz Calcite Dolomite Siderite Kaolinite
UA-100 Raw Coal 6 0 0 0 31
lJA-101 6 0 0 0 15
UA-102 n 0 0 0 18
UA-103 12 0 0 0 26
UA-104 14 4 0 4 16
UA-105 8 0 0 0 9
UA-106 4 0 0 0 8
UA-107 10 0 0 0 39
UA-108 16 0 0 0 41
UA-109 ? 0 0 5 0
UA-110 6 0 0 0 13
UA-112 7 5 0 3 12
UA-113 6 0 0 0 19
N UA-119 4 0 0 0 5
N
lJ1
TABLE 12. Distribution of Minerals in Low Temperature Ash
of Float Sink Products.
Specific
Sample Gravity
No. Sink Float Quartz Calcite Dolomite Siderite Kaolinite
UA-107 1.3 2 0 0 1 39
1.3 1.4 6 0 0 0 31
1.4 1.6 8 0 0 0 27
1.6 9 0 2 3 23
UA-113 1.3 3 0 0 0 5
1.3 1.4 6 0 0 0 17
1.4 1.6 10 0 0 0 38
1.6 12 0 0 0 38
UA-119 1.3 4 0 0 0 5
1.3 1.4 10 0 0 0 12
1.4 1.6 11 0 0 0 24
1.6 11 () 0 0 ?1
TABLE 13. Concentration of Major Elements in Ash of Raw Coals (percent).
Sample
tlo. Si02 Al 2o3 Fe 2o3 t1g0 CaO Na20 K20 Ti0 2 t1n0 S03
UAlOO 55.3 19.3 7. l 2.2 9.4 0.16 1.8 l.O 0.44 3. l
U/\1 01 37.7 22.6 9.4 3.8 22.8 0. 12 1.1 0.9 0.37 5.0
U/\102 39.5 21.4 6.6 2.5 24. 1 0. 11 1.1 l.O 0. 19 3.5
U/\103 34.7 25.0 5.2 7. 7 16. 7 0.48 1.6 1.2 0.06 7. 2
U/\104 43. 1 21.4 9.0 5.2 14. 7 0.32 1.8 1.1 0.07 5.6
U/\105 47.3 20.7 8.9 2.8 12.9 0. 77 1.2 0.9 0.44 6.3
U/\106 42.7 16. 6 11.2 2.2 20.8 0.08 0.7 1.1 0. 12 21.7
UA107 53.3 25.7 4.4 l. 9 3.6 0.46 2. 1 1.3 0.12 1.7
UAl 08 53.5 28.8 6.5 2.3 4.4 0.23 1.9 1.6 0.10 2.4
UA109 41.7 5.9 18.8 13.0 13. 2 5.41 1.0 0.1 0.29 13.1
U/\110 43.8 23.3 6.1 3.3 4.4 1. 07 1.8 1.3 0.06 2.1
UAlll 45.4 29.3 4.6 1.1 9.1 0.25 2. 1 1.2 0. 17 3.2
UA 112 29.8 19.4 6.9 3.3 22.7 0.25 1.2 0.9 0.05 17.2
UA113 41.0 28.9 6.7 1.9 16.6 0.18 2. 1 0.8 0.10 7.9
U/\114 66.5 20.1 3.9 2.2 1.8 0.21 3.5 1.3 0.04 . 7
UA115 16.8 33.3 9.5 6.3 28.0 0.26 1.0 1.1 0.12 9.1
UA116 11.6 27.9 10.6 7.4 37.2 0.27 0.6 0.8 0.13 10.5
UA 117 52.8 30.8 5.1 1.4 2.3 0.53 4.0 1.7 0.05 .9
N
N UA113 37.4 21.0 5.7 3.6 25.3 0.11 1.3 0.9 0.11 6.2
0' ll/\ 119 43.4 22.7 6.7 2.7 16.6 0.93 2.2 l.l 0. 21 6.5
TABLE 14. Concentration of Major Elements in Raw Coals (percent), Moisture Free Basis.
Ash, Percent
Sample No. f1o is tu re Free Si0 2 Al 2o3 Fe 2o3
Basis
~1g0 CaD tla20 K20 Ti02 ~1n0
UA-100 22.32 12. 34 4. 31 l. 58 0.49 2.10 0.036 0.40 0.22 0.098
UA-101 10.25 3. 86 2. 32 0.96 0.39 2.34 0.012 0.11 0.09 0.038
UA-102 13.95 5. 51 2.99 0.92 0.35 3.36 0.015 0.15 0.14 0.027
UA-103 9. 77 3.39 2.44 0. 51 0.75 l. 63 0.047 0.16 0.12 0.0059
UA-104 11.96 5. 15 2.56 1.08 0.62 l. 76 0.038 0.22 0.13 0.0084
UA-105 10.74 5.08 2.22 0.96 0.30 l. 39 0.083 0.13 0.10 0.047
UA-106 11.41 4.87 l. 89 l. 28 0.25 2.37 0.009 0.08 0.12 0.013
UA-107 18.10 9.65 4.65 0.80 0.34 0.65 0.083 0.38 0.24 0.022
UA-108 15.34 8.21 4.42 1.00 0.35 0.68 0.035 0.29 0.25 0.015
UA-109 5.99 2.50 0.352 l. 13 0.78 0.79 0.32 0.062 0.006 0.017
UA-110 4.38 1. 92 1. 02 0.27 0.14 0.19 0.047 0.080 0.057 0.003
UA-111 19.63 8. 91 5.75 0.90 0.22 l. 79 0.049 0.41 0.24 0.033
UA-112 13.75 ~ •. 1 Q 2.67 0.95 0. 45 3.12 0.034 0.17 0.12 0.069
UA-113 l 0. 23 4. 19 2.96 0.69 0.19 l. 70 0.018 0.21 0.08 0.010
UA-114 63. 19 42.0 12.'7 2.46 l. 39 l. 14 0.13 2.2 0.82 0.025
UA-115 4.74 0.80 l. 58 0.45 0.30 1. 33 0.012 0.047 0.052 0.0057
UA-116 3.44 0.40 0.962 0.36 0.25 1.28 0.009 0.021 0.028 0.0045
UA-11 7 38.23 20.9 11.8 l. 95 0.54 0.88 0.20 1. 53 0.65 0.019
UA-118 11.23 4.20 2.36 0.64 0.40 2.84 0.012 0.15 0.10 0.012
UA-119 13.18 5. 72 2.99 0.88 0.36 2.19 0.12 0.290 0.15 0.028 -- - - --- -- -- --- - --- -
- ------------- - --- -
TABLE 15. Concentration of Trace Elements in Raw Coal Ashes (parts per million).
Sam~le llo. Ag [l Ba Co Cr Cu{A.A.) Ga f·1o Ni{A.A.) ~b Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
UA-100 N.D 110 ILD N.D 150 142 36 N.D 62 23 N.O 240 57 310
UA-101 N.O 160 4,300 N.D 110 152 24 N.D 111 N.D N.D 190 61 130
UA-102 N.O 180 4,800 N.D 160 150 26 N.D 101 150 39 280 80 180
UA-103 N.D H 18,000 49 150 215 39 N.O 200 320 N.O 300 110 440
UA-104 1.3 1,900 12,000 40 160 150 34 N.D 130 93 N.D 300 71 360
UA-105 N.O 140 4,700 N.D 120 170 21 N.D 1 so N.D N.O 250 170 280
UA-106 1.5 130 15,000 60 140 180 22 94 145 N.D N.D 280 160 500
UA-107 N.O 110 3,400 40 110 92 52 N.D 90 25 N.D 320 99 370
UA-108 N.D 470 N.D 260 180 86 63 tl. D 200 28 N.D 380 370 260
UA-109 N.O 4,100 7,900 61 N.D 46 14 N.D 102 N.D N.O N.D 237 470
UA-11 0 ILO H 4,800 200 81 103 100 21 260 180 N.O 270 366 580
UA-111 N.O 96 11,000 71 380 157 57 N.O 124 99 27 350 110 400
UA-112 2.9 330 12,000 73 200 434 22 79 175 57 N.D 560 403 320
UA-113 N.O 130 5,200 88 230 164 52 11.0 121 110 N.O 360 182 420
UA-114 ri.D 180 N.D N.O 150 72 32 N.O 60 21 N.O 310 101 170
UA-115 1.3 320 5,700 35 160 230 47 N.D 130 42 48 220 100 480
UA-116 1.6 370 5, 500 98 170 250 31 10 165 83 28 240 120 750
UA-117 N.D 670 N.D 23 160 76 46 N.D 79 59 26 320 145 330
UA-118 N.O 380 5,500 28 170 235 27 14 105 42 N.O 400 95 410
N UA-119 N.O 310 5,900 90 160 300 N 32 17 145 29 tl. 0 540 50 350
-....J
TABLE 16. Concentration of Trace Elements in Raw Coals (parts per million).
Ash, Percent
Sample No. Moisture Free Ag B Ba Co Cr Cu(A.A.) Ga Mo Ni (A.A.) pb Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
Basis
UA-100 22.32 N.D 25 N.O N.D 33 32 8.0 N.D 25 5.1 N.D 54 13 69
UA-101 10.25 N.O 16 440 N.D 11 16 2.5 N.D 9.0 II. D N.O 19 6.3 13
UA-102 13.95 N.O 25 670 N.D 22 21 3.6 N.O 12 21 5.4 39 11 25
UA-103 9. 77 N.O H 1,800 4.8 15 21 3.8 N.D 40 31 N.D 29 11 43
UA-104 11.96 0.16 230 1 ,400 4.8 19 18 4.1 N.O 22 11 N.O 36 8.5 43
UA-1 05 10.74 N.D 15 500 N.O 13 18 23 N.D 15 N.D II. 0 27 18 30
UA-106 11.41 0.17 15 1 '700 6.8 16 21 2.5 11 19 II. 0 N.D 32 18 57
UA-107 18.10 N.O 20 620 7.2 20 17 9.4 ~1. D 18 4.5 N.D 58 18 67
UA-108 15.34 N.D 72 N.D 40 28 13 9.7 N.D 58 4.3 N.O 58 57 40
UA-109 5.99 tl.D 250 470 3.7 N.D 2.8 0.84 tl. D 4.9 N.D N.O N.D 14 28
UA-110 4.38 N.D H 210 8.8 3.5 4.5 4.4 0.92 21 7.9 N.D 12 16 25
UA-111 19.63 N.D 19 2,200 14 75 31 11 N.D 35 19 5.3 69 22 79
UA-112 13.75 0.40 45 1,700 10 28 60 3.0 11 25 7.8 N.D 77 55 44
UA-113 10.23 N.O 13 490 9.0 24 17 5.3 tl. D 19 11 N.D 37 19 43
UA-114 63.19 N.O 110 N.D N.O 95 45 20 N.D 33 13 N.O 200 64 110
UA-115 4.74 0.06 15 270 1.7 7.6 11 2.2 N.D 4.7 2.0 2.3 10 4.7 23
UA-116 3.44 0.06 12 190 3.4 5.8 8.6 1.1 0.34 5.2 2.9 0.96 8.3 4.1 26
UA-117 38.23 N.D 280 N.D 8.8 61 29 18 N.D 26 23 9.9 120 55 130
UA-118 11.23 N.D 43 520 3. 1 19 26 3.0 1.6 13 4.7 N.D 45 11 46
UA-119 13.18 N.D 41 780 12 21 40 4.2 2.5 21 3.8 N.D 71 66 46
TAI3LE 17. Washability Analyses of Sample 107, Crushed to 38 mm Top Size,
Showing Concentration of t1ajor Elements in Ash of Products.
Specific
Gravity
Sink F 1 oat Si02 J\1203 Fe 2o3 ~1g0 CaO Na20 K20 Ti02 MnO
1.3 43.4 31.8 5.8 2.4 8.6 0.41 1.3 1.9 0.05
1.3 1.4 55.5 31.3 2.8 1.6 2.6 0.32 1.9 1.7 0.04
1.4 1.6 60.0 29.0 2.6 1.6 1.6 0.33 2.9 1. 6 0.05
1.6 54.4 27. 1 6.3 1.1 4.9 0.53 2.4 1.0 0. 14
Head, calc. 54.2 28.8 4.9 1.6 4.4 0.44 2.3 1.4 0.09
TABLE 18. Washability Analyses of Sample 113, Crushed to 38 mm Top Size,
N Showing Concentration of ~1ajor Elements in Ash of Products. N
00
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Si02 Al20 3 Fe20 3 t1g0 CaO Na 2o K20 Ti02 t'lnO
1.3 20.2 25. 7 9.3 2.5 34.9 0. 25 0.9 0.5 0.14
1.3 1.4 36.5 27.3 6.7 2. 1 22. 1 0.20 2. 1 0.8 0.13
1.4 1.6 56.9 26.3 3.8 1.3 5.0 0.16 2.8 1.1 0.08
1.6 66.0 21.5 3.8 1.3 2.4 0. 17 2.8 1.0 .07
Head, calc. 40.1 26. 1 6.4 1.9 19.5 0.20 2.1 0.8 0. 12
-------------------
-------------------
TABLE 19. ~~ashabil i ty Ana lyses of Sample 119, Crushed to 38 mm Top Size,
Showing Concentration of Major El em en ts in Ash of Products.
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Si02 Al20 3 Fe 2o3 t1g0 CaO Na 2o K20 Ti02 MnO
1.3 32.2 13.5 8. 7 6.0 30.3 0.08 0.4 0.7 0. 17
1.3 1.4 41.4 18.0 5.5 3.3 18.4 0.09 1.2 1.0 0.09
1.4 1.6 55.9 24.3 3.2 1.8 7.4 0.11 2.8 1.0 0.03
1.6 56.4 18.4 9.6 1.5 6.4 0. 19 2. 1 1.0 0.09
Head, calc. 41.6 18.0 5.8 3.5 18.9 0.09 1.2 1.0 0.10
N TABLE 20. Washability Analyses of Sample 107, Crushed to 38 mm Top Size, Showing
N Concentration of ~1ajor Elements in Products (Moisture Free Basis, Percent). "'
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Ash & Si02 Al 203 Fe 2o3 t1g0 CaO Na 2o K20 Ti02 MnO
1.3 5.46 2.37 1. 74 0.32 0. 13 0.47 0.022 0.07 0.10 0.003
1.3 1.4 12. 14 6.74 3.80 0.34 0.19 0. 32 0.039 0.23 0. 21 0.005
1.4 1.6 27.75 16.65 8. 05 0.72 0.44 0.44 0.09 0.8 0.44 0.014
1.6 58.71 31.94 15. 91 3.7 0.65 2.88 0.31 1. 41 0. 59 0.082
Head, calc. 18.63 10. 10 5.37 0. 91 0.30 0.82 0.082 0.43 0.26 0.017
TABLE 21. Washability Analyses of Sample 113, Crushed to 38 mm Top Size, Showing
Concentration of Major Elements in Products (Moisture Free Basisf Percent).
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Ash & Si02 Al203 Fe203 M90 CaO Na20 K20 Ti02 MnO
1.3 4.86 0.98 l. 25 0.45 0.12 1.7 0.012 0.04 0.02 0.007
1.3 1.4 9.04 3.3 2. 468 0.606 0. 19 1. 998 0.018 0.190 0.072 0.012
1.4 1.6 32.39 18.43 8.52 1. 231 0.421 l. 62 0.052 0.907 0.35 0.03
1.6 53.17 35.09 11.43 2. 02 0.69 l. 28 0.09 l. 49 0.53 0.04
Head, calc. 9.45 3.79 2.47 0.60 0.18 l. 84 0.02 0.20 0.08 0.01
N TABLE 22. Washability Analyses of Sample 119, Crushed to 38 mm Top Size, Showing
(.....) Concentration of Major Elements in Products (Moisture Free Basis, Percent). 0
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Ash & Si02 Al 2o3 Fe 2o3 t1g0 CaO Na 2o K20 Ti02 MnO
1.3 5.54 l. 78 0.75 0.48 0.33 l. 68 0.004 0.022 0.039 0.01
1.3 1.4 10.88 4.5 l. 96 0.60 0.36 2.0 0.01 0.13 0. 11 0.01
1.4 1.6 32.24 18.02 7.83 l. 03 0.58 2. 39 0.04 0.9 0.32 0.01
1.6 33.49 18.89 6. 16 3.22 0.50 2.14 0.06 0.70 0.33 0.03
Head, calc. 11.27 4.69 2.03 0. 39 0.39 2.13 0.01 0. 14 0. 11 0.01
-------------------
---- -- - ------ -- - - - -
TAilLE 23. Washability Analyses of Sample 107, Crushed to 38mm Top Size, Showing Concentration
of Trace Elements in the Ash of Products.
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Ag 8 Ba Co Cr Cu(A.A.) Ga Mo Ni (A.A.) ~b Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
1.3 N.O 300 9,300 110 170 105 57 N.IJ 195 87 N.O H 181 150
1. 3 1.4 N.O 120 3,700 76 180 106 63 N.O 105 59 N.O 670 112 680
1.4 1. 6 N.O 50 2,500 N.O 130 110 38 N.O 80 31 N.O 330 94 400
1.6 N.O 35 2,300 N.O 90 56 44 fLO 50 21 N.O 150 117 180
Head, calc. N.O 87 3,500 N.D 100 81 48 fLO 84 33 N.O N.O 120 300
N TA[lLE 21\. Washability Analyses of Sample 113, Crushed to 38mm Top Size, Showing Concentration w
1-' of Trace Elements in the Ash of Products.
Specific
Gravity
Sink Fll)a t Ag_ B Ba Co Cr Cu{A.A.) Ga Mo Ni(A.A.} eb Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
1.3 fLO 97 13,000 220 230 133 45 69 190 210 N.O 510 278 450
1.3 1.4 1.1 110 6,000 100 200 150 42 28 118 110 N.O 360 212 450
1.4 1.6 fLO 89 N.O N.O 190 147 58 N.O 72 64 N.O 400 117 440
1.6 N.O 97 N.O N.O 220 130 44 fLO 74 76 N.O 360 110 310
Head, calc. N.D 100 N.O N.O 210 144 46 N.O 120 120 N.O 400 197 430
TABLE 25. Hashabil i ty Analyses of Samrle 119, Crushed to 38mm Top Size, Showing Concentration
of Trace Elements in the Ash of Products.
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Ag B Ba Co Cr Cu{A.A.) Ga t1o Ni (A.A.) eb Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
1.3 tl. 0 510 11 '000 46 94 145 18 21 141 30 29 300 64 240
1.3 1.4 t/.0 340 5,900 30 180 220 38 12 111 29 N.D 470 89 410
1.4 1.6 tl. D 130 3,300 N.D 210 220 40 N.D 65 44 fLO 520 97 260
1.6 160 160 7,800 N.D 140 265 32 N.D 104 1,100 51 270 219 260
Head, calc. N.D 340 6,400 tLD 170 210 35 N.D 111 38 N.D 450 87 370
TABLE 26. Washability Analyses of Sample 107, Crushed to 38 mm Top size,
Showing Concentrating Trace Elements in Products.
Specific
Gravity
SiJJk Float Ash % Ag B Sa Co Cr Cu(A.A.} Ga Ge ~lo Ni(A.A.) ~b Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
1.3 5.46 N.D 16 510 6.0 11 5.7 3.1 N.D N.D 11 4.8 N.D H 9.9 8.2
1.3 1.4 12.14 N.D 15 450 9.2 25 13 76 N.D N.D 13 7.2 N.D 81 14 83
1.4 1.6 27.75 1'1.0 14 690 tl. 0 47 31 11 tLD N.D 22 8.6 N.D 92 25 110
1.6 58.71 N.D 21 1,400 N.D 120 33 26 N.D N.D 29 12 N.D 88 69 110
llead, calc. 18.63 tLD 16 650 fLO 19 15 8.9 N.D N.D 16 6.1 N.D N.D 22 56
TABLE 27. Washability Analyses of Sample 113, Crushed to 38 mm Top size,
Showing Concentrating Trace Elen:ents in Products.
N Specific I.JJ
N Gravity
Sink F1 oat Ash % Ag B Ba Co Cr Cu(A.A.} Ga Ge Mo N.i (A.A.) ~b Sn v Zn(A.A.} Zr
1.3 4.86 tLD 4.7 630 11 11 6.5 2.2 tl. 0 3.4 9 10 N.D 25 14 22
1.3 1.4 9.04 0.10 9.9 610 9.0 18 14 3.8 fl. 0 2.5 11 9.9 N.D 33 19 41 1.4 1.6 32.39 ILD 29 N.D N.D 62 48 19 tl. 0 N.D 23 21 tLD 130 38 140 1.6 53.17 tLD 52 N.D N.D 120 70 23 tLD N.D 39 40 N.D 190 58 160 Head, calc. 9.45 N.D 9.5 11.0 N.D 20 14 4.3 N.D N.D 11 11 N.D 38 19 41
TABLE 28. ~Jashability Analyses of Sample 119, Crushed to 38 mm Top size,
Showing Concentrating Trace Elements in Products.
Specific
Gravity
Sink Float Ash % A!J B Ba Co Cr Cu(A.A.) f1a Ge Mo Ni(A.A.) ~b Sn v Zn(A.A.) Zr
1.3 5.54 N.D 28 610 2.5 5.2 8 1.0 N.D 1.2 8 2.0 1.6 17 3.5 13 1.3 1.4 10.88 tLD 37 640 3.3 20 24 4.1 tl. 0 1.3 12 3.2 N.D 51 9.7 45 1 .4 1.6 32.24 N.D 42 1,100 ti.D 68 71 13 N.D N.D 21 14 N.D 170 31 84
1.6 33.49 54 54 2,600 N.D 47 89 11 N.D N.D 35 370 17 90 73 87 Heild, calc. 11.27 N.O 35 650 ll.D 17 21 3.6 N.D N.D 11 3.9 N.D 46 8.9 38
------- ------ - --- --
I
I
,I
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References
1. Rao, P.D. and Wolff, E.N., 1979, Characterization and evalua-
tion of washability of Alaskan coals, final technical re-
port for phase I, selected seams from Nenana, Jarvis Creek
and Matanuska coal fields: DOE/ET/13350-Ti, Contract No.
U.S. DOE ET78-G-01-8969, 31 p.
2. Rao, P.D. and Wolff, E.N., 1980, Characterization and evalua-
tion of washability of Alaskan coals, final technical re-
port for phase II, selected seams from northern Alaska,
Broad Pass, Tramway Bar, Beluga, Yentna, Kenai and Nenana
coal fields: DOE/ET/B350-T2, Contract No. U.S. DOE ET-78-
G-018969, 47 p.
3. Wahrhaftig, Clyde, Hickcox, C.A. and Freedman, Jacob, Coal
deposits on Healy and Lignite creeks, Nenana coal field,
Alaska, 1n Barnes, F.F. and others, Coal investigations in
southcentral Alaska, 1944-46: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull.
963-E, 1951, p. 141-165.
4. Wahrhaftig, Clyde, Geology and coal deposits of the western
part of Nenana coal field, Alaska, in Barnes, F.F. and
others, Coal investigations in southcentral Alaska, 1944-
46: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 963-E, 1951, p. 169-186.
5. Wahrhaftig, Clyde and Birmon, Joseph H., Stripping coal
deposits on lower Lignite Creek, Nenana coal field, Alaska:
u.s. Geol. Survey Circ. 310, 11 p.
6. Wahrhaftig, Clyde, Wolfe, Jack A., Leopold, Estella B. and
Lanphere, Marvin A., 1969, The coal bearing group in the
Nenana coal field, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1274D,
30 p.
1. Wahrhaftig, Clyde and Hickcox, C.A., Geology and coal depos-
its, Jarvis creek coal field, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey
Bull. 989-G, 1955, p. 353-367.
8. Barnes, F .A., Mining and exploration in 1945 in the Wishbone
Hill district, Matanuska Valley, Alaska, in Barnes, F.F.
and others, Coal investigations in southcentral Alaska,
1944-46: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 963-E, 1951, p. 193-201.
9. Barnes, F.F. and Payne, Thomas G., The Wishbone Hill dis-
trict, Matanuska coal field, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey
Bull. 1016, 1956, 88 p.
10. Barnes, F.F., 1967, Coal resources of the Cape Lisburne -
Colville River region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull.
1242-E, 37 p.
233
11. Tonges, A.L. and Jolley, T.R., 1947, Investigation of coal
deposits for local use in the Arctic regions of Alaska and
proposed mine development: U.S. Bureau of Mines, RI 4150,
19 p.
12. Sanford, R.S. and Pierce, H.C., 1946, Exploration of coal
deposits of the Point Barrow and Wainwright areas, northern
Alaska: u.s. Bureau of Mines, RI 3934, 17 p.
13. Wahrhaftig, Clyde, 1944, Coal deposits of the Costello Creek
Basin, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Rept. 8, 7 p.
14. Hopkins, D.M., 1951, Lignite deposits near Broad Pass Sta-
tion, Alaska, in Barnes, F.F. and others, Coal investiga-
tions in southcentral Alaska, 1944-46: U.S. Geol. Survey
Bull. 963-E, p. 187-191.
15. Brooks, A.H., 1911, Mount McKinley region, Alaska: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 70, 234 p.
16. Capps, S.R., 1919, Kantishna region, Alaska: U.S. Geol.
Survey Bull. 687, 118 p.
17. Player, A.F., 1976, The Little Tonzona coal bed near Fare-
well, Alaska; an important extension of the coal field
north of the Alaska Range: A report by Gary Player Ven-
tures, Box 476-M, Star Route A, Anchorage, Alaska 99507, 10
p.
18. Sloan, E.G., Shearer, G.B., Eason, J.E. and Almquist, C.L.,
1979, Reconnaissance survey for coal near Farewell, Alaska:
u.s. Geol. Survey Open File Report 79-410, 18 p.
19. Schrader, F.C., 1900, Preliminary report on reconnaissance
along the Chandalar and Koyukuk Rivers, Alaska, in 1899:
U.S. Geol. Survey Twenty-First Annual Rept. Part 2, 485 p.
20. Smith, P. and Mertie, J.B., Jr., 1930, Geology and mineral
resources of northwestern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull.
815, 351 p.
21. Patton, W.W., Jr., 1973, Reconnaissance geology of the north-
ern Yukon-Koyukuk Province, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey
Prof. Paper 774-A, 17 p.
22. Barnes, F.F. and Cobb, E.H., 1959, Geology and coal re-
sources, Homer district, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull.
1058-F, p. 217-260.
23. Adkinson, W.L., Kelley, J.S. and Newman, K.R., 1975, Litholo-
gy and palynology of Tertiary rocks exposed near Capps
glacier and along Chuitna river, Tyonek quadrangle, south-
ern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Open File Rept. 75-21, 58 p.
234
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
24. Wolf, Jack A., Hopkins, D.M. and Leopold, Estella A., 1966,
Tertiary stratigraphy and paleobotany of the Cook Inlet
region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 398-A, 29 p.
25. Barnes, F.F., 1966, Geology and coal resources of the Beluga-
Yentna region, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1202-C, 54
p.
26. International Handbook of Coal Petrology, second edition
(1963), Supplements 1971 and 1976, centre National De La
Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France.
27. Stach, E., Mackowsky, M.T., Teichmuller, M., Taylor, A.H.,
Chandra, D. and Teichmuller, K., 1975, Stach's textbook of
coal petrology, Gebruder Borntraegeo, Berlin, 428 p.
28. Rao, C.P. and Gluskoter, H.J., 1973, Occurrence and distribu-
tion of minerals in Illinois coals, Illinois Geol. Survey
Circ. 476.
29. Rao, P.D., 1980, Petrographic, mineralogical and chemical
characterization of certain Arctic Alaskan coals from the
Cape Beaufort region: Mineral Industry Research Laboratory
Rept. No. 44, School of Mineral Industry, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, 66 p.
30. O'Gorman, J.V. and Walker, P.L., Jr., 1972, Mineral matter
and trace elements in U.S. coals: Office of Coal Research,
R. & D. Rept. No. 61, Interim Rept. No. 2.
31. Gong, H. and Suhr 1 N.H., Personal communication.
32. Medlin, J.M., Suhr, N.H. and Bodkin, J.B., 1969, Atomic
absorption newsletter, 8 (2) p. 25.
33. Dutcher, R.R., Trotter, C.L. and Spauckman, W., 1957, Petro-
graphy and palynology of certain coals of the Arctic slope
of Alaska: Report submitted to the Arctic Institute of
North America, Department of Geology, College of Mineral
Industries, Pennsylvania State University, 36 p.
34. Cavallaro, J.A., Gibbon, G.A., Hartman, E.A., Schultz, H. and
Deurbrouck, A.W., 1977, A washability and analytical eval-
uation of potential pollution from trace elements in coal:
E PA-600/7-78-038.
235
Analysis of coal samples from the Healy, Kenai,
Seldovia and Utukok River Quadrangles, Alaska
Ronald H. Affolter, Frederick 0. Simon
and Gary D. Stricker
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver
Introduction
As part of a continuing program by the U.S. Geological Survey to
collect and chemically analyze representative samples of coal in
the United States, a total of 118 coal samples were collected in
the State of Alaska. These samples were collected during a 5 year
period by the U.S. Geological Survey and Alaska Division of Geo-
logical and Geophysical Surveys. There were 20 samples from the
Healy 1:250,000 quadrangle (15 channel, 5 core); 10 samples from
the Kenai 1:250,000 quadrangle ( 10 channel); 34 samples from the
Seldovia 1:250,000 quadrangle (34 channel); and 54 samples from
the Utukok River 1:250,000 quadrangle (31 channel, 18 auger, 5
cuttings). U.S. Geological Survey sample numbers, locations,
thickness and sample type for all 118 samples are listed in Table
1. Location of sampled quadrangles are shown in Figure 1.
Geologic Occurrence
Healy Ouadrangl~
Samples collected in the Healy 1:250,000 quadrangle are from the
Nenana coal field. Upper Oligocene to Late Upper Pliocene coal
bearing rocks have been faulted and folded into a series of dis-
connected basins that extend 80 miles along the northern flank of
the Alaska Range. Dips are low to moderate. Coal beds, ranging
in thickness from a few inches to 60 feet, are found in 4 forma-
tions (Fig. 2). The greatest number and thickest coals are in the
Healy Creek and Suntrana Formations.
Kenai and Seldovia Quadrangles
The Kenai and Seldovia 1:250,000 quadrangles lie within the Kenai
coal field (Barnes, 1967). Tertiary coal beds of the Cook Inlet
Region are included in the Oligocene to Pliocene Kenai Group (Fig.
3). The coal bearing rocks are within a broad structural basin
modified locally by gentle folds. The deepest part of the basin
is in Cook Inlet. Dips are generally less than 5 degrees. Few
high angle faults are present that have displacements as much as
80 feet. The most numerous and thickest (as much as 1 feet) coals
in the Kenai-Seldovia area are in the Tyonek Formation.
236
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
QUADRANGLES
ffil1l UTUKOK RIVER
II HEALY
~ KENAI
ALASKA {gJ SELDOVIA
IJ 0 •a:'•-=::i' iiO OC:::J2 0 0 MIL! 8 MJ )
ICAL!
SAMPLE STUDY AREA
Figure 1.--Index map showing the location of the Utukok River,
Healv, Kenai, and ~eldovia quadrangles, Alaska, in
which coal samples were collected.
Table 1.--u.s. Geological Survey sample numbers, locations, thickness, and
sample type for 118 coal samples from the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia, and
Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska
[All latitudes and longitudes are given in degrees, minutes, and seconds,
except the Seldovia quadrangle for which only degrees and minutes are
given.]
USGS
Sample
Number
D172389
D172390
D172391
D172392
D172393
D172394
D172395
D172396
D175053
D175054
D175055
D175056
D175057
D186043
D186044
D186045
D186046
D186047
D186048
D186049
D178628
D178629
D178630
D178773
D17877 4
D17877 5
D178776
D178777
D178778
D178779
Latitude
63°55'09"
---do----
---do----
---do----
---do----
---do----
---do----
---do----
63°58'12"
---do----
---do----
---do----
---do----
63°54'10"
---do----
---do----
---do----
---do----
63°58'36"
---do----
60°01'53"
60°03'39"
---do----
60°00'24"
60°04' 17"
60°04'03"
---do----
60°12'11"
60°12'29"
---do----
Longitude
Healy Quadrangle
148°40'00"
----do----
----do----
----do----
----do----
----do----
----do----
----do----
148°45'00"
----do----
----do----
----do----
----do----
148°56'16"
----do----
----do----
----do----
----do----
147°16'22"
----do----
Kenai Quadrangle
151°40'15"
151°39'14"
----do----
151°37'22"
151°38'28"
151°38'46"
----do----
151°26'03"
151°26'34"
----do----
238
Thickness Sample
(feet) type
5.0 Channel
5.0 Do.
5.6 Do.
3.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
7.1 Do.
10.5 Core
10.0 Do.
6.0 Do.
9.3 Do.
9.5 Do.
7.0 Channel
7.0 Do.
4.8 Channel
4.0 Do.
5.0 Do.
6.5 Channel
4.4 Do.
4.5 Do.
7.2 Do.
4.3 Do.
4.2 Do.
2.0 Do.
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1.--U.S. Geological Survey sample numbers, locations, thickness, and
sample type for 118 coal samples from the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia, and
Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska--continued
USGS
Sample Thickness Sample
Number Latitude Longitude (feet) type
Seldovia Quadrangle
D169228 59°45' 151 °00' 1.4 Channel
D169229 ---do-------do----1.4 Do.
D169230 ---do-------do----2.4 Do.
D169231 ---do-------do----1.8 Do.
D169232 ---do-------do----2.6 Do.
D169233 ---do-------do----3.7 Do.
D169234 59°30' 151 °15' 2.8 Do.
D169236 ---do-------do----4.9 Do.
D169237 ---do-------do----4.9 Do.
D169238 ---do-------do----5.0 Do.
D169239 ---do-------do----5.0 Do.
D169240 ---do-------do----1.0 Do.
D169241 59°45' 151°15' 1.3 Do.
D169242 ---do-------do----.9 Do.
D169243 ---do-------do----1.3 Do.
D169244 ---do-------do----1.6 Do.
D169245 ---do-------do----3.4 Do.
D169246 ---do-------do----.5 Do.
D169247 ---do-------do----1.6 Do.
D169248 ---do-------do----2.1 Do.
D169249 ---do-------do----1.6 Do.
D169250 ---do-------do----5.2 Do.
Dl69251 ---do-------do----1.3 Do.
D169252 ---do-------do----3.1 Do.
Dl69253 ---do-------do----2.8 Do.
D169254 ---do-------do----5.5 Do.
D169255 ---do-------do----3.5 Do.
239
Table 1.--u.s. Geological Survey sample numbers, locations, thickness, and
sample type for 118 coal samples from the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia, and
Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska--continued
USGS
Sample Thickness Sample
Number Latitude Longitude (feet) type
Seldovia Quadrangle
D169256 59°45 1 151°00 1 5.5 Channel
D169257 ---do-------do----3.2 Do.
D169258 59°30 1 151°30 1 2.0 Do.
D169259 ---do-------do----5.9 Do.
D169260 ---do-------do----2.4 Do.
D169261 ---do-------do----2.7 Do.
D169262 ---do-------do----3.6 Do.
Utukok River Quadrangle
D184598 69°22 1 56" 161°23 1 22" 3.2 Channel
D184599 69° 22 I 10" 161°23 1 20" 2.0 Do.
D184600 69°23 1 08" 161°16 1 06" 4.8 Do.
D184601 69°26 1 48" 160°45 1 12" 5.5 Do.
D184602 69°22 1 00" 161°14 1 50" 5.2 Do.
D184603 69°21 1 40" 161°14 1 10" 4.2 Do.
D184604 69°21 1 42" 161°27 1 25" 3.3 Do.
D184605 ---do--------do----6.2 Do.
D184606 ---do--------do----3.9 Do.
D184607 69°20 1 24" 160°30 1 40" 5.4 Do.
D184608 ---do--------do----4.2 Do.
D184609 69°20 1 44" 160°28 1 08" 5.4 Do.
D184610 69°20 1 40" 160°25 1 55" 4.1 Do.
D184611 69°31 1 43" 161°20 1 26" 3.0 Do.
D184612 69°21 1 54" 160°21 1 45" 5.3 Do.
D184613 69°27 1 58" 161°22 1 28" 6.3 Do.
D184614 69°28 1 32" 161°22 1 20" 1.3 Do.
D184615 69°27 1 08" ----do----1.5 Do.
D184616 69 ° 26 I 17'' 161°20 1 46" 3 .1 Do.
240
I
I
I
I.
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Table 1.--u.s. Geological Survey sample numbers, locations, thickness, and
sample type for 118 coal samples from the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia, and
Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska--continued
I
I USGS
Sample Thickness Sample
Number Latitude Longitude (feet) type
I Utukok River Quadrangle
D203122 69°15 1 45" 159°08 1 15" 12.0 Cuttings
I D203123 69°41 1 35" 161°42 1 36" 25.0 Do.
D203124 69°31 1 15" 161°27 1 45" 7.0 Do.
D203125 69°31 1 26" 160°14 1 00" 15.0 Do.
D203126 ---do--------do----20.0 Do.
I D213965 69°21 1 10" 161°24 1 45" ll.8 Auger
D213966 69°22 1 05" 161°22 1 00" 4.3 Do.
I D213967 69°24 1 00" 161°16 1 30" 7.5 Do.
D213968 69°23 1 10" 161°15 1 00" 8.9 Do.
D213969 69°22 1 05" ----do----11.2 Do.
I D213970 69°21 1 10" ----do----5.6 Do.
D213971 69°23 1 10" 161°03 1 00" 7.5 Do.
D213972 69°22 1 50" 161°05 1 20" 6.9 Do • . I D21397 3 69°23 1 10" ----do----6.9 Do.
D213974 69°24 1 00" 161°01 1 45" 7.2 Do.
I D213975 69°20 1 25" 160°34 1 20" 7.5 Do.
D213976 ---do----160°28 1 30" 11.2 Do.
D213977 ---do--------do----12.8 Do.
I D213978 69°21 I 10" 160°24 1 10" 7.2 Do.
D213979 69°23 1 10" 160°31 1 30" 13 Do.
D213980 69°27 I 30" 160°42 1 00" 5.6 Do.
I D213981 69°26 1 45" 160°45 1 00" 6.6 Do.
D213982 ---do----160°47'20" 4.3 Do.
D213944 69°07 1 30" 161°24 1 40" 2.0 Channel
I D213945 69°0R 1 25" ----do----1.6 Do.
D213946 69°06 1 40" 161°32 1 00" 8.9 Do.
D213947 69°05 1 45" 161°29 1 45" ll.5 Do.
I D213948 ---do--------do----ll.5 Do.
D213949 ---do----161°20 1 00" 7.5 Channel
D213950 69°06 1 45" 161°29 1 45" 6.9 Do.
I D213951 69°04 1 00" 161°27 1 00" .98 Do.
D213952 ---do--------do----3.6 Do.
I D213953 69°24 1 45" 161°11 1 45" 8.2 Do.
D213954 ---do----161°06 1 45" 4.9 Do.
D213955 69°25 1 40" 160°13 1 00" 2.6 Do.
I
I 241
Figure
Serie
Plio-
cene
u
CD c
CP u
0
:E
M
L
u
CD c
CD u
0
Jf L 0
Nonmarine Stage Nenana coalfield
Clamgulehian
Homerian Ugnite Creek
Formation
Suntrane Formation
Upper
Seldovian
Sanctuary Formation
Lower Healy Creek
Formation
Upper
Angoonian
Lower
2.--Stratigraphic nomenclature of the coal-bearing rocks
of the Nenana coalfield, Alaska, after Wolfe and Tanai,
(1980, p. 9).
:::; a..
I
ct w :::l
c; 1-0 FORMATION DESCRIPTION en w > c; THICKNESS (in teet) (/) C)
1-
I I < Alluvium and glacial deposits :J c
Sterling Formation Maaeive eandetone and
0:..11,000 conglomerate bad• with
occaalonal thin lignlta bad.
(.)
V'\/VV-v-v-v-v "'"'"' 0 c. Beluga Formation
Clayaaane, eiltatonc, and thtn
N > ~ o:..6ooo' Nndatone bede, thin a.ub-
0 c::: 0 bltumlnoua coal bed&. ... vv'V"v /'..A. A z !:: ~ V'V'V'
w 1-(.) -Sandaton•, clayaton•, and cr: (0 Tyonek Formation w c alltatone lnterbada and
1--G.J 4000--7700 maaatve subbitumlnoua
~ coal bada.
Hemlock Formation
3oo'-goo' S•ndatane •nd conglomerate ..
I"V"../VV v v V'V'V'V'V' vvvV'~-"' A./'"'-"' A./'-"'~~~
RESTS UNCONFORMABLY ON OLDER TERTIARY ROCKS
Figure ].--Stratigraphic nomenclature of Tertiary Kenai Group, Alaska,
after Calderwood and Fackler, (1972, p. 741).
242
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Utukok River Quadrangle
The Utukok River 1:250,000 quadrangle lies within the Kokolik-
Utukok Rivers district of the northern Alaska coal field (Barnes,
1967). The Cretaceous coal bearing Corwin Formation (Fig. 4) has
been folded into many east-west trending synclines and anticlines
that have strata on the flanks of the fold generally dipping 5-20
degrees. Many coal beds, ranging from a few inches to more than
12 feet, are present in the Corwin Formation. Exposures are
limited however, and are restricted to major drainages.
Explanation of Tables
Analytical procedures used by the U.S. Geological Survey are
described in Swanson and Huffman (1976) (see Fig. 5 for flow chart
showing sequence of sample preparation and chemical analysis).
Twenty-two additional elements not listed in Tables 5, 8, 11 and
14 were looked for but were not found in amounts greater than
their lower limits of detection (Table 2). Unweighted statistical
summaries of the analytical data for all 118 Alaskan coal samples
are listed in Tables 3 through 14. For statistical comparison,
data summaries of coal samples from the Powder River region are
included for the Healy, Kenai and Seldovia quadrangles, and Rocky
Mountain Province coal summaries are included for the Utukok River
quadrangle.
Arsenic content of samples summarized in this report have been
determined by three different analytical methods: Samples
0169228-0169234, 0169236-0169262, 0175053-0175057 and 0172389-
0172396 were analyzed spectrophotometrically (lower detection
limit 1.0 ppm); samples 0178773-0178779 and 0178628-0178630 were
analyzed by the graphite furnace atomic absorption method (lower
detection limit 0.5 ppm); the other 61 samples were analyzed by
instrumental neutron activation analysis (lower detection limit
0.1 ppm).
Thorium content of the samples was determined by two methods:
Samples 0169228-0169234, 0169236-0169262, 0175053-0175057,
0172389-0172396, 0178774-0178779, and 0178628-0178630 were ana-
lyzed by delayed neutron activation analysis (lower detection
limit 3.0 ppm); all other samples were analyzed by instrumental
neutron activation analysis (lower detection limit 0.1 ppm).
P2o5 content of the samples were determined by X-ray fluorescence
spectroscopy. However, due to changes in technique, the lower
detection limit for samples 0213965-0213982 and 0213944-0213955 is
0.01 percent in whole coal; for samples 0169228-0169234, 0169236-
0169262, and 0178773-0178779 is 0.1 percent in coal ash; and for
the 47 remaining samples is 1.0 percent in coal ash.
To be consistent with the precision of the semiquantitative emis-
sion spectrographic technique, arithmetic and geometric means of
243
OUTCROP
WEST CENTRAL
Prince Creek (?)
Formation
Fortress Mountain
Prince
Creek
Formation IFortres. Mountam
Schrader
Bluff
SUBSURFACE
Prince Creek
Formation
(Tuluvak Tongue)
Grandstand
Formation
Topagoruk Fm
Oumatik Formation
Figure 4.--Stratigraphic nomenclature of the Colville and Nanushuk
Groups, Alaska, from Ahlbrandt and others, (1979, p. 14).
One (")uarl (about 600 !J) of roal split out
!w U.S. Burt!JU of Mrnr:s analysis
I
Ultrmatr ;wd rrol(imo:ttc analyses
(pr.:Jcl?dures dcscnUerl in Oflrce of
thf' Dir~ctor of Coal AesParch,
air dt1ed los'>
ash fu~1on
temperatures
fre~;1s,-;:.~11ing
1967, p. 3·12)
Ultimate
,lrletlySIS
pr.rcrnt a~h
c
H
0
N
S (total)
f ortn~ of Heat of
Cu•nhustion ~
I
Pro11irnate analysis
pf'rcent m01sture
volatile mallcr
lr 11cd car l.Jon
ash
I
Wer chem1cal
a'lalySIS
(atomic
~=ti<ml__
Mg
Na
Cd
Cu
Li
pyr1t1c
or q;mic
Kc:o:tl pe• kg
13tu per pound
Mn
Pi>
Zn
Raw coal as rccel\lf'd (about 5 pounds. I
or 2.3 kg, broken to 3 cml
S;:unplf' cru~hf'd and then wound
in ver t1cal 131 all! I pulvCII/1'1 u~i•nJ
CC!3fT11C plates ~{'t to p<tss 80 rncsh,
d!HJ IHIXf'tJ
One pml lahoul_ 300 IJ) 1
crushed coal split out
for storilg~
!,__ ________ Raw ground coal 1
Ground coal (2~ to 75 g) ao;hptJ at
525°C ant.J pprcent ao;.h calculatr:>d;
ash then rnixPd
I Coal ash I
Snc step specttoqraphic analysis
(63 elcm~nts looked for)
Flements genf'rally rcportf'd:
Ag Mo
D Nu
Ba N1
Br Sc
Co Sr
Cr v
Ga y
Ge Yb
La l.r
Wet chemical analysts
Hg (fl<:~mclcss AAI
Sh {colorimC'tTid
As lcolorrrnctr IC and f\f\)
F (selective ron
elcctrodu-)
I
X-ray fluorescence
ana!vsis
AI
Ca
Fe
K
p
s
S•
Ti
Neutron
activt~tion
ex:.~
fluo1
C'SCI~IIt:~ ~
As
Sh
Sc
Th
Figure 5.--Flow chart shm,;ring sequence of sample preparation and
chemical analysis (modified from Swanson and Huffman,
1976, fig. 1).
244
Delayed
nPutron
<lt:tiViiiiUrl
Th
u
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 2.--Elements looked for, but not detected in 118 coal samples from
the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia, and Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska
[Approximate lower detection limits for these elements in ash, by the
six-step spectrographic method of the U.S. Geological Survey, are
included]
Lower limit of detection
Element name Symbol ash (ppm)
Gold Au so
Bismuth Bi 20
Dysprosium Dy 100
Erbium Er 100
Europium Eu 200
Gadolinium Ge 100
Hafnium Hf 200
Holmium Ho so
Indium In 20
Lutetium Lu 70
Palladium Pd s
Praseodymium Pr 200
Platinum Pt 100
Rhenium Re 100
Samarium Sm 200
Tin Sn 20
Tantalum Ta 1,000
Terbium Tb 700
Tellerium Te s,ooo
Thallium Tl 100
Thulium Tm so
Tungsten w 200
in
Table 3.--Arithrnetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation I
of proximate and ultimate analyses, heat of combustion, forms of sulfur, and ash-
fusion temperatures of 12 coal samples from Healy quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison geometric means for 33 samples from the Powder River region are I
included (Swanson and others, 1976, tables 3lb and 32b. All values are in percent-
except Kcal/kg, Btu/lb, ash-fusion temperatures, and geometric deviations, and
are reported on the as-received basis. Leaders (---) indicate no data. Kcal/kg I
= 0.556 (Btu/lb). °F = (°C x 1.8) + 32]
Moisture
Volatile
matter
Fixed
carbon
Ash
Arithmetic
mean
24.1
35.5
30.1
10.2
Observed range
Minimum Maximum
Geometric
mean
Proximate and ultimate analyses
14.8 32.7 23.6
27.3 38.8 35.3
23.4 33.4 29.9
5.2 34.5 9 .1
Geometric
deviation
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.6
Powder River
region
geometric
mean
23.1
32
36
7.5
I
I
I
I
I
Hydrogen 6.3 4.6 6.9 6.2 1.1 6.2 I'
Carbon
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Kcal/kg
Btu/lb
Sulfate
Pyritic
Organic
Initial
deformation
Softening
temperature
Fluid
temperature
46.4
.7
36.0
4,465
8,030
.2
0.01
.08
.16
1,230
1,280
1,340
35.6
.5
24.5
3,410
6,130
.1
0.01
.01
.07
52.2 46.1
.8 .7
44.6 35.7
.7 .2
Heat of combustion
5,120
9,210
4,430
7,970
Forms of sulfur
0.04
.12
.51
0.01
.07
.14
Ash-fusion temperatures, °C
1,170 1,270 1,230
1,210 1,320 1,280
1,270 1,390 1,340
246
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.6
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
50.3
.9
32.9
4,860
8,740
.8
0.02
.29
.31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of ash content and contents of 10 major and minor oxides in the laboratory ash of
20 coal samples from the Healy quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison geometric means for 410 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 6a). All samples were ashed at 525°C;
all analyses except geometric deviation are in percent. L, indicates less than
the value shown. Leaders (---) indicate no data]
Oxide
(Ash)
Si02
CaO
MgO
Na20
K20
Ti02
P2o5
Arithmetic
mean
12.6
35
17
20
3.3
.18
1.1
4.6
.87
7.0
.26
Observed range
Minimum Maximum
6.5 37.5
16 51
8 23
2 37
1.6 7.3
.091 .53
.29 2.8
1.7 9.1
.57 1.1
1.0 27
.llL 1.2
247
Geometric
mean
ll.5
33
16
16
3.1
.15
.95
3.9
.86
5.2
.09
Geometric
deviation
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.2
2.2
4.5
Powder River
region
geometric
mean
9.0
28
14
15
3.56
.93
.28
5.8
.61
14
Table 5.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation I
of 39 elements in 20 coal samples from the Healy quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 410 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 6b). All analyses except geometric I
deviation are in percent or parts per million and are reported on a whole-coal
basis. As, F, Hg, Sb, Se, Th, and U values used where calculated from determina-
tions made on coal ash. L, less than the value shown. Leaders (---) indicate no I
data]
Element
Si
Al
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Fe
Ti
p
Ag
As
B
Ba
Be
Cd
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Ga
Hg
La
Li
Mn
Mo
Nb
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sc
Se
Sr
Th
u
v
y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Arithmetic
mean
2.3
1.1
1.5
.22
.02.
.14
.38
.067
.010
.09
3
so
500
5
20
20
95
.s
.1 5
3
.07
7
5
88
1.5
2
10
5.4
1.9
3
1.6
150
4.5
1.3
30
7
.7
14
15
Observed range
Minimum
0.51
.44
.54
.11
.0071
.01
.12
.022
.004L
Maximum
Percent
8.9
4.6
2.7
.43
.077
.87
.84
.23
.045
Geometric
mean
1.8
• 97
1.3
.21
.012
.091
.32
.059
.003
Parts per million
.07
1
15
150
.2L
.06L
1.5
7
8.2
35
1.5
.02
10
1.3
6 .1
.7
l.SL
5
2L
.3
1.5
0.3
70
.7
.4
15
3
.3
2.3
7
.3
10
100
1500
3
.56
10
70
58
340
10
.30
20
32
220
3
7
30
15
8.1
10
11
200
18
5.2
100
20
3
46
70
248
.06
2.6
30
500
3
15
17
82
.2
.07
3
.06
7
3.7
46
1.5
1.5
10
4.5
1.3
3
8
100
2.5
1.1
20
7
.7
8.8
15
Powder River
region
Geometric geometric
deviation mean
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.4
2.3
2.5
1.9
1.7
5.3
2.4
1.8
2 .1
1.8
3.2
3.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.5
2.2
3 .1
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.8
2.3
1.6
3.5
1.5
3.0
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.2
.66
.98
.19 5
.063
.022
.37
.035
2
so
300
2
.s
5
9.5
40
2
.08
3.9
34
1.5
1
3
5 .1
.4
1.5
0.7
150
3.3
.6
10
3
.3
12 .s
15
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of proximate and ultimate analyses, heat of combustion, forms of sulfur, and ash-
fusion temperatures of 10 coal samples from the Kenai quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 33 samples from the Powder River region
are included (Swanson and others, 1976, tables 31b and 32b). All values are in
percent except Kcal/kg, Btu/lb, ash-fusion temperatures, and geometric deviations,
and are reported on the as-received basis. Leaders (---) indicate no data.
Kcal/kg = 0.556 (Btu/lb). °F = (°C x 1.8) + 32]
Moisture
Volatile
matter
Fixed
carbon
Ash
Hydrogen
Carbon
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Kcal/kg
Btu/lb
Sulfate
Pyritic
Organic
Initial
deformation
Softening
temperature
Fluid
temperature
Arithmetic
mean
21.7
36.5
27 .o
15.3
6.0
42.6
.8
35.4
.4
4,070
7,320
0.02
.06
.29
1,120
1,180
1,240
Observed range
Minimum Maximum
Geometric
mean
Proximate and ultimate analyses
18.0 26.5 21.5
30.0 43.2 36.2
20.5 33.1 26.6
4.8 26.9 12.7
5.3 6.6 6.0
35.4 50.3 42.2
.6 1.1 .8
30.8 40.2 35.3
.2 1.3 .3
Heat of combustion
3,430 4,770 4,035
6,170 8,580 7,260
Forms of sulfur
0.02 0.03 0.02
.01 .12 .04
.16 1.29 .24
Ash-fusion temperatures,°C
1,020 1,240 1,120
1,040 1,290 1,180
1,070 1,340 1,230
249
Geometric
deviation
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
2.7
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.1
Powder River
region
geometric
mean
23.1
32
36
7.5
6.2
50.3
.9
32.9
.8
4,860
8,740
0.02
.29
.3
Table 7.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of ash content and contents of 10 major and minor oxides in the laboratory ash of
10 coal samples from the Kenai quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 410 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Swanson, 1977, table 6a). All samples were ashed at 525°C; all
analyses except geometric deviation are in percent. L, indicates less than the
value shown. Leaders (---) indicate no data]
Observed range Powder River
region
Arithmetic Geometric Geometric geometric
Oxide mean Minimum Maximum mean deviation mean
(Ash) 15.2 5.8 25.7 13.0 1.8 9.0
Si02 42 16 54 39 1.5 28
Al203 16 10 21 16 1.2 14
CaO 9.1 4.1 23 7.5 1.9 15
MgO 4.9 3.3 8.1 4.8 1.3 3.56
Na20 3.2 .40 6.1 2.2 2.5 • 93
K20 1.5 .39 4.1 1.3 1.8 .28
Fe203 5.3 2.2 14 4.5 1.8 5.8
Ti02 • 7 5 .57 .97 • 7 4 1.2 .61
S03 4.5 2.3 6.8 4.1 1.5 14
P2o5 .84 1.01 1.7 • 77 1.5
250
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of 36 elements in 10 coal samples from the Kenai quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 410 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 6b.). All analyses except geometric
deviation are in percent or parts per million and are reported on a whole coal
basis. As, F, Hg, Sb, Se, Th, and U values used to calculate the statistics
were determined directly on whole coal. All other values used were calculated
from determinations made on coal ash. L, indicates less than the value shown.
Leaders (---) indicate no data]
Element
Si
Al
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Fe
Ti
p
As
B
Ba
Be
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Ga
Hg
Li
Mn
Mo
Nb
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sc
Se
Sr
Th
u
v
y
Yb
Zr
Zn
Arithmetic
mean
3.5
1.4
.76
.41
.44
.22
.45
.07
.04
3.5
30
500
.7
7
20
20
37
5
.07
6.5
150
3
3
15
0.7
5
.2
150
.7
70
10
1.5
20
9.6
Observed range
Minimum
0.45
.35
.32
.14
.018
.020
.21
.02
.0401
Maximum
Percent
6.0
2.2
1.1
.57
.68
.32
• 74
.12
.046
Geometric
mean
2.4
1.1
.70
.37
• 21
.14
.41
.06
.04
Parts per million
2
10
500
.21
5
7
7.4
201
1.5
.01
lL
50
1.5
21
7
0.2
1
.11
50
.51
15
5
.5
7
2.6
5
70
700
1.5
10
50
35
75
10
.12
l3
290
5
7
20
1.3
7
.3
300
1.2
150
20
2
50
24
251
3.4
20
500
.5
7
20
17
31
5
.05
4
120
3
3
10
0.6
3
.1
100
.7
50
10
1
20
7.1
Geometric
deviation
2.5
1.9
1.5
1.5
3.5
2.6
1.5
1.9
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.9
1.2
2.0
1.7
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.8
1.9
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.2
Powder River
region
geometric
mean
1.2
.66
.98
.195
.063
.022
.37
.035
2
50
300
2
.5
5
9.5
40
2
.08
3.9
34
1.5
1
3
5 .1
.4
1.5
.7
150
3.3
.6
10
3
.3
15
12.5
Table 9.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of proximate and ultimate analyses, heat of combustion, forms of sulfur, and ash-
fusion temperatures of 6 coal samples from the Seldovia quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison geometric means for 33 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Swanson and others, 1976, tables 31b and 32b). All values are in
percent except Kcal/kg, Btu/lb, and geometric deviations, and are reported on
the as-received basis. Leaders (---) indicate no data. L, indicates less than
value shown. Kcal/kg = 0.556 (Btu/lb)]
Moisture
Volatile
matter
Fixed
carbon
Ash
Hydrogen
Carbon
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Kcal/kg
Btu/lb
Sulfate
Pyritic
Organic
Initial
deformation
Softening
temperature
Fluid
temperature
Arithmetic
mean
16.4
40.1
30.2
13.6
5.8
47.4
1.0
32.1
.4
4,525
8,140
0.01
.02
.33
Observed range
Minimum Maximum
Geometric
mean
Proximate and ultimate analyses
11.0 22.3 15.9
38.4 41.4 40.1
27.1 33.0 30.1
8.3 23.5 12.4
5.2 6.3 5.8
45.4 50.0 47.3
.9 1 .1 1.0
24.6 37.9 31.7
.3 .4 .3
Heat of combustion
4,385 4,790 4,520
7,890 8,610 8,130
Forms of sulfur
0.011 0.01 0.01
.o 1 .04 .02
.22 .42 .31
Ash-fusion temperatures, oc
252
Geometric
deviation
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.9
1.3
Powder River
region
geometric
mean
23.1
32
36
7.5
6.2
50.3
.9
32.9
.8
4,860
8,740
0.02
.29
.31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 10.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of ash content and contents of 10 major and minor oxides in the laboratory ash of
34 coal samples from the Seldovia quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 410 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 6a). All samples were ashed at 525°C; all
analyses except geometric deviation are in percent. L, indicates less than the
value shown. Leaders (---) indicate no data]
Observed range Powder River
region
Arithmetic Geometric Geometric geometric
Oxide mean Minimum Maximum mean deviation mean
(Ash) 15.0 6.0 49.1 13.1 1.7 9.0
Sio 2 37 14 54 35 1.4 28
Al 2o3 18 7.9 25 18 1.3 14
CaO 14 2.9 25 12 1.7 15
MgO 1.9 .75 4.0 1.7 1.5 3.56
Na 2 o 1.4 .38 6.4 1.0 2 .1 .93
K20 1.6 .48 3.1 1.4 1.6 .28
Fe 2 o 3 6.5 2.6 17 5.9 1.5 5.8
Ti02 • 75 .34 1.1 • 72 1.3 • 61
so3 6.2 2.3 16 5.6 1.6 14
P2os 1.3 .101 3.1 .46 4.4
253
Table 11.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of 37 elements in 34 coal samples from the Seldovia quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 410 samples from the Powder River region are
included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 6b.). All analyses except geometric
deviation are in percent or parts per million and are reported on a whole coal
basis. As, F, Hg, Sb, Se, Th, and U values used to calculate the statistics were
determined directly on whole coal. All other values used were calculated from
determinations made on coal ash. L, indicates less than the value shown. Leaders
(---) indicate no data]
Element
Si
Al
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Fe
Ti
p
As
B
Ba
Be
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Ga
Hg
La
Li
Mn
Mo
Nb
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sc
Se
Sr
Th
u
v
y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Arithmetic
mean
2.9
1.6
1.2
.15
.15
.24
.60
.07
.06
8.6
20
500
.5
5
20
22
72
5
.09
5
5.9
100
1.5
1
10
3.1
1.2
5
.9
200
2.5
.7
50
5
.7
10
20
Observed range
Minimum
0.47
.31
.99
.06
.02
.03
.26
2
5
150
.o 1
.0081
.21
2
2
7.1
20
1
.03
5
.6
40
.51
1.51
5
1.51
.2
1
.1
100
1.9
.3
10
2
.2
2.1
7
Geometric
Maximum mean
Percent
11 2.1
6.3 1.2
1.6 1.2
.41 .13
.47' .10
1.8 .16
2.4 .54
.25 .06
.13 .03
Parts per million
25
70
1000
1.5
15
70
86
290
15
.40
30
26
240
15
5
20
11
3.7
15
2.1
500
6.9
3 .1
200
20
2
110
70
254
7.2
20
500
.3
5
15
18
55
3
.08
3
3.6
90
1.5
.7
10
2.0
1.0
3
.4
200
2.2
.5
50
5
.5
7
15
Geometric
deviation
2.3
2.1
1.1
1.6
2.4
2.6
1.6
2.1
3.2
1.8
2.0
1.6
2.2
1.5
2.2
1.8
2.1
2.1
1.8
2.5
2.7
1.6
2.1
3.3
1.5
2.6
1.8
2.0
3.5
1.5
1.6
2.3
2.3
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.0
Powder River
region
geometric
mean
1.2
.66
.98
.195
.063
.022
.37
.035
2
50
300
.5
2
5
9.5
40
2
.08
3.9
34
1.5
1
3
5 .1
.4
1.5
.7
150
3.3
.6
10
3
.3
12.5
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 12.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of proximate and ultimate analyses, heat of combustion, forms of sulfur, and ash-
fusion temperatures of 24 coal samples from the Utukok River Quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison geometric means for 86 coal samples from the Rocky Mountain Province
are included (Swanson and others, 1976, table 33a). All values are in percent
except Kcal/kg, Btu/lb, ash-fusion temperatures, and geometric deviations, and are
reported on the as-received basis. Leaders (---) indicate no data. Kcal/ kg =
0.556 (Btu/lb). °F = (°C x 1.8) + 32]
Moisture
Volatile
matter
Fixed
carbon
Ash
Hydrogen
Carbon
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Kcal/kg
Btu/lb
Sulfate
Pyritic
Organic
Arithmetic
mean
10.4
32.2
48.3
9.3
5.3
62.8
1.4
22.6
.3
5,990
10 '770
Initial 1,240
deformation
Softening 1,270
temperature
Fluid 1,300
temperature
Observed range
Minimum Maximum
Geometric
mean
Proximate and ultimate analyses
1.8 25.5 8.1
25 40 31.9
32.8 58.6 47.8
2.3 37.2 6.8
4 5.8 5.2
46.1 72.5 62.2
1 1.8 1.4
11.3 36.7 21.3
.2 .5 .3
Heat of combustion
4,505 7,685 5,915
8' 100 13,820 10,640
Forms of sulfur
Ash-fusion temperatures, °C
1,140 1,600 1,240
1,170 1,600 1,260
1,190 1,600 1,300
255
Geometric
deviation
2.0
1 .1
1.2
2.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
Rocky Mountain
province
geometric
mean
10.5
35.7
41.5
7.7
5.6
58.9
1.1
22.4
.5
6,180
11,110
0.02
.11
.22
Table 13.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of ash content and contents of 10 major and minor oxides in the laboratory ash of
54 coal samples from the Utukok River quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 295 coal samples from the Rocky Mountain
Province are included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 3a). All samples were ashed
at 525°C; all analyses except geometric deviation are in percent. L, indicates
less than the value shown. Leaders (---) indicate no data]
Oxide
(Ash)
Si0 2
Al 2o3
CaO
MgO
Na 2 o
K20
Ti0 2
P2os
Arithmetic
mean
9.3
34
22
11
3.8
2.2
1.5
8.1
1.5
7.8
4.5
Observed range
Minimum Maximum
2 38.9
3.8 61
8.4 36
.80 38
1.0 12
.45 7.1
.12 4.2
1.8 33
.25 5.6
.34 17
.OS 8.9
256
Geometric
mean
7.3
29
21
8
3.5
1.6
1.2
6.8
1.2
4.9
.67
Geometric
deviation
2.0
1.8
1.4
2 .1
1.7
2.2
2.0
1.8
2.0
2.7
7.4
Rocky Mountain
Province
geometric
mean
10.9
44
19
6.2
1.4
.68
.45
4.5
• 81
5.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 14.--Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation
of 36 elements in 54 coal samples from the Utukok River quadrangle, Alaska
[For comparison, geometric means for 295 coal samples from the Rocky Mountain
Province are included (Hatch and Swanson, 1977, table 3b.). All analyses except
geometric deviation are in percent or parts per million and are reported on a
whole coal basis. As, F, Hg, Sb, Se, Th, and U values used to calculate the
statistics were determined directly on whole coal. All other values used were
calculated from determinations made on coal ash. L, indicates less than the
value shown. Leaders (---) indicate no data]
Element
Si
Al
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Fe
Ti
p
As
B
Ba
Be
Co
Cr
Cu
F
Ga
Hg
Li
Mn
Mo
Nb
Ni
Pb
Sb
Sc
Se
Sr
Th
u
v
y
Yb
Zn
Zr
Arithmetic
mean
1.8
1.1
.so
.17
.11
.14
.36
.09
.07
2.3
50
700
.7
5
10
6.5
68
5
.06
15
24
.2
2
15
3.3
.2
3
.5
200
3.2
2.2
30
7
.7
11
30
Observed range
Minimum
0.063
.13
.036
.024
.018
.003
.15
.004
.004
.7
20
100
.1
1
1
1.0
20
.3
.02
.5
1.8L
.2
.7
3
1.0
.05
.3
.1
30
.3
.2
2
.5
1
2
2
"t-1aximum
Percent
11
4.5
2.2
.48
.27
1.4
1.3
.52
.24
Geometric
mean
0.93
• 76
.40
.14
.087
.07
.32
.05
.03
Parts per millon
8.1
100
2,000
5
70
100
32
310
20
.40
84
170
1.5
10
30
21
.64
20
1.2
2,000
15
6.2
200
30
3
67
100
257
2
50
700
.3
3
7
4.8
48
3
.04
9.5
16
.07
.5
10
1.7
.1
2
.3
150
1.6
1.0
15
5
.5
7.7
20
Rocky Mountain
Province
Geometric geometric
deviation
3 .1
2.2
1.9
1.9
2.0
3.3
1.6
2.8
3.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
3.6
2.3
2.9
2.2
2.3
2.5
1.8
2.7
2.4
5.4
6 .1
1.9
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.4
3.3
3.5
3.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
mean
2.3
1.1
.48
.089
.055
.041
.34
.047
2
70
150
.5
1.5
5
8.4
69
3
.os
8
20
1.5
.5
2
4.7
.3
1.5
1.2
100
2.9
1.1
100
5
.5
6.8
20
elements determined by this method are to be identified with
geometric brackets whose boundaries are part of the ascending
series 0.12, 0.18, 0.26, 0.38, 0.56, 0.83, 1.2, etc. but reported
as midpoints of the brackets, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0. 7, 1.0,
etc. Precision of the spectrographic data is plus-or-minus one
bracket at 68 percent or plus-or-minus two brackets at 95 percent
confidence level.
Channel samples analyzed for the present study are considered to
be of the same quality as outcrop samples. Preliminary investiga-
tions on. Wyoming coals by J .R. Hatch and R.H. Affolter of the U.S.
Geological Survey indicate significant chemical differences be-
tween outcrop and core samples. Outcrop samples have significant-
ly higher moisture, volatile matter, oxygen and nitrogen contents,
and significantly lower ash, hydrogen and sulfur contents and a
significantly lower heat of combustion. At the present time, we
have insufficient data to accurately determine if the same chemi-
cal differences apply to our samples of Alaska coal.
Explanation Q( Statistical Terms ~in Summary Tables
In this report, the geometric mean (GM) is used as the estimate of
the most probable concentration (mode); the geometric mean is
calculated by taking the logarithm of each analytical value,
summing the logarithms, dividing the sum by the total number of
values and obtaining the antilogarithm of the result. The measure
of scatter about the mode used here is the geometric deviation
(GD), which is the antilog of the standard deviation of the loga-
rithms of the analytical values. These statistics are used be-
cause the quantities of trace elements in natural materials com-
monly exhibit positively skewed frequency distributions; such
distributions are normalized by analyzing and summarizing trace
element data on a logarithmic basis.
If the frequency distributions are lognormal, the geometric mean
is the best estimate of the mode, and the estimated range of the
central two thirds of the observed distribution has a lower limit
equal to GM/GD and an upper limit equal to GM GD. The estimated
range of the central 95 perc~t of the observed distribution has ~
lower limit equal to GM/GD and an upper limit equal to GM GD
(Connor and others, 1976).
Although the geometric mean is, in general, an adequate estimate
of the most common analytical value, it is, nevertheless, a biased
estimate of the arithmetic mean. The estimates of the arithmetic
means listed in the summary tables are Sichel's t statistic
(Miesch, 1967).
A common problem in statistical summaries of trace element data
arises when the element content of one or more of the samples is
below the limit of analytical detection. This results in a "cen-
sored" distribution. Procedures developed by Cohen ( 1959) were
258
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
used to compute unbiased estimates of the geometric mean, geomet-
ric deviation and arithmetic mean when the data are censored.
Discussion
The apparent ranks of all 52 coal samples from the Healy, Kenai,
Seldovia and Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska, were calculated
using the formulas in ASTM designation D-388-77 (American Society
for Testing and Materials, 1978). When calculated to a moist,
mineral matter free basis, the ranges in apparent rank for each
quadrangle are (see Fig. 6):
Healy quadrangle (12 samples)
Lignite A to subbituminous B coal
Kenai quadrangle (10 samples)
Lignite A to subbituminous C coal
Seldovia quadrangle (6 samples)
Subbituminous C to subbituminous B coal
Utukok quadrangle (24 samples)
Subbituminous C to high volatile A bituminous coal
A statistical comparison (student's t-test, 95 percent confidence
level) of the geometric mean contents of the U.S. Department of
Energy's data for 12 coal samples from the Healy quadrangle, with
33 coal samples from the Powder River region (Swanson and others,
1976) shows that coal from the Healy quadrangle is significantly
higher in volatile matter and oxygen, significantly lower in fixed
carbon, carbon, nitrogen, total sulfur, sulfate, pyritic and
organic sulfur contents, and has a significantly lower heat of
combustion. The moisture, ash and hydrogen contents are not
significantly different. When compared at the 99 percent confi-
dence level the carbon and oxygen contents are not significantly
different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of the
U.S. Department of Energy's data for 10 coal samples from the
Kenai quadrangle, with 33 coal samples from the Powder River
region, shows that coal from the Kenai quadrangle is significantly
higher in volatile matter and ash, significantly lower in fixed
carbon, total sulfur and pyritic sulfur contents, and has a signi-
ficantly lower heat of combustion. The moisture, hydrogen, nitro-
gen, oxygen and organic sulfur contents are not significantly
different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of the
U.S. Department of Energy's data for 6 coal samples from the
Seldovia quadrangle, with 33 coal samples from the Powder River
region, shows that coal from the Seldovia quadrangle is signifi-
cantly higher in volatile matter and ash, and is significantly
259
N
(J'\
0
LIGNITE
1,120 10,110
SELDOVIA
7,110 •• 220 I
KENAI
HEALY
UTUKOK RIVER
SUB C SUB B SUB A HVC HVB HVA
MOIST, MINERAL-MATTER-FREE BTU
Figure 6.--Range of apparent rank determinations for coal samples
from the Seldovia, Kenai, Healy, and Utukok River quadrangles,
Alaska.
-------------------
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lower in moisture, fixed carbon, total sulfur, sulfate and pyritic
sulfur contents. The hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen con-
tents and the heat of combustion are not significantly different.
When compared at the 99 percent confidence level, the contents of
ash and sulfate sulfur are not significantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of the
U.S. Department of Energy's data for 24 coal samples from the
Utukok River quadrangle, with 86 coal samples from the Rocky
Mountain Province (Swanson and others, 1976) shows that coal from
the Utukok River quadrangle is significantly higher in fixed
carbon and nitrogen, and is significantly lower in volatile mat-
ter, hydrogen and total sulfur contents. The moisture, ash,
carbon and oxygen content and heat of combustion are not signifi-
cantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of coal
ash and the geometric mean contents of nine major and minor oxides
in the ash for 20 coal samples from the Healy qudrangle, with 410
Powder River region coal samples (Hatch and Swanson, 1977) shows
that coal from the Healy quadrangle contains significantly higher
ash, and that this ash is significantly higher in K2o and Ti0 2 contents and significantly lower in Na 2o, Fe 2o3 and SOi_ contents.
Contents of Si02, Al 2 0~, CaO and MgO are not significantly differ-
ent. When compared at the 99 percent confidence level, the con-
tents of Fe 2o3 are not significantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of nine
major and minor oxides in the ash of 10 coal samples from the
Kenai quadrangle, with 410 Powder River region coal samples shows
that coal from the Kenai quadrangle contains significantly higher
ash, and that this ash is significantly higher in Si02, MgO, Na 2o
and K20 contents, and is significantly lower in GaO and so 3 con-
tents. Contents of A 1 2 0~, Fe 2o3, and Ti0 2 are not significantly
different. When comparee at the 99 percent confidence level the
contents of Si02, MgO, and Na 2o are not significantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of nine
major and minor oxides in the ash of 34 coal samples from the
Seldovia quadrangle, with 410 Powder River region coal samples
shows that coal from the Seldovia quadrangle contains significant-
ly higher ash, and that this ash is significantly higher in Si02!
A1?D~, K2o and Ti0 2 contents and significantly lower in CaO, Mgo
ana SO~ contents. ~ontents of Na 20 and Fe 2oi are not significant-
ly different. When compared at ~he 99 per~ent confidence level,
the contents of CaO and Ti0 2 are not significantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of nine
major and minor oxides in the ash of 54 coal samples from the
Utukok River quadrangle, with 295 Rocky Mountain Province coal
samples (Hatch and Swanson, 1977) shows that coal from the Utukok
River quadrangle contains significantly lower ash, and that this
ash is significantly higher in A1 2o3, MgO, Na 2o, K20 and Ti0 2
261
contents and significantly lower in Si02 content. The contents of
CaO, Fe 2o3, and so 3 are not significantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of 35
elements in 20 coal samples from the Healy quadrangle, with 410
Powder River region coal samples (Hatch & Swanson, 1977) shows
that the coal from the Healy quadrangle is significantly higher in
contents of Si, Al, Ca, K, Ti, Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, F, Ga, Ni, Sb, Sc,
U, V, Y and Yb, and is significantly lower in contents of Na, B,
Be and Sr. The contents of Mg, Fe, As, Hg, Li, Mn, Mo, Nb, Pb,
Se, Th, Zn and Zr are not significantly different. When compared
at the 99 percent confidence level, the contents of Si, Ca and Sr
are not significantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of 35
elements in 10 coal samples from the Kenai quadrangle, with 410
Powder River region coal samples shows that coal from the Kenai
quadrangle is significantly higher in contents of Si, Al, Mg, Na,
K, Ti, Ba. Co, Cr, Cu, Ga, Mn, Mo, Nb, Ni, Sc, V, Y and Yb, and is
significantly lower in contents of Ca, B and Se. The contents of
Fe, As, Be, F, Hg, Li, Sb, Sr, U, Zn and Zr are not significantly
different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of 35
elements in 34 coal samples from the Seldovia quadrangle, with 410
Powder Rver region coal samples shows that coal from the Seldovia
quadrangle is significantly higher in contents of Si, Al, Ca, Na,
K, Fe, Ti, As, Ba, Co, Cr, Cu, F, Ga, Mn, Ni, Sb, Sc, Sr, V, Y and
Yb, and is significantly lower in contents of Mg, B, Be, Pb, Se,
Th and Zr. The contents of Hg, Li, Mo, Nb, U and Zr are not
significantly different. When compared at the 99 percent confi-
dence level. the contents of Ca, Na, Fe and Sr are not signifi-
cantly different.
A statistical comparison of the geometric mean contents of 35
elements in 54 coal samples from the Utukok River quadrangle, with
295 Rocky Mountain Province coal samples (Hatch & Swanson, 1977)
shows that coal from the Utukok River quadrangle is significantly
higher in contents of Mg, Na, K, Ba, Co, Ni, Sc and Sr, and is
significantly lower in contents of Si, Al, B, Be, Cr, Cu, F, Mo,
Pb, Sb, Se, Th and V. The contents of Ca, Fe, Ti, As, Ga, Hg, Li,
Mn, Nb, U, Y, Yb, Zn and Zr are not significantly different. When
compared at the 99 percent confidence level, the content of Na is
not significantly different.
Differences in the oxide composition of coal ashes and in the
elemental contents of coal result from differences in the total
and relative amounts of the various inorganic minerals, the ele-
mental composition of these minerals and the total and relative
amounts of any organically bound elements. The chemical form and
distribution of a given element are dependent on the geologic
history of the coal bed. A partial listing of the factors that
influence element distributions would include chemical composition
of original plants. amounts and composition of the various detri-
262
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tal, diagenetic and epigenetic minerals; chemical characteristics
of the ground waters that come in contact with the bed; tempera-
tures and pressures during burial; and extent of weathering. No
evaluation of these factors has been made for coal from the Healy,
Kenai, Seldovia and Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska.
Compared to other United States coals (Swanson and others, 1976;
Hatch and Swanson, 1977), coal from the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia and
Utukok River quadrangles, Alaska, are characterized by relatively
low sulfur and by lower heat of combusition. The contents of
elements of environmental concern, such as As, Be, Hg, Mo, Sb and
Se, .are low in Alaskan coals when compared with most other u.s.
coals.
Quality information about Alaskan coal is dependent on an active
program of geological mapping and exploratory drilling in coal
field areas. However, during the past 5 years only 19 quadrangles
in Alaska have been sampled for coal (Fig. 7). Most samples in
these areas were of insufficient quantity and quality to be in-
cluded in this report. Only the Healy, Kenai, Seldovia and Utukok
River quadrangles had enough samples of sufficient quality to be
adequately summarized.
There is presently no coal exploratory drilling being done by the
U.S. Geological Survey, and only two geologists are currently
working on evaluating coal resources in Alaska. We suggest that
more intensive research be done on coals in Alaska because they
may represent one of the largest resources of coal in the United
States.
Ackncwledgments
Fundamental to this paper is the contribution of the team of
chemical laboratory personnel in the u.s. Geological Survey under
the direction of Claude Huffman, Jr. and Joseph H. Christie:
James W. Baker
Ardith J. Bartell
Leon A. Bradley
Elaine L. Brandt
George T. Burrow
James G. Crock
Celeste M. Ellis
Edward J. Fennelly
Johnnie M. Gardner
Patricia G. Guest
John C. Hamilton
Jan P. Henming
Jessie 0. Johnson
Roy J. Knight
Jane Malcolm
Violett M. Merritt
Wayne Mountjoy
Harriet G. Neiman
Ralph L. Nelms
Charles A. Ramsey
George 0. Riddle
M. Schweider
Caryl L. Schields
Gaylord D. Shipley
Wenda Stang
Joseph E. Taggart
James A. Thomas
Michele L. Tuttle
Robert B. Vaughn
Robin J. Vinnola
James S. Wahlberg
William J. Walz
263
ALASI{A
8
30
11 a
10-0 100 roo MILES
SCALE
QUADRANGLES SAMPLED FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Figure 7.--Index map showing the location of nineteen quadrangles in
Alaska that have been sampled for chemical analysis. Numbers
inside quadrangles indicate number of samples.
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Robert E. McGregor
Hugh T. Millard
D.R. Morton
Ralph J. White
Robert J. Young
We gratefully acknowledge also the invaluable contribution of the
chemists in the Coal Analysis Section (Forrest E. Walker, Chemist
in Charge), U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
References
Ahlbrandt, T.S., Huffman, A.C., Jr., Fox, J.E. and Pasternach, I.,
1979, Depositional framework and reservoir quality studies of
selected Nanushuk Group outcrops, North Slope, Alaska, in Ahl-
brandt, T.S., ed. Preliminary geologic, petrologic and paleonto-
logic results of the study of Nanushuk Group rocks, North Slope,
Alaska: u.s. Geological Survey Circular 794, 163 p.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1978, Standard speci-
fications for classification of coals by rank (ASTM designation
D-388-77): 1978 Annual book of ASTM standards, pt. 26, p. 220-
224.
Barnes, F.F., 1967, Coal Resources of Alaska: U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin, 1242-B, 36 p.
Calderwood, K. W. and Fackler, W.C., 1972, Proposed stratigraphic
nomenclature for Kenai Group, Cook Inlet Basin, Alaska: Ameri-
can Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 56, no. 4,
p. 739-754.
Cohen, A.C., 1959, Simplified estimators for the normal distribu-
tion when samples are singly censored or truncated: Technome-
trics, v. 1, no. 3, p. 217-237.
Connor, J.J., Keith, J.R. and Anderson, B.M., 1976, Trace metal
variation in soils and sagebrush in the Powder River basin,
Wyoming and Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Journal of Reseach,
v. 4, no. 1, p. 49-59.
Hatch, J.R. and Swanson. V.E., 1977, Trace elements in Rocky
Mountain coals, .in Murry, D.K., ed., Geology of Rocky Mountain
coal--A Symposium: Colorado Geological Survey Resources Series
1, p. 143-165.
Miesch, A.T., 1967, Methods of computation for estimating geochem-
ical abundances: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 574-
B, 15 p.
Swanson, V.E. and Huffman, c., Jr., 1976, Guidelines for sample
collecting and analytical methods used in the U.S. Geological
Survey for determining chemical composition of coal: U.S. Geo-
logical Survey Circular 735, 11 p.
265
Swanson. V.E., Medlin, J.H., Hatch, J.R., Coleman, S.L., Wood,
G.H., Jr., Woodruff, S.D. and Hildebrand, R.T., 1976, Collec-
tion, chemical analysis and evaluations of coal samples in 1975:
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 76-468, 503 p.
Wolfe, J .A. and Tanai, T ., 1980, The Miocene Seldovia Point flora
from the Kenai Group, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey Profes-
sional Paper 1105, 78 p.
266
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Problems and potentials for thermal drying of Alaskan
low-rank coals
J.D. Ruby and H. Huettenhain
Bechtel National, Inc., San Francisco
Abstract
Low rank coals (LRC) contain large amounts of moisture. Removal
of moisture is important to the economic feasibility of their
transportation and processing. This is especially true for Alas-
kan coals of this type, because the State has limited major elec-
tric power transmission facilities and limited transportation
facilities.
Most thermal coal drying experience in the United States is with
higher rank coals. Evaluation of available drying technology and
potential advanced coal drying systems must reflect the special
characteristics of low rank coals. Also, the dried product re-
quires special handling, storage and transportation.
Introduction
Demand for low rank coals (LRC)--subbituminous coals and lig-
nites--is restricted because the high moisture content results in
a low heating value per unit weight. Alaskan coals typically
demonstrate this characteristic. In the lower 48 states low rank
coals are used at mine mouth power plants, and some subbituminous
coals are transported long distances for power generation. This
is practical because of the existing electric power transmission
and rail transportation infrastructure, and the large demand for
electric power.
Near term conditions for Alaskan low rank coals are unlikely to
justify their large-scale use for power generation in Alaska.
Export markets appear more likely, but may be limited by the low
heating value of the raw coal.
Export of dried coal or coal derived fuels is an alternative for
marketing an upgraded Alaskan coal product. Coal derived fuels
could be coal liquid mixtures, such as coal oil and coal methanol
(with conversion of coal to produce the methanol) or coal derived
synthetic fuels. Thermal drying of low rank coals is a necessary
step for production of most coal derived fuels, and it will be an
important consideration in technical and economic evaluations of
the use of these Alaskan coals.
267
Relatively little research and development has been done on LRC
drying. The potential benefits, however, indicate that work in
this area should be of significant near term value to the Alaskan
coal industry. Table 1 compares the characteristics of Alaskan
and other coals.
Available Thermal Drying Methods
The most common method currently used for thermal coal drying is
based on fluid bed dryers. However, the wide majority of U.S.
experience with this equipment is with high rank coals. This
experience is not directly transferable to drying coals of low
rank, as will be described later. Fluid bed coal dryers are
relatively simple machines and are capable of high throughput
rates. However, environmental controls required by such drying
techniques, which use direct heat contact, greatly complicate the
total system. Also, fluid bed coal dryer operation is difficult
when large amounts of fine coal (minus 28 mesh) are present. Fine
coal particles become entrained in drying gases and disrupt fluid
bed conditions. Dust collection requirements adversely effect
economics.
The amount of fine coal produced from mining and handling low rank
coals is generally larger than with coals of higher rank. This is
an important factor to consider in coal dryer design and opera-
tion.
Apart from the fluid bed equipment, few other choices of proven
dryer technology are available in the United States. Drum type
dryers and flash dryers are in limited use with some European
brown coals and with filter cake from cleaning plants for bitumi-
nous coals. More detailed investigation and development of these
technologies (and possibly others) may lead to the commercial
availability of practical drying methods.
Advanced Thermal Drying Methods
Advanced drying technology can be divided into two categories.
The first includes development of industrial scale equipment from
small-scale machines used for other purposes. Indirect dryers,
where the coal is mechanically conveyed through the drying area,
are one example. Spray dryers, which operate by atomizing a fine
coal slurry and contacting the spray with hot gases, are another.
Results of laboratory scale tests with these types of dryers are
reported by G.F. Ziesing ( 1 ). Significant technical and economic
evaluation efforts are required before commercialization by the
coal industry will be practical.
268
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1
COMPARISON OF TYPICAL COAL CHARACTERISTICS
ASH, VOLATILE, FIXED BTU'S SULFUR, MOISTURE, TYPE OF COAL CARBON, % % % PER POUND % %
CHUITNA RIVER 7-13 40-50 40-45 10,000-11,500 0.1-0.2 25-35
AREA, ALASKA
NORTH DAKOTA 7-14 35-45 35-50 9,000-11,500 0.5-2.5 30-45
LIGNITE
TEXAS LIGNITE 10-20 40-50 40-50 11,000-12,000 1.0-1.5 25-40
MONTANA 5-15 35-40 50-55 10,500-12,500 0.4-1.7 15-25
SUBBITUMINOUS
WYOMING 5-12 35-45 40-55 10,000-13,000 0.5-1.0 10-25
SUBBITUMINOUS
ILLINOIS 10-15 35-40 40-50 12,000-13,500 2.0-6.0 5-15
BITUMINOUS
NOTE: ALL ITEMS ON DRY BASIS (EXCEPT MOISTURE).
Table 2
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF VARIOUS TYPES OF COAL DRYERS
Type of Dryer
Fluid bed
Flash
Spray
Indirect
Drum (Rotc-
Louvre, rotary
kiln)
Advantages
Fully commercial
High throughput
Widely used by bituminous coal
industry
Good moisture removal
efficiency
Commercially available
Good moisture removal efficiency
Works well with fine coal
Low coal retention time in dryer
May have pot~ntia1 for processes
that treat fine coal
Commercially available
Minimum dust collection
Commercially available
Minimum dust collection
Disadvantages
--·---------------
Extensive dust collection for fine
coal
Causes LRC size degradation
Spontaneous combustion of dried
LRC likelv
Dried LRC will reabsorb moisture
from air
r..equires extensive dust and en-
vironmental controls
Limited thr,,ughput
Stability problems with LRC
product
Not used by coal industry
Requires coal slurry feed
Fine coal product that is diffi-
cult to handle
Very expensive
Limited throughput
Relatively inefficient
Stability problems Yith dried
LRC
Limited throughput
Relatively inefficient
Most experience is with European
coal or in noncoal industrial uses 1--------t-------------________________ _,
Steam
(Fleissner)
No dust problem
Greatly reduced LRC size
degradation
Improved lRC st.o~bility
Potent tally m0st ef [ tc Lent
269
No experience with l1. S. C"oals
except for conceptual designs
High-pressure vessels present
technical problems for feeding and
discharging coal
11 WorKs best w1th 5ize rang,e of 2-
to 11-inch cou~. I
The second major category of advanced drying has reached only
conceptual levels in the United States. This category includes
various techniques for steam drying. With steam drying, moisture
is removed by contact of the coal with saturated steam in presure
vessels. Steam drying is especially applicable to low rank coals,
and works best with coals of higher moisture content. Most steam
drying concepts are based on the early work of Fleissner in the
1920s. Fleissner plants were constructed in Europe as early as
1927, and several plants presently operated in eastern Europe have
a maximum capacity of 600,000 tons of raw coal per year. Steam
drying research in the United States has been performed by the
Department of Energy for use specifically with lignites (2).
Steam drying appears to have several advantages over other thermal
drying methods, for reasons such as: coal size degradation is
greatly reduced, less energy is consumed in drying and the dried
product is more stable, thus is less subject to spontaneous com-
bustion or moisture reabsorption.
Commercialization of steam drying will require major engineering
efforts to extend laboratory results and conceptual plans to
industrial scale operation. Coal handling, especially introduc-
tion to and removal of coal from pressurized vessels, may be a
serious constraint. Commercial scale economic feasibility remains
to be proven.
Figures 1-6 illustrate the types of coal dryers that have been
discussed here, and Table 2 summarizes their advantages and disad-
vantages.
'lbermal Drying Econaaics
For conventional fluid bed dryers, cost benefit evaluation for
individual coals and site conditions requires extensive, but rela-
tively straightforward, analysis. Capital plus annual operating
and maintenance costs can be estimated from design data. Selected
economic/financial criteria and discounted cash flow methods will
provide annualized costs per ton, or per million Btus of dried
coal.
Estimated costs can be compared with economic benefits to deter-
mine the project feasibility. Transportation cost savings are the
simplest item to quantify. Figure 7 shows a generalized compari-
son of costs and benefits. On each of the three graphs, nominal
transport rates (in dollars per ton mile) are plotted against
incremental cost per ton of upgraded coal. This is the cost that
could be incurred to break even transport savings at a ton mile
rate. Three distances--500, 1,000 and 2,500 miles--and three
weight reductions--10, 20, and 30 percent--are plotted.
Little information is available on the additional advantages of
dried coal. We know that drying benefits coal grinding, combus-
270
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Flue G., ond Cool F;n., >
Dust
Collection
Raw Coal
~
Fluid-Bed Coal Fines
Hot Gases -------'---------~G .. Hene. I t 1 t t t t 1 r
Dried Coal
Figure 1 Fluid -Bed Dryer
Cyclone
Entrained Coal
Air Heater Hot Gases
Figure 2 Flash Dryer
271
CMt~~ ft
~D
Pump
Dried Coal
.....-21 ~
mrl!l''''~l
Spray Chamber
c> ~
Coal Dried
. 3 Spray Dryer F1gure
F. e 4 Indirect Dryer 1gur
272
Coal Dried
Wet Coal
¢D
-¢1]
Heat Input
I
I
I
I
II
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Air Exh.,lt
1fi
Dry Colli DiiCh•rvt
Figure 5 Drum Dryer
Raw Coal
Lock -Hopper
Gas
Sc:rew Co!Jle)'Or
Figure 6 Steam ( Fleissner) Dryer
273
~----Steam
Robting Drum
w 0.01
1-c(
a:-~~ ~ ::1! 0.009
c(Z
t-0 a: t-
O a:
5I ~ 0.008
~~ ~~
:i 5 0.007 zc :E-o z
0
z
0 ;:::
!5
0 w
a: ,....
:r
0
iii
it
1-z w u a: w
Q.
~
$1.11
?
I
I
PANEL A-500 MILES
$2.50
p
I
I
2
$4.28
' I
I
3
0.02[
w ''1 1-c(
a:-zw
o::! 0.009 j:~
c(Z
t-0
11:1-
Oa: Ill w 0.008 z ....
c(cn
a:lr 1-c( ..J ......
c(O 0.007 zc i-
0 z
0.006
0
,....
z w u a: w
Q.
~
$2.22 p
I
I
PANEL 8 -1,000MILES
2
$5.00
f
I
I
4
I
$8.57
' I
INCREMENTAL COST PER TON OF UPGRADED COAL
IDOL LARS I
INCREMENTAL COST PER TON OF UPGRADED COAL
IDOLLARSI
0.02[
w
1-c(
11:-
0.01
z~ g ~ 0.009
c(Z
t-0 a: t-
O a: 5I w 0.008 z ....
:~ ~--~ :i 5 0.007
zc
~-
z
0
z
0 ;:: g
0 w a: ,....
:r
0
iii
it ,....
z w u a: w
Q.
0
$3.33 v
I
I
PANEL C-1,500 MILES
$7.50
f
I
I
2 4 6
$12.86
I
I
I
INCREMENTAL COST PER TON OF UPGRADED COAL
IDOLLARSI
8
Figure 7 Comparison of Transportation Costs for Upgraded Coal
274
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tion and conversion. These benefits, however, have not been
sufficiently investigated to be quantified in this paper.
For conventional fluid bed coal dryers, annualized costs to remove
a ton of water from the coal typically range from $6 to $10. The
major cost item is dryer fuel (usually coal), which is assumed to
be about $1.25 per million Btus for the costs stated above. Ac-
tual costs are strongly site sensitive. The more advanced drying
concepts require further development and design before the costs
for commercial scale coal drying operations can be estimated.
Problems with Dried LRC
The problems discussed next constitute areas of opportunity for
drying research and development for low rank coals (LRC). In many
cases, causes of the problems are not well understood. Pragmatic
solutions and more basic research are necessary to advance commer-
cialization of drying Alaskan coal of this type.
The problem area that must first be considered is simply the large
amount of moisture that must be removed. Plainly, more energy is
required to thermally dry a 30 percent moisture coal than a lower
moisture coal.
Equipment to handle the raw coal, the dryer itself and equipment
to treat dryer effluents must all be larger. A potential benefit
of drying the higher moisture low rank coals may be reduced sulfur
dioxide (S0 2) scrubbing because of the coal's generally low sulfur
content. Remedies to mitigate the problems associated with drying
higher moisture coal include more efficient designs (insulation,
heat recovery and optimization of equipment sizes), and more
careful consideration of the degree of thermal drying necessary to
minimize overall costs.
In addition to this basic problem, dried low rank coals exhibit
several undesirable characteristics:
First, coal particle size degradation in dried low rank coals can
be significant. Tests by the Department of Energy show a decrease
of 40 percent in the amount of coal greater than 3/4 inch, after
the coal's moisture content has been reduced from about 26 percent
to 16 percent in a fluid bed dryer (3).
Second, dried low rank coals are more unstable than the raw coals,
and spontaneous combustion is more likely.
Third, they are also unstable from the standpoint of moisture
reabsorption. That is, the dried coal will absorb moisture from
humidity in the air. Although low rank coals will not reabsorb
moisture to their original level, reabsorption is rapid and could
reduce much of the benefit of thermal drying.
275
Fourth, because of these instability problems, greater attention
must be given to handling and storage of these dried coals than is
needed with higher rank coals. Tests by the U.S. Bureau of Mines
indicate that spontaneous combustion and moisture reabsorption can
be controlled in compacted stockpiles (4). However, live stock-
piles of dried low rank coals and handling and transport systems
require more study.
Pragmatic solutions to the above problems appear achievable by
careful engineering, based on tests with individual low rank
coals. More basic research is required to better understand the
drying process itself and the dried product's instability prob-
lems. The many variables of these coals such as size consist,
moisture content and coal and ash analyses, must be investigated
to determine their individual and combined effects on drying
technology.
This is a sizeable task, but the potential benefits associated
with Alaskan coals and low rank coals in general appear worth the
effort.
Conclusion
Drying of Alaskan coal has the potential to reduce transportation
costs and to benefit systems to produce coal derived fuels and
coal conversion products.
Coal drying technology is especially important for Alaskan coals,
since there is no extensive local demand for coal. Export would
appear to offer a major growth opportunity.
Conventional fluid bed coal dryers are available, but they may not
be optimal for low rank coals. Advanced drying systems have
potential, but extensive research and development will be required
before they are ready for commercialization. In addition, more
research and development is needed to improve our understanding of
the basic characteristics and properties of low rank coals, parti-
cularly after being dried thermally.
References
Ziesing, G.F., et al., Drying of low rank coal for MHD applica-
tion, presented at the Tenth Biennial Lignite Symposium, May
1974.
Stanmore, The steam drying of lignites--a review, draft report for
the Department of Energy; conversations with Dr. Stanmore.
Ellman, R.C., et al., Commercial scale drying of low rank western
coals, presented at the 1975 Lignite Symposium, May 1975.
276
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ellman, R.C., et al., Long-term storage of lignite at Garrison
Dam, Riverdale, North Dakota, Bureau of Mines RI 7037, October
1967.
277
Steam drying of Subbituminous Coals from the
Nenana and Beluga Fields, a laboratory study
P. Dharma Rao and Ernest N. Wolff
Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, Unlv. of Alaska,
Fairbanks
Abstract
Samples of coal from the Usibelli Coal Mine (numbers 3 and 4
seams) and Waterfall seam of the Beluga Coal Field were dried at
250°C and 550 psia of steam pressure for varying lengths of time
ranging from 5 to 60 minutes. Loss of weight ranged from 19.18 to
27.8~ depending on the size consist of the sample and drying time.
A weight reduction of 20~ can be achieved with a 5 minute drying
time for coals crushed to minus 211 • Dried coals were character-
ized for compressive strength, size stability by drop shatter,
Hardgrove Grindability Index, heating value and relation of petro-
logy to drying behavior. The five minute steam drying process can
improve heating value by more than 26~ and considerably improve
the grindability. Although dried coals had considerably lower
compressive strength, drying did not affect size stability.
Granting that dried coals regained some moisture at 98~ relative
humidity, weight gained is considerably less than weight lost in
drying, providing net benefits due to drying. An apparatus has
been designed and fabricated to enable comparison of self heating
tendencies of various raw coals and dried products.
Aclmm~ledgements
This study was conducted under the sponsorship of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy (U.S. D.O.E) Grant Number ET-78-EG-01-12222. Lab-
oratory investigations were conducted by David King, student in
mining engineering. Edward McLaughlin was responsible for adapta-
tion of a Parr pressure vessel for the steam dehydration system as
well as for testing. He was also responsible for design and
fabrication of the mechanical portion of the apparatus for testing
self heating behavior of coals. Gil Mimkin designed and fabri-
cated the electrical and electronic controls for the system. The
authors wish to thank Dr. David R. Maneval for his help in the
preparation of the manuscript and Dr. Earl H. Beistline, Dean of
the School of Mineral Industry, for his constant support and
encouragement of coal research investigation. Finally, the au-
thors appreciate the bulk coal samples provided by Mr. Joseph
Usibelli of Usibelli Coal Mine Inc. and by Mr. Benno Patsch of the
Placer-Amex Company.
278
I
I
1:
I I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
Coal deposits of Alaska now being mined at the Usibelli Coal Mine
and those that are in the process of being developed in the Beluga
field by Placer-Amex are of Subbituminous "C" rank. The moisture
in these coals varies from 22-28$. It would be economically
advantageous if the moisture in these coals could be reduced so as
to not have the cost of shipping the extra moisture. Also, the
dried product would have superior grinding characteristics and
burning qualities.
A project was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy to investi-
gate the drying of Alaska's subbituminous coals and to character-
ize the products as to moisture reabsorption characteristics,
physical stability and chemical stability (self ignition). The
project is now complete. Work will be continued to refine the
technique, which will ascertain the self heating behavior of
various coals, including dried coals.
Dehydration Tests
Procedure
A Parr series 4500 two liter size pressure reactor was used for
the tests (5). The tests were conducted at the University of
Alaska power plant. A steam line was connected to the reactor to
deliver steam at the top of the reactor. A steam outlet line was
extended to the bottom of the reactor to permit elimination of any
condensate from the system, as well as to establish a continuous
purge of steam to maintain the highest possible temperature and
pressure. A temperature of 250°C and a pressure to 550 Psia were
used. The samples were weighed and enclosed in stainless steel
wire baskets, which were hung in staggered fashion in the reactor.
Sample weights ranged from 30 gms to 120 gms depending on particle
size. Steam pressure was then applied to the bomb. The steam
outlet was opened sufficiently to prevent condensation of moisture
in the bomb. It took 10 to 15 seconds for the pressure to reach
the maximum of 550 Psia. All samples were tested for the follow-
ing drying times: 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 minutes. At
the end of the desired drying time the pressure was released. The
products were weighed and stored in rubber sealed glass jars for
other tests. A portion of the dried sample was crushed in a
plastic bag and residual moisture was determined by the standard
ASTM method at 106° C (4). Samples pulverized to 60 mesh were
used for determination of heating value.
For the current investigation 3 seams were studied: Nos. 3 and 4
seams from the Poker Flat pit of the Usibelli coal mine, now being
mined, and the Waterfall seam in the Beluga coal field. The
279
samples were crushed to -2" in the case of Nos. 3 and 4 seams. In
the case of the Waterfall seam, only coal crushed to minus 1-1/2"
was available at the time of the laboratory investigation. The
samples were screened at 1-1/2", 1", 5/8" and 1/411 • These sized
fractions were used for the drying studies.
In another series of dehydration tests, cylinders of coal
approximately one inch in diameter and two inches long were dried
in the pressure reactor using the procedure described above.
These cylinders were prepared by taking a diamond drill core from
run of mine blocks of coal with bedding plane oriented parallel
and perpendicular to the drill bit. Only sample cylinders from
the Nos. 3 and 4 Usibelli Mine coals were taken.
Results
Figures 1, 2 and 3 show loss of weight in drying as a function of
drying time, as well as moisture retained in the dried products
for various sized particles. The data are presented in Tables 1,
2 and 3. A weight reduction of 20% can be achieved with 5 minutes
residence time. Increasing residence time to 60 minutes only
increased weight loss an additional 5 to 7%, depending on particle
size, higher reduction being achieved for smaller particles.
Moisture retained in one sample varied from 5 to 12% for different
sized particles. Samples dried for the shortest period naturally
retained the highest moisture. As can be expected, the smaller
the particle size the lower was the retained moisture. It is
obvious that 20% weight reduction can be achieved for coals
crushed to -2" size and a drying time of about 5 minutes.
Tables 4 and 5 show the percentage moisture loss of core samples.
The weight loss is shown to be nearly identical whether the plug
had been cut parallel or perpendicular to the bedding planes.
A black aqueous liquor was collected by cooling vapors in the
reactor. This material is derived from condensed steam and cog-
nate water driven from the sample, and the color is presumably due
to dissolved organic and inorganic materials. The composition of
this liquor should be further investigated inasmuch as its dis-
posal in any industrial (scaled up) plant would be necessary (10).
If such disposal requires treatment prior to discharge into a
receiving stream, the capital and operating cost would need to be
considered in the overall treatment economics.
Dried Coal Characteristics
Several physical properties of the coal dried as described above
were measured. They include unconfined compression and drop shat-
280
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ter, and heating values and the Hardgrove Grindability Index
(HGI).
Mechanical Testing
Since coal is a nonhomogenous material, the properties determined
from tests on two samples from the same mine may not be in agree-
ment. There are a wide variety of tests to which a soil or rock
specimen may be subjected. For the purpose of this project, the
authors chose unconfined compression testing and modified ASTM
drop shatter testing.
In the unconfined compression test, a cylindrical sample is pre-
pared, measured and compressed in a compression apparatus. The
maximum load it will carry (or the load that causes a reduction in
length of 20S) divided by the end area equals the unconfined
compressive strength ( 1 ). Table 6 shows comparison of compressive
strengths of 1" diameter cores from No. 3 and No. 4 seams, drilled
both parallel and perpendicular to the bedding. The low compres-
sive strength of dried cores is due to severe fracturing along the
bedding plane. Cores of raw coal cut parallel to bedding showed
significantly lower compressive strength compared to those cut
perpendicular to bedding. This was true not only for raw coals
but also dried products. No 4 seam showed much higher strength
than No. 3 seam for cores cut perpendicular to bedding, although
cores cut parallel to bedding did not show any significant differ-
ences.
The ASTM Drop Shatter Test for coal D 440-49 has been modified to
accomodate the small sample amount available for testing (4). Raw
coals as well as steam dried specimens were tested and compared.
The dried specimens that had been cored parallel and perpendicular
to the bedding were separately dropped and tested.
Table 7 shows comparison of size stablity vs. drying time. The
average stability values of all coals tested, however, indicate
that dried coals are as stable as raw coals and should not present
serious stability problems.
Drying has brought certain other advantages to the dried coal,
particularly in grindability. Table 8 compares grindability of
raw coals, air dried coals and coals dried at high temperature and
pressure.
Figure 4 from "Combustion Engineering" (6) shows the relation of
relative capacity of a bowl mill to Hardgrove grindability Index
(HGI). The chart shows, for example, that a mill grinding a coal
with 30 HGI (typical of raw Usibelli coal) to 65S-200 mesh has a
capacity of 82S (not corrected for moisture). It could have a
capacity of 108S when the HGI is improved to 50. Our test results
show that HGI values of 50 or more are routinely achieved during
281
the steam pressure drying process described earlier. This im-
provement would greatly benefit the user in that there would be
reduced costs for grinding the dried fuel prior to firing.
Table 9 shows the analyses of raw coals as well as dried products.
For all three coals, it can be seen that the loss in moisture
resulting from steam treatment markedly improves the heating value
of the dried fuel. The heating value rose 29.2%. 26.6% and 31.3%
for the three seams (after only 5 minutes of heating). Further
steam treatment increases the heating value to 34.5%, 34.6% and
42.5% after an hour's treatment in the reactor. Prolonged pres-
sure treatment (exceeding 5 minutes) may prove to be less cost
effective. Heating values expressed on a dry ash free basis show
an increase even after a 5 minute drying period and a further
increase for longer drying periods, indicative of loss of nonheat
contributing functional groups due to high temperatures used in
drying.
Microscopy of Dried Coals
Sections of steam dried coal were examined to analyze occurrence
of shrinkage cracks and fracture patterns. After this cursory
examination, the dried coals from the No. 4 seam, Usibelli mine
were studied in depth. The dried coal was vacuum impregnated with
epoxy and polished using the Standard Method of Preparing Coal
Samples for Microscopical Analysis by Reflected Light (ASTM D
2797-72, Reapproved 1980) (4). A previous report by the author
has presented results of the petrographic examination of this
undried run of mine coal (this reference appears elsewhere in this
publication).
The polished samples were then observed and photographed to record
the number, array, orientation, nature and length of drying cracks
(Fig. 5).
Microscopic observations of dried coals can be summarized as
follows:
1. Fissuring develops at boundaries of banded petrographic compo-
nents (Fig. 5E).
2. Suberinite, being resinous, provides a plane of weakness for
fissuring. Even individual phlobaphinite cells get separated
where the cell wall material is suberinite (Fig. 5E).
3. Fissures developed in huminite seem to stop abruptly when the
fissures encounter thick walled fusinite, a maceral low in
inherent moisture (Fig. 5B).
282
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Cracks develop through fusinite when it is already cracked
(such as in fusinite with bogen structure) (Fig. 5C) or when walls
are too thin to offer resistance to fracturing (Fig. 50).
5. Fissures originate at particle surface and penetrate as drying
progresses (Fig. 5A).
6. As drying time is increased, fracturing is more extensive with
the development of microfractures (Fig. 5F).
Moisture Reabsorption of Dried Coal
Procedure
Reabsorption: Dried coals are hygroscopic. It is important to
know the amount of moisture that will be reabsorbed by the dried
coal when stored under high humidity conditions. The dried coal
samples, without any size reduction, were stored at 98~ relative
humidity over saturated potassium sulfate solution in a vacuum
container. The samples were periodically weighed to determine
weight gained due to moisture reabsorption.
Products from three drying times, 5, 30 and 60 minutes were chosen
for this part of the study. Three particle size ranges, 2" x 1-
1/2", 1" x 5/8" and 5/8" x 1/4" were tested.
Oiling: In an effort to determine the effectiveness of oil in
reducing moisture pick up, several tests were conducted. Portions
of the 5/8" x 1/4" coals which had been dried for 5 minutes were
weighed, placed in a wire mesh basket and submerged for ten se-
conds in heated oil ( 150°C ). Immediately thereafter, the oiled
samples were spun in a centrifuge for 10 minutes to remove excess
nonabsorbed oil. The samples were then reweighed and the amount
of oil adhering to the samples was determined. The oiled speci-
mens were stored above a saturated potassium sulfate solution in a
vacuum container as described above. The samples again were
periodically weighed to determine weight gained (if any) due to
moisture reabsorption. The oil used was "residual oil" from the
North Pole Refinery, North Pole, Alaska, which had been heated to
200° C to drive off lighter hydrocarbons. It would closely resem-
ble locally available oils for use on Usibelli or Beluga coals.
Results
Moisture reabsorption without oiling: Figures 6, 7, and 8 show
that although moisture reabsorption for the No. 3 seam samples was
most rapid during the first 2 days, equilibrium was not reached
even by the 23rd day, whereas coal from the No. 4 seam achieved
equilibrium by 7-10 days (Figures 9, 10 and 11) and Beluga coal
283
reaches equilibrium by the 17th day (Tables 12, 13 and 14). The
data are shown in Tables 10, 11 and 12.
Moisture reabsorption behavior is clearly a function of particle
size and drying time. For the larger sizes moisture reabsorption
is greater for samples dried for longer periods of time. For
smaller sizes, long period drying for 60 minutes brought out
inevitable structural changes in the coal and resulted in less
moisture reabsorption than those dried for say 5 minutes.
Moisture reabsorption after oiling: Table 13 shows that the steam
dried coals, when dipped into hot oil and centrifuged, retained
through absorption about two to three percent by weight of the
oil.
Table 13 also shows the incremental and cumulative percent weight
gains by the oiled dry coals over the testing period. The effect
of oil on retarding moisture reabsorption was not shown in our
work.
It should, however, be pointed out that the dried coals never
regained their original moisture, even after being subjected to
most favorable conditions for reabsorption for 3 weeks. For
example, 2" x 1-1/2" coal from No. 3 seam dried for 5 minutes
(Table 1) lost 19.04% in weight, but only regained 7.53% by weight
after being subjected to 98% relative humidity for 23 days (Table
10). Actual pickup of moisture during transportation would be far
less.
Self Heating Behavior
Procedure
It has been known for many years that coals are subject to self
heating to a varying degree, and that the self heating tendency
may be increased by drying. This may be caused by many factors,
but principally by the increased surface area newly available for
oxidation. (The drying process creates many cracks, fissures and
new pores sites.) Material handling of the newly dried coal will
further produce smaller particles which may lead to self heating.
In order to compare the self heating characteristics of various
raw (wet), air dried and steam dried coals, it was found useful to
perform controlled laboratory tests to determine relative self
heating properties of various raw as well as dried coals.
Kim (7) has surveyed various testing procedures useful for studies
of spontaneous heating of coal. Of the four basic methods used in
the past, adibatic calorimetry was chosen for this work (3, 8, 9).
The coal sample is placed in an insulated container or bath, and
the whole system is heated to a preselected temperature using an
284
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
inert gas (nitrogen). Preheated air or oxygen is added to the
system causing the temperature of the coal to rise; the material
surrounding the coal is heated so that its temperature coincides
with the measured temperature of the coal. Since there is no heat
loss or gain to the surroundings or to the oxidizing gases,
changes in coal temperature are attributable to the self heating
behavior of the coal being tested. The change in the temperature
of the coal in a given time, the time needed to reach a prese-
lected temperature, or the amount of heat generated per unit of
time is used to evaluate the self heating tendency of the coal.
System Description
A system has been designed and built to satisfy these requirements
(Figure 15). A pulverized and sized sample of coal is loaded into
a stainless steel basket which is suspended in a Dewar flask. The
system requires that external air surrounding the coal is main-
tained at/or tracks the coal temperature. This is achieved by
placing the coal in a Dewar flask fitted inside an insulated box.
Further requirements are a heat source, type J thermocouples for
control, type J thermocouples for monitoring, a safety cutoff and
a proportional controller (Figure 15).
Thermocouples (A) (temperature of coal) and (C) (temperature of
inlet gas) are used for monitoring the experiment processes on a
MV chart recorder (1 chart division = 0.18° C). Thermocouples (B)
and (D) are used by the temperature controller to determine the
amount of heat required by the system for tracking. If (D) is
less than (B) the heaters are turned on until there is no longer a
difference between the two thermocouples. The amount of heating
is proportional to this difference so that as the two temperatures
(coal and surrounding air) approach equivalence, heating is re-
duced to preclude overshooting or oscillating about the desired
value. An adjustable offset between (D) and (B) is built into the
system. The offset is adjusted so that the temperature of inlet
gases will not exceed coal temperature and will prevent boot-
strapping of coal temperature.
The proportional controller design (Figure 16) utilizes a solid
state relay to control power to the heater. This relay is turned
on and off by a proportional controller that ensures that the
heating is a function of the difference in temperature, insuring
minimal thermal overshoot. The input to the controller is via a
pair of type J thermocouples connected differentially. These
thermocouples monitor the coal and air temperature surrounding the
experiment flask. This amplified signal is applied to voltage-to-
frequency converter whose pulse rate is therefore proportional to
6T. This signal in turn drives the solid state switch. A ther-
mal switch set for (150° C) has been located inside the heater box
to prevent any possibility of a disastrous thermal runaway.
285
The apparatus is found to work satisfactorily. It is anticipated
that various Alaskan raw coals and dried coals, along with coals
known to be self heating from other parts of the country, will be
tested. Preliminary results indicate that there is no substantial
increase in the proclavity of coal dried by the procedure de-
scribed here to self heating and compared to the run of mine coal.
Discussion and Recommendations for Future Work
As a result of these studies, a review of the literature and an
analysis of drying Beluga coal done in Japan (10), a number of
favorable results and useful studies have been identified. It has
been shown that both Usibelli coal (seams 3 and 4) and Beluga coal
(Waterfall seam) can be dewatered by steam dehydration and their
weights reduced by 20~. Furthermore, the heating value is im-
proved, rising from about 8,000 to 10,400 BTU per pound. The
grindability as indicated by the HGI is improved from about 22 to
56, thus decreasing the effort (and cost) of pulverization prior
to firing. Some care in handling the dried coal should minimize
dusting inasmuch as the drop shatter results are good. Reabsorp-
tion does take place but never approaches even half of the origi-
nal water content after 25 days, even under excessive humidity
(not expected in practice).
Some of the problems that remain with the proposed steam dehydra-
tion include:
Achieving continuous rather than batch operation
Unknown effect of outside storage of dry coal
Disposition of liquor derived from steam condensation and coal
dehydration
Use of agents for retarding dehydration and self heating
Larger scale tests to provide scale up date
Other approaches to dehydration, viz oil immersion
Analysis of transportation procedures for dried oiled coal
286
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References
1. McCarthy, David F., Essentials of soil mechanics and founda-
tions, Reston Publishing Co., Inc., Prentice Hall Co.,
Reston, VA, 1977.
2. Rae, P. Dharma, Wolff, E.N., Current state-of-the-art in
drying low run coals, Proceedings of Conference ·~ocus on
Alaska's Coal 75", P. 150-157, 1975.
3. Shea, J:J., F.L., HSO, H.L., Self heating of carbonaceous
materials, Ind. Eng. Chern. Prod. Res. Develop., Vol. II,
No. 2, 1972.
4. Staff, 1980 Annual book of ASTM standards, Part 26, Gaseous
Fuels. Coal and Coke; Atmospheric Analyses, American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1980.
5. Staff, Laboratory reactors, Bulletin 4500, Parr Instrument
Co., Moline, IL, 1972.
6. Ed, G.R. Fryling, Combustion engineering, Combustion Engi-
neering, Inc., Hartford, Conn., 1967.
7. Kim, A.G., Laboratory studies on spontaneous heating of coal,
U.S.B.M., Information Circular 8756, 1977.
8. Guney, M., and D.J. Hodges, Adiabatic studies of spontaneous
heating of coal, Part I, Call. Guard., v. 217, No. 2, 1969.
9. , Adiabatic studies of spontaneous heating of coal,
Part II, Call. Guard., v. 217, No. 3, 1969.
10. Nakabayashi, Y., The feasibility of Beluga coal as fuel for
the power industries of Japan and the present status of
research and development on Beluga coal in Japan,
Proceedings of Conference "Focus on Alaska's Coal 1980",
Fairbanks, Alaska (in Press).
287
I
TABLE 1
DEHYDRATION OF COAL FROM NO. 3 SEAM, I USIBELLI COAL MINE, 250°C, 550 PSIA STEAM
Drying Raw Coal Dehydrated \~t. Loss in ~1oi s ture in I
Particle Size Time Wt., Grams Coal Dehydration, Dehydrated
t1 in. vit. , Grams Percent Coal, Percent I~
2 X 1 1/2 60 152.48 114.67 24.79 5.78
50 122.77 93.36 23.96 6. 51 I 40 115. 79 87.90 24.09 6.37
30 123.46 94.11 23.77 6. 77
20 126.85 99.13 21 .85 8.80 I 15 114.32 90.07 21.21 8.54
10 118.99 93.34 21.55 8.32
5 114. 17 92.43 19.04 9.99
Raw Sample 0 26.95 I
1 1 /2 X 1 60 99.91 74.69 25.24 5.01
50 131.98 100.96 23.50 6.14 I 40 90.50 69.06 23.69 6.65
30 1 02. 61 78.84 23.16 6.48
20 122.30 95.07 22.26 7.75 I 15 116. 55 90.94 21.97 7.44
10 101.47 80.20 20.96 8.11
5 130.74 105.67 19.18 9.48
Raw Sample 0 25.19 I
1 X 5/8 60 80.66 60.99 24.39 5.61
50 81.98 62.37 23.92 6.89 I 40 77.44 59.57 23.08 7.08
30 74.17 56.71 23.54 6.03
20 65.19 50.52 22.50 4.36 I 1 5 64.74 50.18 22.49 7. 72
10 68.39 53.54 21 . 71 7.03
5 69.57 54.62 21.49 7.84
Raw Sample 0 26.41 I
5/8 X l/4 60 43.19 32.96 23.69 7.48
50 47.08 35.80 23.96 6.06 I 40 44.45 33.77 24.03 5.87
30 33.82 26.20 22.53 8.03
20 36.65 28.46 22.34 7.54
I 1 5 41. 16 32.32 21.48 8.21
10 39.46 30.99 21.46 8.43
5 43.99 34.63 21.28 7.73
Raw Sample 0 25.89 I'
I
I
288 I
I
I
TABLE 2
I DEHYDRATION OF COAL FROM NO. 4 SEAM,
USIBELLI COAL MINE, 250°C, 550 PSIA STEAM
I Drying Raw Coal Dehydrated Wt. Loss in r~oisture in
Particle Size Time Wt .• Grams Coal Dehydration, Dehydrated
I Min. Wt., Grams Percent Coal. Percent
2 X 1 1 /2 60 170. 16 128.41 24.54 6. 71
I 50 154. 73 115.39 25.44 7.76
40 142. 61 108.92 23.62 8.00
30 159.40 121 . 30 23.90 8.14
20 157. 86 122.35 22.56 7. 21
I 15 130.97 1 01 . 75 22.31 12.09
10 131.61 101.47 22.90 8.59
5 113.16 89.26 21 . 12 12. 71
Raw Sample 0 24.55
I 1 1/2 X 1 60 99.35 74.54 24.97 7.02
50 95.62 72.48 24.20 8.58
I 40 114.27 86.00 24.74 6.46
30 94.26 70.61 25.09 6.96
20 112. 38 85.47 23.94 7.40
1 5 112.90 88.77 23.14 9.36
I 10 113.44 87.73 22.66 10.00
5 102. 75 82.54 19.67 10.50
Raw Sample 0 25.37
I 1 X 5/8 60 79.71 57.53 27.80 4.29
50 73. 11 54.85 24.95 7.40
40 75.82 57.93 23.60 8.51
I 30 76.37 57.83 24.28 7.40
20 73.81 56.40 23.59 6.69
15 81.02 63.12 22.09 8.40
I
1 0 70.46 54.23 23.03 7.41
5 78.69 63.34 19. 51 8.05
Raw Sample 0 25.02
II 5/8 X 1/4 60 47.43 34.35 27.58 5. 16
50 36.22 27.05 25.32 7.36
40 37.00 28.50 22.97 7.78
30 42.61 32.28 24.24 8.24
I 20 34.06 26.81 21.28 9.81
15 38.23 30.04 21 .42 9.23
10 32.17 25.66 20.24 9. 77
I 5 30.68 24.45 20.31 10.05
Raw Sample 0 25.69
I
I
I 289
I
TABLE 3
DEHYDRATION OF COAL FROM THE WATERFALL SEAM, I
BELUGIA COAL FIELD, 250°C, 550 PSIA STEAM
I Drying Raw Coal Dehydrated Wt. Loss in Moisture in
Particle Size Time ~n., Grams Coal Dehydration, Dehydrated
Min. Wt. , Grams Percent Coal, Percent I 1 1/2 X 1 60 102.09 75.60 25.95 6.39
50 100.55 77.60 22.82 5.86 li 40 101.67 78.76 22.53 5.98
30 97.94 77.31 21.06 8.62
20 100. 73 79.72 20.86 8.40
15 101.05 81.98 18.87 10.31 li 10 101.13 81.81 19.10 11.36
5 97.85 81.42 16.79 9.44
Raw Sample 0 21.95 I 1 X 5/8 60 72.76 54.38 25.26 5.24
50 70.10 53.24 24.05 5.48
40 79.00 59.42 24.78 5.02 II 30 85.67 65.61 23.42 5.25
20 76.15 58.92 22.63 4.88
15 72.54 56.30 22.39 6.95 II 10 85.80 67.98 20.77 8.08
5 71.13 57. 13 19.65 9.18
Raw Sample 0 25.07 I 5/8 X 1/4 60 42.80 31.70 25.93 6.96
50 36.72 28.08 23.53 6.66
40 43.31 33.30 23.11 8.23 I 30 77.24 58.74 23.95 5.84
20 39.88 30.29 24.05 6.85
15 45.94 35.30 23.16 7.03 I 10 37.17 28.66 22.89 6.56
5 37.80 29.82 21 . 11 7.45
Raw Sample 0 24.62
I
I
I
I
I
I
290 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 251---AJ--+--(0 , i .• OFrfl /./
~ 20
WEIGHT IN DRYING 0
...J
1-
::t:
Q
~ 15~----~--+------+--~------+---~-----4--~~
ui a:
:J
1-m
0
~
...J
<(
:J g
en w a:
10 RESIDUAL MOISTURE
5
I I Q ...._.O'-ll0~20~:l0,....40~5~0-601-..10~10~20~:l0~'10~51,.0-!6~0-I.O--',I0-20~30~4L..0-!50.,-,160-J,.O-IJ,0-2~0~:l0L....I4"-0..I.ro-6.L.O--IO
PARTICLE SIZE
INCHES
2'11.11/2 ll/2xl Ill. 5/8 5/Bx 1/4
PARTICLE SIZE, INCHES
Figure 1: Loss of weight in drying as a function of drying time, andre-
sidual moisture for sized coal particles. No. 3 seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
30 I I I I I
;
7. --
illt:L. ... ,.
WEIGHT IN DRYING
25
1-z w
() c. w c.
en 20
en
0
...J
1-
J:
('} 15 w :;
~~ ·\jj""gj 1r -
ui a:
:J
1-en 10 0
~
...J
<(
:J
9 5 en
w a:
I I I I I I I I I I I
V IV <U '"" ~u v lu <v •O Su .v u 10 <030 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 0
PARTICLE SIZE
INCHES
2xl112 I I/ 2 X I I X 5/ 8 5/8 )( 1/4
PARTICLE SIZE, INCHES
Figure 2: Loss of weight in drying as a function of drying time, and residual
moi'.t.IJfP for r,i7f•d roal l"lrtifl,.· .. flo. t1 ~"",ram. llr;itwlli r:oal Minro.
1-z w
(.)
0: w c..
(/')
(/')
0
..J
1-
J:
Q.
w ;::
w
0:
:::l
I-
(/)
5
::E
..J
<(
:::l g
(/')
w a:
30~,~~~-T~,~~~~.~~~~.~~ .. ~-~ .. -~,
2J~-
LOSS OF WEIGHT I~ DRYING
25 .._ __ ..__
20 t--
15
10 r-. RESIDUAL MOISTURE
5.._--+-
0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 10203040~060 01020~40~060 0102030405060
PARTICLE SIZE
INCHES
I l/2x I I ~t5/B 518 x 1/4
PARTICLE SIZE, INCHES
>-
1-
..J
ID
< c z -a:
(!)
w
>
0 a:
(!)
a:
<
J:
Figure 3: Loss of weight in drying as a function of drying time
and residual moisture for sized coal particles. '
Waterfall Seam, Beluga Coal Field.
PER CENT CAPACITY-
CORRECTED FOR MOISTURE
100
90
PER CENT CAPACITY
w a:
::;)
I-
C/)
0
::=:
1-z
w
0
a:
w
11.
Figure 4: Relation of Relative Capacity of a
Bowl ~ill to Hardgrove Grindability
Index.
297.
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
DEHYDRATION OF ORIENTED COAL CYLINDERS CUT FROM NO. 3 SEA~1.
USIBELLI MINE, 250°C, 550 PSIA STEAM
Drying Time
t~i n.
5
30
Core
Orientation
in relation
to Bedding
Plane
Perpendicular
Parallel
Perpendicular
Parallel
Initial
Weight of
Core,
Grams
19.80
20.88
20.12
19.55
Final Weight
of Core,
Grams
10.12
17.14
15.25
14.82
TABLE 5
Weight Lost in
drying, ;;
18.58
17.91
24.20
24.19
DEHYDRATION OF ORINTED COAL CYLINDERS CUT FROM NO. 4 SEAM,
USIBELLI MINE, 250°C, 550 PSIA STEAM
Drying Time
Min.
5
15
30
60
Core
Orientation
in relation
to Bedding
Plane
Perpendicular
Parallel
Perpendicular
Parallel
Perpendicular
Parallel
Perpendicular
Parallel
Initial
Weight of
Core,
Grams
20.03
17.49
17.93
17.38
16.73
18.16
22.06
16.99
TABLE 6
Final Weight
of Core,
Grams
16.00
13.76
14.23
13.41
13.33
14.39
16.37
11. 17
Height Lost in
drying, ;;
20.12
21.33
20.64
22.84
20.32
20.76
25.80
34.25
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTII OF CORES OF RAW AND DRIED COALS
Core
Orientation
1& Bedding
Perpendicular , 1450
Parallel 930
620 700
290 300
1. Raw coal cores had 1 1132" diameter.
3250 1060 700
1050 380 400
2. Dried cores had 15/16 11 diameter due to shrinkage in drying.
The cores were dried for 5 minutes at 550 psia steam and 250°c.
293
Sample
No. 4 Seam
No. 3 Seam
Beluga
Average
No. 4 Seam
1" diameter core
Parallel
No. 4 Seam
1" diameter core
Perpendicular
No. 3 Seam
1" diameter core
Parallel
No. 3 Seam
1" diameter
Perpendicular
TABLE 7
SIZE STABILITY OF RAW AND DRIED C~ALS
ASTM SIZE STABILITY
Raw .lli:Y..ing ~
Size Coal 5 10 15 20 30 40
211 X 1 1/211 70 61 76 76 79 75 76
1 1/2 11 X 111 90 60 72 61 76 92 87
211 X 1 1/211 74 91 55 79 81 94 77
1 1/211 X 111 89 84 78 96 91 86 70
1/211 X 1" 73 93 94 88 95 83 66
79 78 75 80 84 86 75
70 75 50
67 lJ8 lJ9 47
86
83
TABLE 8. Hardgrove Grindability Index of 1 1/211 x 1" Raw and Dried Coals
I
I
50 60 I
64 61
94 74 I
56 81
78 87 I
89 95
76 80
I
50
I
49
I
I
I
I
Raw Coal Air Dried Coal
Coal dried at 550 Psia at 250°C I
5 Minutes 30 Minutes 60 minutes
No. 3 Seam
Usibelli Coal
Mine
No. 4 Seam
Usibelli Coal
Mine
Water Fall
Seam
Beluga Field
HGI Mois. %
32 27.5
22 25.3
18 22.6
HGI Mois. $
32 18.7
15.4
23 9.8
294
HGI Mois. $ HGI Mois. % HGI Mois. %
50 9.5 54 6.5 57 5.0 I
50 10.5 54 7.0 56 7.0 I
33 9.4 36 8.6 41 6.4 I
I
I
I
-------------------
TABLE 9
CHARACTERIZATION OF DRIED COAL 111 X 5/8 11
No. 3 Seam No. 4 Seam Water Fall Seam
Usibelli Coal Mine Usibelli Coal Mine Beluga Coal Co.
Moi s. , Ash, Heating Dry Ash Moi s. , Ash, Heating Dry Ash Moi s. , Ash, Heating Dry Ash
% % Value, free DL ,o % Value, free % % Value, free
dried basis, dried basis, dried basis,
Drying co a 1, Btu/lb coal, Btu/lb coal, Btu/lb
time, Min. Btu/1 b Btu/lb Btu/l b
Raw coal 26.41 4.26 8, 061 11 '626 25.02 4. 71 8,074 11 ,490 25.07 7.92 7,717 11,517
5 7.84 4.25 10,416 11 '849 8.05 5.90 10,220 11 '876 9.18 5.42 10,136 11 ,869
10 7.03 4.10 10,583 11 '908 7.41 6.47 10,328 11 '992 8.08 8.14 10,066 12,015
N 15 7. 72 4. 11 10,466 11 '871 8.40 6.44 1 0' 467 12.290 6.95 5.79 10,338 11 ,847 1.0
V1
20 4.36 4.13 1 0, 944 11 '960 6.69 6.51 10,276 11 ,838 4.88 5.87 10,878 12 '188
30 6.03 4. 16 10,770 11 '992 7.40 5.66 1 0' 366 11 '923 5.25 7.08 10,791 12,309
40 7.08 4.04 10,602 11 '928 8. 51 5.28 10,224 11 ,868 5.02 7.87 10,601 12 '169
50 6.89 4.10 10,832 12,170 7.40 4.98 10,506 11 '990 5.48 6.93 10,729 12,249
60 5. 61 4.10 10,841 12,007 4.29 6.13 10,867 12' 131 5.24 6.30 10,997 12,432
I
A. Development of fractures (C) from
the surface (S) of coal particle
5 min. drying-50x air
C. Fracturing (C) through broken
fusinite (F) bogen structure
10 min. drying-500x oil immersion
E. Fissuring (C) at boundary of suberi-
nite {S) covering phlobaphinite (P) &
humin1te (H) 15 min drying-500x oi1
immersion
B. Fracturing (C) stops at thick walled
fusinite (F)
5 min. drying-50x air
~~~-
I
I
I
D. Fracturing (C) of weak fusinite cells I
(F) filled with macrinite globules (M)
10 min. drying-500x oil immersion
~
F. Macro and micro cracks (C)
15 min. drying-500x oil immersion
Figure 5. Photomicrographs of dried coals from No. 4 seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Reflected light.
296
I
I
TABLE 10
Reabsorption of moisture by sized coals dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes
Sample is taken from No. 3 seams, Usibelli Coal Mine I
Drying Noisture Moisture reabsorbed, %
Size, In. Time in dried residencE time, days
Nin. Coal % 1 2 3 7 11 17 23 I
5 9.99 4.50 5.24 5.53 5.76 6.33 6.33 7.53
I 2" X 1 1/2" 30 6. 77 6.33 7.15 7.46 7. 72 8.08 8.08 9.42
60 5.78 6.97 7.61 7.93 8.22 8.68 8.68 9.90
5 9.48 8.09 8.53 8.53 8.97 9.07 9.36 11.60
1" X 5/8" 30 6.48 8.07 8.49 8.63 8.91 9.05 9.62 11.74 I
60 5.01 7.59 8.08 8.37 8.50 8.35 9.24 10.31
5 7.73 8.04 8.16 8.40 8. 77 9.38 9.38 10.35 I
5/8" X 1/4" 30 8.03 7.05 7.54 7.64 7.93 8.32 8.52 9.70
60 7. 48 6.84 7.02 7.37 7. 72 8.07 8.25 8.95 I
TABLE 11
Reabsorption of moisture by sized coals dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes. I
Sample is taken from No. 4 seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
I Drying Moisture Moisture reabsorbed, percent
Size, In. Time, in dried residence time, days
Min. coal % 1 2 3 7 10 17 24
5 12.71 3.59 4.66 4. 99 5.42 5.50 5.65 5.65
2" X 1 1/2" 30 8.14 4.38 5.88 6.24 6.82 7.00 7.16 7.16 I
60 6. 71 5.68 6.82 7.07 7.35 7.67 7.78 7.78
5 8.05 5.22 6.38 6.38 6.43 7.17 7.38 7.38 I
1" X 5/8" 30 7.40 6.60 7. 65 7.65 7.82 8.43 8.60 8.60
60 4.29 8.17 9.08 9.19 9.40 9.45 9.82 9.82 I
5 10.05 6.20 7.25 7.25 7.37 7.60 7.60 7.60
I 5/8" X 1/4" 30 8.24 5.33 5.85 6.00 6.30 6.37 6.67 6.67
60 5.16 4.38 4.87 5. 22 5.29 5.64 5.64 5. 71
I
I
I
I
I 297
TABLE 1~
Reabsorption of moisture by sized coals dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes.
Sample is taken from Waterfall Seam, Beluga Field.
Drying Hoisture Moisture reabsorbed, percent
Size, ln. Time, in dried residence time, days
Min. coal % 1 3 6 10 17 24
5 9.44 2.91 2.47 3.56 3.84 4.50 4.50
1 1/211 X 1" 30 8.62 3.38 3.84 4.13 4.13 4.84 4.84
60 6.39 4.97 5. 70 6.13 6.26 6.82 6.82
5 9.18 4.80 5.44 6.08 6.37 6.84 6.84
1" X 5/8" 30 5.25 6.78 7.59 7.93 8.13 8.60 8.87
60 5.24 5.89 6.55 6.99 6.99 7.43 7.43
5 7.45 5.76 6.31 6. 72 6. 72 7.41 7.41
5/8" X 1/4" 30 5. 84 6.62 6.99 7.46 7.46 8.02 8.02
60 6.96 6.60 6.97 7.49 7.49 7.93 7.93
Table 13
MOISTURE REABSORPTION OF OIL COATED SAMPLES DRIED FOR 5 DAYS
5/811 X 1/411
Oil Moisture reabsorbed, ~
Sample Retained Int. Wt., Basis Bf1:~1!J~DQ~ .ti1!L.. day:~ @ 98° I H. !::I.
Wt. S grams 2 4 7 14
No. 3 Seam 3.0 61.2678 Increment 9.27 2.65 2.66 .46
Cumulative 9.27 11.92 14.58 15.04
No. 4 Seam 2.0 62.0300 Increment 6.09 2.46 1. 11 • 76
Cl.IDulative 6.09 8.55 9.66 10.42
Water Fall 2. 1 61.2958 Increment 5.0 2.01 1. 40 .52
Seam
Beluga Field Cumulative 5.0 7.01 B. 41 8.93
298
22
.38
15.42
• 11
10.53
.15
9.08
•
I
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ...
:0:
"' u a:
"' ... ...
0::
I <..:> ....
"' 3
z
0 .... ...
I
... a:
0
"' "' ;:1
a:
.... a:
I :::> ...
"' .... g
I
I
I
I
I ... z ..,
I u a:
"' ...
....
0:: <..:> ....
"' I ::.
z
0
H ... ...
"" 0
Vl
I "' :5 a:
"" "' :::> ....
Ul
I H
0 :>:
I
I
I
12
I I
10
9
a
7
6
5
4
3
2.
0
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
0 5 10 15
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
20
60 minutea
30 mlnutea
5 mIn u I "I 1
25
Figure 6' Reabsorption of moisture by 2" x 1 1/2" c:oa1 dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes.
taken from No. 3 Seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
Sample is
30 mlnutu
5 mlnutt 1
• 60rninutll
0 5 I 0 15 20 25
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Figure 7: Reabsorption of moisture by 1" x 5/8" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes. Sample is
taken from No. 3 Seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
299
I
12 I
II
5 ll'llnutu I 10
30 ll'llnutu
9
1-' I z ILl 8 ~
ILl p...
1-' 7 I :I: c.:l
~
ILl
;3:
~ 6 z
0
H I 1-' p... 5 r:.::
0
Vl
s:Q
~ 4
II ILl r:.:: :::;,
l/; 3
~
~
2 I
0 I 0 5 10 15 20 25
RF.SIDF.NCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Figure 8: Reabsorption of moisture by 5/8" x 1/4" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes. Sample is
taken from No. 3 Seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
I
12
II I
10 I 9
t-< I z 8 ILl u r:.:: 60 ILl minutea
p...
t-< 7 30 minute a ::c
c.:l I .....
ILl
;3: 6
z 5 mlnutll 0
H
t 5 r:.:: I 0
Vl
s:Q ;:; 4 ~
ILl r:.:: :::;, 3 I 1-'
Vl
H
0
:1:
2
I
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 I RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Figure 9: Reabsorption of moisture by 2" x 1 1/2" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes. Sample is
taken from No. 4 Seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
300 I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"' z
""' u a:
"' 0..
t
G
H w ::<
7. a ....
'"' 0.. a: a
Vl
"' ~ a:
"' a: :::> ...
~
~
'"' z
"' :;i
"' 0..
!;;
<!>
H
"' ::.:
z a
H
'"' ~ a
"' "' < "' .,.
"' ..: ::>
'"' "' H a ;.:
12
II
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
0
12
II -
Figure 10:
5 10 15 20
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Reabsorption of moisture by 1" x 5/8" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes,
taken from No. 4 Sc3m, Usibelli Coal Mine.
. 60 "''"""'
. 30 mln•ln
5 mln•tu
25
Sample is
I 0 f-
9
8
1" 0 ~----------~------~~-------------------~~·~------------------~~~· 5 minYito v
6 rV':
5 f-v
4
~----------o-----<":>· --------------------0-------------------0· 6 0 ml n •te 1
~ .;.
3
2
Figure 11:
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Reabsorption of moisture by 5/8" x 1/4" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minute!.
taken from No. 4 Seam, Usibelli Coal Mine.
Sample is
301
12
II
10
9
'"' z
"' 8 '-' "' "' ...
'"' 7 :I:
"' ....
"' ::>:
z 6
0 ...
f-o ... 5 "' 0
"' "' ;j 4 "' "' "' :::>
'"' 3 "' ....
~.
2
0
12
II
10
9
'"' z 8 "' ;;l
"' 0..
'"' = 7
"' ....
"' :.: 6 z
0 ....
'"' 5 0..
"' 0
Vl
"' < 4 "' "' "' "' "' 3 f-o
Vl ....
0 :.:
2
0
Figure 12:
--------....C::>------------c::>· 60 "''""' ..
-----<::>------------c:> 3 0 mlnut eo ----0------------o 5 "''""' ..
5 10 15 20 25
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Reabsorption of moisture by 1 1/2" x 1" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes.
taken from Waterfall Seam, Beluga Coal Field.
Sample is
___ _...:;r-----------o· 30 ml nutoo
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
60 minutes
5 mlnutu
Figure 13: Reabsorption of moisture by 1" x 5/8" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes. Sample is
taken from Waterfall Seam, Beluga Coal Field.
302
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
"' lil
"' ...
!;;
"' H
"' 3
z
0 .... t ..:
0
"' "' ;:i
..:
"' ..: ::>
(,<
"' ....
0 :.:
12r----------------------------------------------------------
9
e SO ,.,inut11
60 minutoo
'mlnutoo
7
6
5
4
3
2
0~~~._._._~._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----~
0 5 10 15 20 25
RESIDENCE PERIOD AT 98% RELATIVE HUMIDITY, DAYS
Figure 14: Reabsorption of moisture by 5/8" x 1/4" coal dried for 5, 30 and 60 minutes. Sample is
taken from Waterfall Seam, Beluga Coal Field.
EXHAUST
1+1
(B) TYPE J
lcJ TYPE J I
(D) TYPE J
I
(A) TYPE J
0 r----I--
CHART
"' ., RECORDER
WARM AIR L 4:
FETY -SA
THERMO STAT-~(
<
..... r , ... ~ II:
4:
~ w c
HEATERS )
INSULATED BOX
OVER TEMP SHUTDOWN
,----l--------
·::::~ I PROPORTIONAL
"Tl CONTROLLER
I
-,
T
I
I
I __ -----------·
Figure 15: System block diagram.
303
AC POWER
>>---------------------------------[:> POWER TO HEATER > __ __..,.~ -· ------C>
SOLID STATE
TRIGGER ~+----t
SWITCH
____ .J
VOLTAGE TO
FREQUENCY
CONVERTER
THERMAL SWITCH
DIFFERENTIAL
AMPLIFIER
SHUTS SYSTEM DOWN ON
OVER TEMPERATURE ( 150 C)
LOCATED IN EXPERIMENT BOX
!» TIME ON PROPORTIONAL TO AT
AT-COAL TEMP/AIR TEMP
(D) TYPE J
{B) TYPE J
- - - -liilur ... 6: llii<>c .. ag-p~rtillftl -~ ~rol-- - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
K-Ar and fission-track dating of ash partings
in coal seams
Don M. Triplehorn
Professor of Geology, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Donald L. Turner
Geophysical Institute, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Introduction
The main purpose of this paper is to call attention to the occur-
rence and significance of volcanic ash partings in coals. Their
many geologic uses include correlation and dating of coal bearing
strata, interpretation of environments of deposition and calibra-
tion of paleobotanical chronologies in nonmarine strata, as well
as history and character of volcanic activity. Their practical
application of this information is to measure coal resources and
interpret mineral matter in coals. All these uses have been
treated elsewhere (Triplehorn, 1976), so the present writing will
focus on the radiometric dating of volcanic ash partings by K-Ar
and fission track methods. First will be an explanation of this
approach, followed by a description of our past work, then a brief
discussion of future plans and possibilities.
Some comments on terminology are necessary. The partings in coal
described here are assumed to be air fall volcanic ashes. Such an
origin is obvious where there is glass, volcanic phenocrysts,
characteristic mineralogy, absence of terrigenous detritus and
lack of water laid sedimentary structures. With increasing age
there is progressive alteration to clay and loss of recognizable
volcanigenic features.
Volcanic ash beds, then, generally alter to some kind of clay
unit. As a general term they might be called altered tuffs. In
marine shales they are known as bentonites; these are usually
montmorllonitic (smectitic), light colored and sticky when wet.
In coals, particularly Carboniferous coals, they are known as ton-
steins; these are usually kaolinitic, light colored and firm. We
prefer the general term "altered volcanic ash" because there is
considerable range in physical appearance, original and secondary
mineralogy, as well as in the type of enclosing sediment.
Identification of Volcanic Ash Partings in Coals
Volcanic ash partings in coals are not uncommon in Alaskan and
western U.S. coals. They are often not recognized, however,
because geologists are not aware of their possible presence and
because it may not be easy to distinguish them from the great
majority of clay/shale partings that are not volcanic in origin.
305
In the field, the best indicators are light color combined with a
thin, uniform, continuous distribution. These are not definitive,
however, because some ash partings are dark colored and bedding
character may vary due to irregularities on the depositional
surface or compaction effects. The next best test is to disperse
the clay, decant and examine any coarse fraction under a binocular
microscope. Volcanic materials almost always have some pheno-
crysts, and the mineral suite is restricted and distinctive: beta
quartz, feldspar, magnetite, biotite, zircon and apatite are most
abundant. Euhedral crystals are common or even dominant. Also
important is the absense of terrigenous clastic grains, such as
nonvolcanic rock fragments, abraded grains, muscovite, garnet,
etc.
Field and Laboratory Techniques
For reliable radiometric dating, an ash sample must consist only
of primary, air fall volcanic material. Older mineral or rock
fragments, from deep beneath a volcano or from older parts of a
volcano, may be present. These may be difficult to detect except
by scatter in the apparent radiometric ages. Their importance is
also difficult to assess: overall, it is probably minor. The
other, probably more important, source of contamination is streams
carrying terrigenous detritus. Thus, one should avoid partings
with current produced sedimentary structures such as ripple drift
lamination, well-defined lamination related to grain size differ-
ences and scour features.
A coal swamp provides the ideal place for preservation of an ash
fall free of the terrigenous contamination noted above. This is a
major reason behind our emphasis on radiometric dating of coals:
they preferentially contain the best (least contaminated) samples.
The flat, vegetation choked nature of swamps makes it highly
unlikely that any thin, widespread, uniform, sandy layer could be
deposited by running water. In addition, such ash partings are
enclosed entirely within coal, which makes it possible to collect
a pure ash sample without contamination from terrigenous silicate
clastics.
In general. an attempt should be made to collect the coarsest part
of an ash parting. Usually this would be the lower part, because
ash falls are commonly graded.
If a sample contains datable minerals, some phenocrysts should be
visible with a 10 power hand lens in the field. A 20 power lens
may aid in mineral identification and permit recognition of euhe-
dral shapes. Sometimes the phenocrysts are not readily visible in
the field and it may be desirable to collect a large quantity (up
to fifty pounds) if there is sufficient motive to obtain a datable
sample. If phenocrysts are visible, the volume may be adjusted
downward according to the abundance. In remote Alaskan locations
306
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
one should always collect large samples, to the limit dictated by
time and ability to carry heavy loads.
Before investing in mineral separation, a preliminary examination
is made to determine (1) if suitable minerals are present in
sufficient quantity, and (2) if these are not so altered as to
prohibit their use for radiometric dating. Ordinarily this is
done by examining thin sections under a petrographic microscope.
It is therefore advisable to select subsamples in the field for
this purpose so that thin sections may be prepared as soon as
possible. If phenocrysts are sparse, it may be necessary to test
wash a small quantity to obtain adequate grains for this evalua-
tion.
Laboratory preparation of mineral separates is a critical step.
We emphasize this because it may consume large amounts of time and
money, and if not done properly can result in intersample con-
tamination. Other than to note its importance we do not want to
go further into the details of sample preparation. Similarly, the
specifics of the K-Ar analysis and the fission track method will
not be discussed. All of these are fully described in the general
literature on radiometric dating.
Stmllary of Previous Work
Although a few others have dated volcanic ash partings in coals as
incidental parts of other studies, we appear to be the only ones
concentrating on coals.
Our first effort (Triplehorn and others, 1977) was a feasibility
test for Tertiary coals of the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. This
study showed the relatively common occurrence of volcanic ash
partings in these coals, provided criteria for their recognition
and proved their suitability for radiometric dating. As an unan-
ticipated bonus, the samples dated bracketed the Homerian Stage-
Clamgulchian Stage boundary of Wolfe ( 1969) and established its
age at about eight million years.
Subsequent work in the same area (Turner and others, 1980) pro-
vided confirmation of the age of the Homerian Stage-Clamgulchian
Stage boundary, as well as additional ages for younger parts of
the section in Kachemak Bay. These results are summarized in
Figures 1 and 2, taken from Turner and others, 1980. An age of
about 16 million years for an older (Seldovian Stage) coal was
obtained just northwest of Cook Inlet, along the Chui tna River.
This, combined with a previously determined age for a coal near
the base of the Homerian Stage type section, suggest an age for
the Homerian Stage-Seldovian Stage boundary between about 11 and
16 million years. This is in good agreement with Wolfe's ( 1980)
estimate of 13-14 million years for this boundary.
307
METRES ZIRCON APATITE ~80VE SAMPLE PLAGIOCLASE HORNBLENDE FISSION-TRACK FISSION-TRACK 8~SE NUMBER t<-Ar AGE t<-Ar AGE AGE AGE
DT75-20B 4 2tl4 4 H0.5
0175-207 * 4 9t08
~ DT75-206 * 5 6t0.9
;:: 6-25-77·1 69 tO 5 ~
~' * ... ~ .,
:>:_ * "' ... * 54t06 ...
"' 7.2 t0.6
'% ..
i
~
"' .,
8.1t0B 8.1 tiC :>: <
-' 72t I 3 u
8.1 t07 76t 0 7
1i ~ 8.8 tO 9 12.9t5.4 ;= DT75-203 8.1 ti.O
::,
300
~ >-
1-200
z
<C
~ 100 ...
:>;:
0 !7-24-73-11 4Ut0.7 8.8ti.O r
rigmc 1. Estimated stratigraphic positions of llatell samples,
ho!llerian type section-Ciamgukhian reference section, northwest
more of Kachrmak Bay. Base of llomerian section taken as crest of
ar:t1cline exposed in sea cliff about 2.1 km cast of Fritz Creek (J. A.
\-iolfc, 1975. written commun.). Letters indicate named coal bells of
barnes and Cobb ( 1959). Ages for boxed sample numbers reported
by friplehorn and others (1977). Asterisks indicate ages believed to
be too old owing to detrital contamination. Ages in millions of years
calculatcll with revised decay constants rccommenllell by lUGS Sub-
commission on <;eochronology (Steiger and Jager, 1977).
METRES ZIRCON ABOVE
BASE SAMPLE PLAGIOCLASE HORNBLENOE FISSION-TRACK
NUMBER K-Ar AGE K-ArAGE AGE
§ 66 ±0.7
1-
'-' w .,
DT75-201 5.9±0 5 50 ~0.8
!r-13-73·§1 ]1 8.8±0.5 7.4:t07
!r-13-73-~ 7 0±07
8.9±10 8.5± 10
Figure 2. Estimated stratigraphic positions of dated samples,
Clamgulchian type section, soutlu:ast shore of Cook Inlet. Base of
scL·tion Ia ken at ll:!ppy Creek. Ages for boxed sample numbers have
lwen rrportclltm·viuusly hy Triplehorn and others ( 1977). Ages in
millions of years calculatcll with rcvisellllecay constants n•commenllcll
by ll·(;S Subcommission on Gcochronolo~'}' (Steiger anJ .lager, J 977).
Tht' ~tratigraphic positions ofsampks 7·13-73-fl anll 7-13·73-9 may be
rL'IL'rsell o11ing to slruclllral complc.,ities (Triplehorn anll others, 1977).
308
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
To further expand the geographic and stratigraphic ranges of dated
samples, we collected in earlier Tertiary rocks of western Wash-
ington, south of Seattle. The results of this work are still in
preparation, but it is clear that volcanic ashes are also rela-
tively common here and that some can be dated successfully. Our
best results come from the Centralia coal mine, where six samples
gave K-Ar ages of plagioclase near 40 million years with remarkab-
ly little scatter.
During 1979-1981, the first author examined a number of volcanic
ash partings in coals of the Rocky Mountain region. Again, it
seems clear that such partings are not uncommon but most geolo-
gists are unaware of their existence. The common feldspar here is
sanidine rather than the plagioclase previously seen in Alaska and
western Washington. A small number of samples have been dated,
and they are from widely scattered localities in Colorado, New
Mexico and Utah. The ages range from the Tertiary to Late Creta-
ceous. None of this work has yet been published.
Future Plans
The existence of volcanic ash partings in Cretaceous and Tertiary
coals of western North America is now well established. In sev-
eral cases they are so abundant as to render the coal valueless;
more often they are sparsely distributed. A small percentage of
these partings are datable by K-Ar and fission track methods.
Having established the presence and datability of volcanic ash
partings in western coals, we can turn to some more specific
objectives. A high priority is placed on the study of the Creta-
ceous coals of northwest Alaska. This is in a remote area and,
relative to the magnitude of the resource, not wellknown. Two
things are clear. however: ( 1) the resource is very large, and
(2) delivering it to market at a profit will not be easy. Perhaps
study of volcanic ash partings in these coals, including but not
restricted to radiometric dating, can aid in understanding their
correlations, continuity and lateral variability, a necessary
basis for national development.
Elsewhere in Alaska we need more data. Only in part of the Kenai
Peninsula are their sufficient dates to permit a confident inter-
pretation of a vertical sequence. Isolated radiometric ages from
other localities need to be supported by addi tiona! data. Some
areas, such as northwest Alaska, can be selected as having abun-
dant volcanic ash partings and high potential for successful
study. Most areas, however, apparently contain few datable part-
ings in their coals, so a radiometric chronology will develop
slowly, if at all.
Similarly, there is little justification for seeking more isolated
datable partings in western U.S. coals just to further prove their
wide stratigraphic and geographic distribution. Next we need to
309
study a few specific coal beds and coal basins in detail to eval-
uate the resolution of volcanic ash partings for local, intrabasin
stratigraphic problems. One area in Utah is already under inves-
tigation and others in Colorado and Montana have tentatively been
selected.
The paucity of volcanic ash partings in eastern U.S. coals of
Carboniferous age is established. Only one such parting is known,
from the Hazard #4 coal of Kentucky (Seiders, 1966; Bohor and
Triplehorn, 1981). Contemporaneous European coals contain numer-
ous tonsteins (kaolinitic clay partings) that have been studied in
great detail. The senior author hopes to make a further search
for such partings in eastern coals: where one has been found a
few more may exist.
Acknowledgements
Early phases of this work were made possible by financial support
from the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys,
Union Oil Company and Atlantic Richfield Oil Company. More re-
cently it has been supported by the Earth Sciences Division of the
National Science Foundation (Grants EAR 76-8425, EAR 76-8425J A01
and EAR 79-22041 ).
References
Barnes, F.F. and Cobb, E.H., 1959, Geology and coal resources of
the Homer district, Kenai coal field, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Sur.
Bull. 1 058-F, p. 217-260.
Bohor, B. and Triplehorn, D., 1981, Volcanic origin of the flint
clay parting in the Hazard #4 (Fire Clay) coal bed of Eastern
Kentucky, field trip guidebook, Geol. Soc. Am. Ann. Meeting,
Cincinnatti, in press.
Seiders, V.M., 1966, Volcanic origin of flint clay in he Fire Clay
coal bed, Breathitt Formation, Eastern Kentucky: U.S. Geol.
Sur. Prof. Paper 525-D, D52-D54.
Steiger, R.H. and Jager, E., 1977, Subcommission on geochronology:
Convention on the use of decay constants in geo-and cosmochro-
nology, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, v. 36, p. 359-362.
Triplehorn, D.M., 1976, Volcanic ash partings in coals: charac-
teristics and stratigraphic significance: Pacific section,
Amer. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.-Soc. Econ. Paleon. and Mineral., Ann.
meeting, April 1976.
310
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Triplehorn, D.M., Turner, D.L. and Naeser, C.W., 1977, K-Ar and
fissiontrack dating of ash partings in Tertiary coals from the
Kenai Peninsula, Alaska: a radiometric age for the Homerian-
Clamgulchian State boundary, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., v. 88, p.
1156-1160.
Turner, D.L. Triplehorn, D.M., Naeser, C.W. and Wolfe, J.A., 1980,
Radiometric dating of ash partings in Alaskan coal beds and
upper Tertiary paleobotanical stages, Geology, v. 8, p. 92-96.
Wolfe, J.A., 1969, Paleogene floras from the Gulf of Alaska re-
gion: U.S. Geol. Sur. Open File Rept. of 69-323, 114 p.
Wolfe, J.A., 1981, A chronologie framework for the Cenozoic mega-
fossil floras of northwestern North America and its relation to
marine geochronology, in Armentrout, J.M. and McDougall, K.,
~ Pacific Northwest Biostratigraphy, Geol. Soc. America
Memoir.
311
Railroads and coal
Frank H. Jones
The Alaska Railroad. Anchorage
Railroads and coal today go together like the old saying of love
and marriage. It is a real marriage, because in the coal industry
transportation is extremely important--transportation is half of
the coal business. In the transportation industry, rail is the
most efficient mode of moving volumes of coal. Coal continues to
move up as the largest or fastest growing revenue producing
commodity on many railroads. That is a real love affair.
In the first quarter of 1980, railroads moved almost 118 million
tons of coal, a 20% increase over the same period in 1979, and 31%
above the average for the previous nine years. The Department of
Energy estimates that by the year 2000, increased demand for elec-
tricity production in the U.S. that is expected to be supplied
principally by coal fired systems, will require about 2 billion
tons of coal. That would be about three times the annual produc-
tion rate of 1978.
The demand for coal is so widely dispersed across the nation that
the comparatively greater flexibility of rail transportation fa-
vors rail as the transportation mode. The railroads are keeping
pace with the increasing demand for coal. But the task ahead
provides a challenge to the rail industry.
When you consider that the Burlington Northern Railroad--one of
the nation's leading coal transporters--originated less than 19
million tons of coal in 1970, and carried over 80 million tons in
1979, you get a feeling for the challenge ahead.
Burlington Northern's increased coal business is only a start.
The Union Pacific, Santa Fe, L & N, Chessie and many other rail-
roads are all becoming major transporters of coal. The potential
for more business is there, but a number of issues have surfaced
that must be resolved so that the great and vital potential for
railroad services can become a reality.
The issues apply to the practical realities of more nuclear reac-
tors, development work needed to make solar power practicable, the
high cost of converting from petroleum to coal, and the economic
and environmental hurdles blocking the use of coal.
As an example, although the Department of Energy identified 141
candidates for conversion from oil to coal that would burn more
than 45 million tons of coal annually, the Environmental Protec-
312
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tion Agency (EPA) proposed stiffer sulfur dioxide regulations for
the conversion than are required for new coal fired plants.
As a second example, the State of Montana presently levies a
severance tax that amounts to 30 percent of coal's value at the
time it leaves the mine. In 1975 it was only a few cents per ton.
Pressures such as these force everyone to pay strict attention to
their costs and their individual performance.
The issues have to be worked out by the railroads, the utilities,
and the manufacturers of equipment and systems used in the trans-
portation process. The involvement any participant has in the
total process--mining, transporting, or burning of coal--has its
effect on cost and performance factors of coal usage. All in turn
ultimately bear upon the final product--the bill paid by the user
of electricity.
The pressure to keep costs low in transporting coal via rail has
proven to be a challenge. The unit train concept of carrying
large volumes over long distances is a relatively new concept.
The operation of longer hauls to transport coal has led to in-
depth research that has continually improved rail technology to
provide economical transportation. Cars and car components have
undergone extensive testing to improve reliability and extend
useful life. Maintenance-of -way techniques and track structures
have been improved to insure the reliability of a rail delivery
system for coal. The productivity increases that have come about
because of scheduled cycling of rolling stock, maintenance pro-
grams, labor utilization, and decreased handling of coal trains
have kept the cost of rail transportation competitive.
When the track, the cars, the motive power and the unit train
cycles are tuned, the productivity inherent in rail transportation
can carry that coal from the mine to destination at a satisfactory
cost.
What does all this have to do with The Alaska Railroad and Alaska
coal? It gives us a head start in developing our transportation
system, because we are the beneficiaries of other railroads'
experience--over 13 years experience. We can avoid the pitfalls,
delays and problems encountered in the early development of coal
unit train transportation. We can take advantage of the technolo-
gy developed and apply the latest in the state-of-the-art when
Alaska's coal is developed further.
Alaskan coal will soon become an important part of the export
market. Export coal is expected to increase from 65 million tons
last year to over 90 million tons by 1990. The Pacific Rim na-
tions of Japan, Korea and Taiwan have been showing increasing
interest in Alaska coal to meet their energy demands.
When large volumes of coal begin to be transported on The Alaska
Railroad we will be able to implement a cost efficient, reliable
313
transportation system. Let's take a quick look at what could be a
typical unit train delivery system, either to a large coal fired
plant, such as has been discussed for construction in the Fair-
banks area, or a transloading point for export coal.
Begin with the coal being loaded into cars moving at one-and-a-
half mph through an in motion flood loading tipple. The loading
is controlled to uniform weight, scaled as it is loaded, and data
concerning the car is sent to a computer for record, billing,
maintenance scheduling, mileage reporting and other uses.
The car being loaded would be the latest design, either a low
center-of-gravity, bathtub gondola with rotary couplers, or a
rapid discharging, bottom dump hopper. The unit train would be
pulled by a locomotive equipped with a "creep" device to control
speed as it passes under the loading chute. Most likely there
would be locomotives on the head end of the train, and a radio
controlled "slave" consist in midtrain to provide smoother train
handling, more tractive effort, and reduced drawbar stress.
Once loaded, the unit train would travel from the loading point to
destination over trackage that has been upgraded and designed to
accomodate the even axle loads of unit trains. One important
lesson learned by railroads is the importance of the track struc-
ture and the effects long, heavy unit trains have on track. From
this experience, we would restrict loading to 75 net tons per car
to conform with our track standards, and to reduce the maintenance
required by heavy use of unit trains.
At destination, the unit train would either pass through a rotary
dumping facility or over an elevated trestle to dump the coal.
The coal would be unloaded within several hours and the empty cars
would begin their return trip for another load and repeat of the
cycle.
The economics and productivity of unit train operations are a
major factor in making Alaska coal competitive and in helping to
hold down the cost of the final product, the bill paid by the
user. Achieving productivity can dispel the thought of seeking
alternate sources of energy, and increase the use of our great
coal reserves.
314
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Far Eastern export market for Alaskan coal
Steve Perles
Legislative Assistant to Senator Ted Stevens. R-Aiaska
On behalf of Senator Stevens, I'd like to thank the Coal Confer-
ence and the University for extending us an invitation to partici-
pate in the Conference. It is indeed a pleasure for me to come
back here to the University of Alaska, particularly as a graduate,
to speak at various forums on different resources issues.
Earlier, Dean Beistline referred to those who are, as he put it,
"out of the profession". I am one who is very much out of the
coal profession. I'm Senator Stevens' chief legislative assist-
ant. Most of what I do is legislative drafting, and also a lot of
international trade work for Senator Stevens, which because of
Alaska's geographic proximity focuses on the Pacific Rim.
I've had the good fortune of being a regular traveller to the Far
East. I suspect I have made more trips to the Far East than any
other present staff member of the House of Representatives or the
United States Senate, or any member of that body. I go back and
forth on the order of perhaps every seven, eight or nine months.
Last April, I made a trip to talk to some of our friends in Japan
about the potential utilization of Alaskan coal. The principal
reason I went was to see my friend, Mr. Nakabayashi, and we had a
very productive set of discussions. I consider him to be one of
the world's leading experts on the potential use of coal in the
Far East. In many ways it's a very humbling experience for me to
participate on the same panel with him.
As a watcher of Japan and other Far Eastern countries, it's my
impression that Japan is presently on the verge of the greatest
crisis it has seen in the postwar period. Japan has an energy
problem which dwarfs the energy problem of the United States. It
is virtually 100S dependent upon foreign sources of hydrocarbons
for i t•s energy use. There is a growing nuclear capability, and
some hydropower, but Japan is in a very difficult energy producing
posture. If I were a government official or leader of industry in
Japan, I would have difficulty sleeping peacefully at night.
The potential cataclysm for Japan's economic growth, or at least
sustained economic growth as that nation has come to enjoy it,
is--in my estimation--potentially in serious jeopardy. I believe
that people in Japan understand the precarious situation of Ja-
pan's economy and the difficult situation that dependence on
foreign oil has created. The Electric Power Development Company,
315
for example, has begun what I consider to be a far more aggressive
alternative energy program than we have yet begun in this country.
The first thing that any nation has to do if it's to convert from
dependence on crude oil to coal is to secure a supply. In the
case of Far Eastern countries--and we're talking principally of
markets in Japan, Korea and Taiwan--those nations have three or
perhaps four potential sources for large-scale coal imports. They
may go to the Peoples Republic of China, Australia, the United
States and perhaps Canada. The three greatest markets, however,
are found in China, Australia and the United States.
China as a potential source of supply presents some rather unique
political problems. Countries in the Far East have learned of the
difficulties of basing a source of supply upon countries with
difficult political problems. Japan now faces a crisis because of
its dependence on Middle Eastern oil, particularly the oil that
formerly came out of countries such as Iran. I believe that the
Far Eastern countries (Japan, Korea and Taiwan) will find China to
be a less than desirable source of supply for the long-term.
Australia is a potential source of supply with very large coal
reserves, but Australia also has very serious labor problems in
its coal fields. It's also farther away from markets in the Far
East than Alaskan coal is. Ultimately, I think the political
considerations and the economic considerations will steer Far
Eastern countries into the Alaskan coal industry.
If I dare predict, I would say by the year 2000 there are going to
be thousands of people in the State of Alaska employed in the coal
industry, and it will be an industry that is primarily an export
market to the Far East.
What the Japanese must do now is engage in a program which is very
much analogous to the coal back out program which we are now
looking at in the United States. That means they must figure out
how to reduce their oil dependence through the importation of
coal, as well as by an increase in nuclear power. Japan has
serious problems in the importation of coal which we don't find in
this country, and that is distance of transportation. Here, we
will be producing coal, at least from Japan's perspective, rela-
tively close to our domestic use of that coal. In Japan, no
matter where the coal comes from, it is going to have to be
transported by sea for thousands of miles, so that Japan's out-
look, in terms of coal back out, is really geared to technologies,
at least in my impression.
The technologies needed are transportation saving technologies:
from my perspective that means coal/oil mixtures or some kind of
higher coal technologies, such as the methanol production which
Noel is going to talk about. Both of these technologies are
really transportation saving technologies. They provide a way of
getting coal or coal products from a site, on board a ship of some
sort, and transported many thousands of miles at a reasonable
economic cost. Noel's going to talk about methanol in his speech
316
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
in a few minutes; I think we share the same feelings about trans-
portation savings which methanol conversion can provide for Far
Eastern markets.
Coal/oil mixtures are an interesting technology, the one which the
govenment of Japan seems to be investigating in earnest, and one
which I believe they will come to utilize within the next five to
six years. Coal/oil mixtures are essentially the pulverization of
coal, the dewatering of that coal, and then the creation of a
suspension of coal in a heavy residual fuel such as heavy oil U 6,
i.e. a slurry.
The advantage of a system like that is that a fine coal/oil mix-
ture such as the one just described can be fired in a converted,
conventional oil firing power plant. It is a liquid fuel, not a
solid fuel. That helps on the back out problem which countries
sucn as Japan and the Far East face. It also means that the fuel
can be transported at lower cost because it can be handled as a
liquid during the transportation phase.
Bunker fuel or heavy oil U 6 has a very high flash point, so using
a coal/oil mixture many of the serious transportation problems and
safety problems that are related to dust explosion are eliminated.
Because the coal is dewatered on site, you're not shipping water
great distances.
Now we in Alaska are really in a unique position of all of the
potential sources of coal around the world for Far Eastern mar-
kets, to provide coal/oil mixtures. We have an abundance of coal,
an abundance of oil, and we are going to be building a refinery in
Valdez, called Alpetco. One of the byproducts of cracking oil is
a residual fuel. In this country we crack oil because we wish to
consume the light end of the barrel. In fact, we are going to
have a surplus of heavy oil in this country through the year 1990;
many people project that we will have a growing surplus of resid-
ual fuel.
It's quite possible that a rather handsome marriage of resources
will occur here in the United States. We may find ourselves with
an abundance of coal to export and a surplus of residual fuel, and
we can mix those together in a coal/oil mixture. This export
product will be of great use in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, and will
substantially contribute to reduction of the United States' bal-
ance-of-trade deficit. Alaska can become one of the leading
producers of coal and coal/oil mixtures and methanol for use in
the Far East.
Mr. Nakabayashi, as I mentioned earlier, is truly the expert in
this field. When I was hosted in Japan by the Electric Power
Development Company, I had the good fortune of going to the Mitsu-
bishi Heavy Industries Plant where coal/oil mixture research is
done. I came away convinced that coal/oil mixture technology is
real. The government of Japan believes that it can use coal/oil
mixture technology both in public utilities and industrial boil-
317
ers. There is an enormous market potential which can be filled by
the State of Alaska since we have the raw materials.
It is in the best security interests of the United States and of
free countries in Asia to engage in joint technological exchanges,
which will result in commercial coal sales between Alaska and the
Far East. The sales may be as coal transported on the Alaska
Railroad and sold in bulk in Japan, or be as coal/oil mixtures, or
be as methanol. Dependence by free world countries on Middle
Eastern sources of oil leaves us in a very precarious position,
and our allies in the Far East are in a far worse and more precar-
ious position than we are here in the United States. The develop-
ment of joint technology programs leading to joint commercial
development is in the best security interests of both countries.
Senator Stevens would like to see these kinds of programs go
forward, and he hopes in the future he'll be able to work with the
Alaskan industry and with our good friends from the Far East to
develop these programs. He certainly looks forward to the day
when we will see a real commercial exchange between the Far East-
ern countries, sucn as Japan, and our Alaskan coal industry.
Again on behalf of Senator Stevens, thank you.
318
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The feasibility of Beluga coal as fuel for the
power industries of Japan
Y. Nakabayashi
Electric Power Development Company, Ltd., Japan
Necessity of Studying Subbituminous and Brown Coals as Power-
Generating Fuel in Japan
With the 1980's setting in there is a strong tendency towara use
of coal, the so-called "Coal Fever". This tendency is noted not
only in Japan, but all over the world.
At this moment only bituminous coal is being imported to Japan,
and it is therefore expected that sooner or later the supply and
demand situation of coal will make it difficult to secure long-
term stability of price and supply (Fig. 1 ).
Subbituminous and brown coals account for a considerable portion
of the wor !d's coal reserves. However, because of such problems
as high moisture content, low calorific value and spontaneous com-
bustion, these types of coal are currently used for very limited
purposes, e.g., as a fuel for thermal power generation in the coal
mining area. Because of their geological origin, subbituminous
and brown coals are deposited abundantly in one area, and they
often permit open cut mining. These features allow us to antici-
pate a low mining cost (Figure 2).
For these reasons, it is becoming important in Japan to promote
technological development concerning transportation and storage of
subbituminous coal.
Feasibility of Beluga Coal as Fuel for Power Generation in Japan
As stated above, we intend to use subbituminous and brown coals as
fuel for power generation in Japan through technological develop-
ment efforts in the future. Beluga coal is a promising candidate
to achieve this goal, and we are now studying it, with the follow-
ing quantitative data:
Points considered tQ ~ advantages fQr Japan
a. Relatively short distance between Alaska and Japan (oce-
anic transportation).
319
Fig. 1 Fundamenta I Problem on Importing Coo I to Japan
-Bituminous Coo I-
(a) Increasing Demand for Bituminous Coo I
(b) Difficulty of Stable Supply
(c) Increasing Cost
Fig. 2 Comparison of Coal Characteristics
Usual Coal Sub-Bituminous Brown Coal
Imported
Heat Value 6.000-7. 000 3.500 -4. 500 I. 500 -2.000 ( Kcal/ Kg)
Total Moisture 5 -15 20 .... 30 60-70 (%)
Ash 5 -15 8-20 1-5
(%)
320
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b. Short distance of inland transportation; this is espe-
cially advantageous when future inflation is taken into
account.
c. Large amount of reserves.
d. Open cut mining is expected to be possible.
e. Year round ports are anticipated despite the cold weather
in winter.
f. Low sulfur content.
Demerits Q( Beluga ~
a. Low heating value
b. High moisture content
c. Relatively high ash content
d. Possibility of spontaneous combustion
e. Cold weather in winter
3,500-4,500 Kcal/kg
20-30%
8-20%
If these demerits are overcome by technological development, the
import of Beluga coal for use as fuel in Japan will become possi-
ble in the future. With this in mind, we are currently promoting
the technological development stated below:
The achievement of this goal will not only benefit Japan, but
will also contribute to the economic and social development of
the State of Alaska, and the improvement of the Japan-U.S. eco-
nomic relations.
Present Status of Research and Developaeut on Beluga Coal in Japan
As stated above, technological development is a key to using
subbituminous and brown coals as Japan's imported fuel. Technolo-
gical development is basically classified into the following cate-
gories:
1. Development of dewatering technology which is safe and relia-
ble, and which gives the highest economic advantages.
2. Development of technology allowing the transportation of large
quantities of coal, and storage for a long period without
spontaneous combustion in any stage of the process. Technolo-
gy to prevent spontaneous combustion is classified into the
four following types: sealing technology, oil coating on coal
321
surface (Coarse COM), coal water slurry technology and coal
oil mixture technology (Fine COM).
3. Combustion technology.
Schedule of Research and Developaent
Since 1976, the Electric Power Development Company (EPDC) has been
promoting technological development for the utilization of subbi-
tuminous and brown coals according to the schedule shown in Figure
3. Two items are under development; one is brown coal produced in
Victoria, Australia and the other is Beluga coal from Alaska.
The following cases are expected to occur when importing Beluga
coal to Japan; for each case a feasibility study is carried out,
followed by the development of necessary technology (Figure 4).
So far, the dewatered (dehydrated) coal technology for Cases 1 and
2; tests to prevent spontaneous combustion; and coal oil mixture
(COM) pilot plant tests for Case 4 have been finished.
Fine COM Technology
Here I would like to give a brief explanation on the fine coal oil
mixture (COM) and coarse COM technology.
As snown in Figure 5, the fine COM technology comprises mixing 50~
of 116 oil and 50~ of pulverized coal of about 70~ minus 200 mesh
at a COM preparation plant. The mixture is kept liquid, without
separation of the solid from the liquid, for a long period so it
can be handled in a liquid form, as with fuel oil. The large
portion of fuel oil poses a problem, and in this respect Fine COM
is more su~ taole as a fuel for converting existing power plants
operating on fuel oil than for newly constructed power plants.
The U.S. and Japan are leading other nations in the technological
development of fine COM; each of the two is now at the stage of a
demonstration test, having finished both bench scale and pilot
plant tests. In Japan, the Electric Power Development Company is
the prime mover of this program; we have carried out tests on COM
manufacture, transportation, storage and combustion. Figure 6
shows the research and development schedule for fine COM. The
350MW oil design test, in particular, is attracting world-wide
attention.
Although the fine coal oil mixture (COM) technology offers an
effective means of overcoming Beluga coal's spontaneous combusti-
bility, we do not currently consider import1ng fine COM using
Beluga coal, since producing fine COM in Alaska for Japan would
result in the import of large amounts of oil. There is the possi-
bility that imported Beluga coal will be used as a raw material at
322
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fig. 3 R 8 D Schedule of Brown Coal Utilization
~ 1976 '77 '78 '79 s '80 ' 8 I '82 ' 83 Remarks
Actua I
Technlca I f-----__ _....__ ------------------------------~ Survey
Forecast
Feasibility Pre Fis
Study
Fundamental
Lobo. Test
Dewatering 430fx4 unit
at AKEHARi P;s Pi lot Test
Transportation At AKASHI Wo ks
Storage 8 of K~ I
Combustion
Test D£~ !I!L -t-£.0.!'.!.1 '!<a Lo_!l_ Test t----
Demonstration
Test
Fig. 4 Base Case
ROM Coal Dewatered Remarks Coal
1 I il • I Pilot Test was Sealino System Case 1 Case Finished
Coarse COM 2 2'*
Coo I Water 3 31 Not Recommended in
Slurry Case of Beluga Coo I
Fine COM 4 4' * Only Application to
West Coast In USA
323
Fig.S Fine COM Flow
_!::;_~
Cool Storog:J
~
COM COM
Pulverizer ~ Stabilizing ~Storage----.,
Mixer Device Tank
COM PreparatIon
COM Consumption
Sea
trans
To Burner ..,....._ COM • I ~~ anker
Storage
Tank
Fig. 6 R S D Schedule of F COM
~ 19 76 '77 '78 '79 'eo ' 81 I 82 • 83 s
Technica I --Survey ---
Feasibility
Study
Fund a menta I
Tests
Pi lot Plant
Tests
Demonstration 250Mw Coal Fired ----Boiler Tests
• 84
(At TAKEHARA 350"'w Oi I Fired ------------p /S } Boiler
324
I
I
I
I
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fine COM plants in Japan. When fine COM is produced in Alaska, we
presume that the product will have to be destined for the west
coast of the U.S. and Hawaii. The details of the fine COM techno-
logy are published in the reports of the 1st and 2nd Symposia,
sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of Energy.
Coarse 0014 Technology
Figure 7 shows the idea of the coarse coal oil mixture (COM)
technology. Coarse COM features the improvement to serve as fuel
for newly constructed power plants. It permits pipeline transpor-
tation in the form of oil slurry when unloaded from ships in
Japanese ports. The fuel can be deoiled to reduce the oil content
at the time of combustion. With these features, coarse COM is
produced to have a particle size distribution of several milli-
meters.
This system prevents spontaneous combustion by coating with a
small amount of oil before shipping from Alaska; it is a promising
technology for Beluga coal. As with the fine COM technology, it
has passed the stage of pilot plant test.
Dewatering Technology
Dewatering technology (dehydration) is a key to the effective
utilization of subbituminous and brown coals. After comparative
study on the fluid bed dryer, roto louvre dryer, rotating steam
drum dryer and other dryers to be used for Australia's Victoria
brown coal, the Electric Power Development Company decided on the
D-K process (Fig. 8). The merits of this process are:
1. Batch type steam heating.
2. Nonevaporation dewatering process.
3. Simple system.
4. Dewatered coal is in a lump form, thus making handling easy
and minimizing dusting.
5. The components of the ash dissolve to some extent, thus im-
proving the ash's properties.
6. Considerable improvement of the Hardgrove Grindability Index
(HGI).
1. Although a relatively high installation cost is required, the
nonevaporating process promises a high dewatering thermal ef-
ficiency and low dewatering cost.
.325
Fig. 7 Coarse C 0 M F I ow
Coal Stora<le Yard
Coarse
Particle
Crusher Bulk Carrier
=&eslgned
to burner
Condense
Tank
Co<ll Production
C. COM
Coarse COM Consumption
Storage • ?
Tank
1 ....., __ _, Re-slurrying
Oil l
make up
Fig. 8 O-K Process Flow
Raw Coal
Re -Siurryln<l
Oil
"'\::Z-Raw Coal hopper
~ ~--shoot team
Dewatered CoaL-'V'
hopper
326
Sea
Transportation
To Waste
Water Treatment
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A 430 L/unit x 4 capacity pilot plant was established in the site
of the Takehara Thermal Power Station of the Electric Power Devel-
opment Company, and 200 tons of Victorian brown coal was de-
watered. After that, a dewatering test was carried out on 150
tons of Beluga coal in 1979. The major results of the test are as
follows:
1. The best rate of dewatering is from 25% to 8%.
2. The thermal efficiency of 0.8 kg steam/kg H2o is higher than
those of other processes.
3. Almost all of the heat energy of the raw coal remains in the
dewatered coal. The fuel ratio (F.C/V.M) however, changes
from 0.8 to 0.9. This means that carbonization progresses in
the D-K process.
4. The dewatered coal has higher spontaneous combustibility than
the raw coal. This is not the case with Victorian brown coal.
5. The resulting water requires wastewater treatment.
A main problem to be solved in the future is to carry out a de-
tailed study as to whether the D-K process or the fluid bed dryer
is better for Beluga coal.
Spontaneous Canbustion Test
A 10m3 capacity test silo and other facilities were installed at
the Akashi Research Laboratory of Kawasaki Heavy Industries, a
manufacturer carrying on joint research with the Electric Power
Development Company, and there have been tests since 1979 on the
spontaneous combustibility of dewatered Victorian brown coal,
dewatered Beluga coal and raw Beluga Coal (Figure 9). Main re-
sults obtained so far are as follows:
1. Dewatered Beluga coal may show very high spontaneous combusti-
bility, as do many others; a test carried out under a natural
ventilation condition in a 10m3 test silo has confirmed oxida-
tion heating from 10°C to 70°C in one week.
2. The enclosed storage system offers an effective countermeasure
for spontaneous combustion, but the oxygen concentration with-
in the system must be kept at 5% or less.
3. Spontaneous combustion can be controlled by using 3-5% of
coating oil (with respect to the coal).
A problem to be solved in the future is to study methods of
outdoor storage of coal and to determine the best method of bulk
transportation and storage (raw coal 1000t or more).
327
V)
Q)
.....
0
c u.. -CJ)
Q)
1--
c
0 -CJ)
::J
.0
E
0 u
(f)
::J
0
Q)
c
0 -c
0 a..
CJ)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Canbustion Technology
From 1979 to 1980, four heavy industrial companies, carrying on
joint research with the Electric Power Development Company, have
been performing fine COM combustion tests on Beluga coal, using
the combustion test furnaces (capacity 1 -3t/hr) which each of
the manufacturers has in its research laboratory or factory.
Main results of the tests are as follows:
1. The flame has a shape similar to that encountered in the com-
bustion of fuel oil.
2. The burner t1p can be operated continuously over 5,000 hours
by using friction resistant materials and hardening proces-
sing.
3. The atomizer nozzle diameter must be set to several milimeters
because of the problem of clogging with pulverized coal.
4. The amount of unburned components of the ash can be adjusted
to a level similar to that in pulverized coal combustion.
Determination of the best process for Beluga coal pulverizing, and
determining the best combustion systems are problems requiring
future testing.
Future Problems and Plans
Figure 10 shows major areas of study requiring future solution and
a 6-year schedule. Carrying out research and development, while
in parallel promoting feasibility studies, we expect to become
possible Beluga coal importers to Japan after 1985.
329
w w
0
~ s
Dewatering
Demo. Tests
Transportation
8 Storage Demo.
Tests
Pulverizing a
Combustion Test~
Feasl bi llty
Study
Flg.10 Future Tasks S Schedule
19 80 ' 8 I ' 82 ' 83 ' 84 ' 85 Remarks
~e.=!_9!:~_ __ -+-~~n.!r~~t_I~n __ Test ----
D_!si~_a Tests .......
Construct ion
Des_!_g n _a Pi I ot Demo Practical
Construction Tests Tests application
-------------------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Industrial fuel gas demonstration plant
Robert W. Gray
Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division, Tennessee
Abstract
The Memphis Light, Gas and Water Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant
concept comprises an installation engineered to generate and dis-
tribute industrial fuel gas of approximately 300 Btu/SCF. From
3,158 tons of coal per day, the plant will produce 175 million
cubic feet of industrial fuel gas daily, the equivalent of 50
billion Btus, or equivalent of 40 million cubic feet Rer day of
natural gas. The Institute of Gas Technology's U-GAS Process,
which utilizes a fluidized bed gasifier, will be used to gasify
the coal and make a medium Btu fuel gas.
The overall project is being conducted in three phases over an 8
year period. An initial 26 month Phase I includes process stud-
ies, development work, definitive design and project cost esti-
mates. Final engineering design and construction will be accom-
plished in Phase II, spanning 48 months. Plant operations and
testing in Phase III will be conducted over a 20 month period.
The plant will then be operated as a commercial unit for 20 years.
The estimated cost of the project is $441 million (1979 dollars)
of which Phases II and III will be cost shared. Memphis Light,
Gas and Water's share of the cost will be financed with revenue
bonds. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has recently begun
negotiations for Phase II Final Design and Construction, and Phase
III Operations.
On February 22, 1980, DOE approved Phase II Final Design and
Construction, and Phase II Operations. Negotiations have been
completed and the contract was signed on May 21, 1980, in Memphis.
Introduction
The constantly changing world conditions clearly indicate that
there is a need for new energy sources which are not affected by
world political conditions. New and dependable energy sources are
especially needed for industrial growth. One of the many new
sources that is most plentiful is from coal gasification. Unlike
some other substitute fuels, coal gasification has a very large
source of raw material. It is clean burning and environmentally
acceptable.
331
At the present time coal gas is not being produced in amounts
large enough to contribute much to our energy requirements. Coal
gasification has made some tremendous ste~s in the last few
months. This paper will discuss the U-GAS Process and coal
gasification.
Memphis, Tennessee has an energy shortage. The Memphis Light, Gas
and Water Division's Coal Gasification Plant is a joint effort on
the part of a utility, the U.S. Government and industry to produce
a medium Btu gas from coal. The plant will add a new dimension to
the future of energy in Memphis.
The Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division has the responsibility
of supplying electric, gas and water utilities to the customers of
Shelby County. Tennessee
In 1970, Memphis residences and industry used 93.4 billion cubic
feet of gas per year, as shown in Figure 1. Curtailment from the
pipeline supplier, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation, decreased
the supply to 62 billion cubic feet by 1977. Approximately 70
billion cubic feet of gas is projected for the Memphis allotment
in 1980. When natural gas supply becomes tight and supplies are
curtailed, industrial customers are the first to be curtailed
under federal guidelines. This proposed Industrial Fuel Gas De-
monstration (IFG) Plant is to provide a substitute fuel for these
industries.
The plant will make the equivalent of 50 million cubic feet of
natural gas per day from 3,158 tons of coal. The medium Btu gas
will consist mainly of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon diox-
ide and will have an estimated heating value of 300 Btu/SCF.
Construction and operation of the plant will advance the state of
the art of producing industrial fuel gas from coal; permit de-
tailed evaluation of the costs and benefits of the expanded tech-
nology; and allow identification of environmental and social im-
pacts, and regional and national economic benefits.
The Industrial Fuel Gas Plant and distribution system will supply
industrial customers in the Shelby County area. The facility
would also provide energy for Memphis to offer to new industry--
energy that most other cities in the country do not have.
The facility would provide enough fuel to meet the needs of eight
more large employers such as Firestone Tire and Rubber Company,
which employs 2, 800 people.
Consequences of Delay
Few potential Industrial Fuel Gas (IFG) customers in the Memphis
area have the physical, economic and/or technical capability to
convert directly to coal for their energy needs. In addition,
332
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
-a::
4 w >-......
~ w
LL.
()
ffi
:J
()
z g
..J
..J
ffi
w
2
:J
..J
~
~
(!)
120 100°/o
~tt.~t) ~t) t)~
110 E.S~\~tt.~
100
UNSATISFIED
75°/o 90 DEMAND c z
ct
:E 80 w c
0
70 CD en
1L.
60 50°/o 0
~ z
lLI 50 () a::
lLI a..
40
30 25°/0
20 -ACTUAL
---PROJECTED
10
0 0
CD
FIGURE I MLGW NATURAL GAS SUPPLY AND ESTIMATED DEMAND
333
there are regulatory constraints which pose further problems to
potential coal users. These potential customers will continue to
rely on natural gas and fuel oil for their operations, unless
there is a suitable alternative that can provide a reliable, long-
term energy supply. Reliance on either natural gas that is
subject to potential availability and curtailment problems over
the long-term, or on fuel oil--much of which comes from imported
sources--poses supply concerns for the future. Alternative energy
resources for Memphis and for the United States must clearly be
developed and proven. Failure to expeditiously provide IFG in the
Memphis area will, therefore, result in greater fuel oil use. the
possible suspension of business activity by some industries in the
event of curtailments. or the lack of reliable energy availability
for stimulating the growth of the Memphis economy.
Participants and Functions
Qrganization
DOE -The Department of Energy issued a request for proposals on
Low Btu Fuel Gas demonstration plant projects. The response to
this request included six proposals, of which Memphis Light, Gas
and Water (MLGW) and W.R. Grace Company were selected to enter
into separate negotiations for an Industrial Fuel Gas Plant with
DOE. The Department proposed to cost share one of these projects
in hopes of providing supplemental energy for the United States.
MLGW has been selected to construct and operate an Industrial Fuel
Gas Plant.
MLGW -The Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division is a municipal
utility that distributes electric, gas and water to Shelby County,
Tennessee. MLGW is the prime contractor for the Industrial Fuel
Gas Plant to be located in Memphis, Tennessee as shown in the
organizational chart in Figure 2.
FWEC -Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation in Livingston, New Jersey
is the architect, engineer and construction manager. FWEC is an
internationally recognized corporation that has large engineering
projects all over the world.
IGT -The Institute of Gas Technology in Chicago, Illinois is the
developer of the U-GasR Process. IGT is an independent not-for-
profit educational and research organization. Test results have
been obtained from a pilot plant in Chicago.
DRC -Delta Refining Company in Memphis, Tennessee is an oil
refining company that will provide operations and safety experi-
ence. DRC will also be a customer of the Industrial Fuel Gas
Plant.
EIA -Energy Impact Associates, Inc. in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
did the Environmental Report for the project. EIA is a subcon-
334
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tractor to Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. Memphis State Uni-
versity and Ramcon assisted in the collection and analysis of the
environmental data.
ORNL -Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee has
prepared the preliminary draft Environmental Impact Statement and
will be writing the final statement for the Department of Energy.
DOE
MLGW
I I
FWEC IGT DRC
FIG. 2 ORGANIZATION CHART
Project Plan and Schedule
The project is divided into three phases, which are shown in Table
1. Phase I Conceptual Design lasted 26 months and the cost was
$11.0 million, which was 100$ funded by the Department of Energy.
Phase II Final Engineering Design and Construction of the plant is
to be completed in 48 months at an estimated cost of $450 million.
Phase III Operations and Testing will be conducted for 20 months
at an estimated cost of $80 million. The total project is sched-
uled to be completed in 94 months at an estimated cost of $541
million (1979 dollars). Phases II and III will be cost shared by
the Department of Energy and Memphis Light. Gas and Water. Table
2 lists the Phase I tasks.
Plant Location
The Industrial Fuel Gas Plant is to be located in Memphis, Tennes-
see at a site shown in Figure 3.
The location of the plant will be adjacent to the Tennessee Valley
Authority's Allen Steam Generating Plant, south of President's
Island and near the Mississippi River port facilities and indus-
trial parks.
335
PfiiESIDENTS ISL.~NO
If \. ,,,
I•ICFIIfR
81
lttiCF!Hif.
SYAfi(XS
112&
MCI!HR
0 '-CAD POINTS ANO JUNCTIONS
C] LENGTH IN AlllfS BETWEEN
LOAD POINTS ANO JUNCTIONS
RNERPOIH
IHOUS TRIAL.
Of VEl ()I>UENT
FIG· 3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
Mains will be installed to economically serve the customers who
sign contracts. Since the fuel gas has a lower Btu measurement
and cannot normally be mixed with natural gas in present gas
mains, a separate gas distribution system must be installed to
carry the fuel gas to industrial customers.
Project Status
Successful tests ~ave been conducted at the Institute of Gas
Technology's U-GAS Pilot Plant in Chicago. These tests have
generated sufficient data to allow adequate design work for the
commercial plant. Much design data has been obtained for the
Demonstration Plant, but additional tests are needed for more
detailed data.
All of the items in Phase I tasks, which are listed in Table 2,
have been completed. The conceptual design for the commercial
plant, the demonstration process design and the demonstration
336
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PHASE DESCRIPTION
I Design
II Construction
III Operation
Task I
Task II
Task III
Task IV
Task V
Task VI
Task VII
Task VIII
Task IX
Task X
Task XI
TABLE 1 -PHASES OF PROJECT
COST
MILLIONS
$
11
450
80
541
GOV.
FINANCING
MILLIONS $
11
441
0
451
TABLE 2 -PHASE I TASKS
GOV.
%
100
98
0
83
MLGW
FIN.
0
9
80
89
Conceptual Design and Evaluation of Commercial
Plant
Demonstration Plant Process Design
Demonstration Plant Process and Mechanical
Design Package
Demonstration Plant Evaluation and Selection
Demonstration Plant Environmental Analysis
Materials, Agreements and Licenses for the
Demonstration Plant
Planning for Final Design, Construction and
Operation
Economic Assessment
Technical Support
Long Lead Time Items
Program Management
:J37
MLGW
%
0
2
100
17
TIME
26 Mo.
48 Mo.
20 Mo.
94 Mo.
plant mechanical design are deliverables that have been submitted
to the Department of Energy.
Phase I research work on the proposed site and a site selection
has been completed. Memphis Light, Gas and Water owns the pro-
posed site and has worked out a satisfactory arrangement with the
Tennessee Valley Authority on a prior lease agreement.
Environmental
A meeting was held in June, 1979 to determine the scope of the
project, and the issues to be analyzed in depth in the Environ-
mental Impact Statement. All interested agencies and persons were
invited to participate in this scoping meeting, which was con-
ducted by the Department of Energy. With support from the indus-
trial team, the Environmental Report was completed in August 1979
and submitted to the Department of Energy and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) in September, 1979, to be developed into an
Environmental Impact Statement. The preliminary draft of the
Statement has been completed. The ORNL schedule shows the final
Statement will be completed in February, 1981, and a record of
decision in March, 1981. If this schedule is achieved, the ground
breaking could begin in April, 1981. At the present time it
appears the plant design will meet all the environmental regula-
tions, and no major environmental problems are foreseen.
Contract Negotiations
Negotiations have been completed on the prime contract and three
major subcontracts for Phase II and Phase III. Many items had to
be resolved, since this is the first contract that the Department
of Energy has entered into that has a cost sharing arrangement and
payback provisions.
Phase I has been completed at a cost of approximately $11 million.
The plant costs are estimated at $450 million, with an additional
$80 million for 20 months operation and testing. The estimated
cost of the gas for the Demonstration Plant is between $5-6.
Approximately $50 million is available from the Department of
Energy for FY80 funding.
Scbedule
The project is on schedule and has made all the required delivera-
bles to the Department of Energy. If the present schedule is met,
338
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the Memphis Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant will be the
first major synfuels plant on line producing Industrial Fuel Gas
in 1985, as shown on the following schedule.
Phase II and III Schedule
The following dates are on the proposed schedule.
December 1, 1979
December 15, 1979
January 1, 1980
February 22, 1980
May 21, 1980
March, 1981
April, 1981
March, 1984
November, 1985
MLGW to submit Phase I to DOE in Chicago.
Decision by MLGW Board on proceeding into
Phase II.
Submit Phase I package to DOE Washington
with Chicago recommendations.
Decision by DOE Washington to proceed.
Contract signing and begin Phase II Final
Design.
Record of Decision.
Break ground for Phase II construction.
Begin testing and shakedown.
Complete operation and tests on Phase III.
Technical Support Program
U-GAsR Process
The U-GASR Process has been selected by Memphis Light, Gas and
Water and the u.s. Depart~nt of Energy for the demonstration
plant program. The U-GAS Process has been developed by the
Institute of Gas Technology to produce a medium Btu (300 Btu/SCF)
fuel gas from coal in an environmentally acceptable manner.
The Process shown in Figure 4 accomplishes four important func-
tions in a single stage, fluidized bed gas gasifier. It decakes
coal, devolatilizes coal, gasifies coal and agglomerates and sepa-
rates ash from char,
In the process, washed coal (1/4 inch x 0) is dried only to the
extent required for handling purposes. It is pneumatically in-
jected into the gasifier through a lock hopper system. Within the
fluidized bed, coal reacts with steam and oxygen at a temperature
of 1750° to 1900°F. The temperature of the bed depends on the
339
FEED
LOCK-
HOPPER
AIR (OR OXYGEN) __.,..
GASIFIER
AND STEAM .....,._ __ _,
AIR (OR OXYGEN) t-----Ml
AND STEAM
ASH
LOCK-
HOPPER
------~~ASH/~TER
I
I
I
I
---. RAW GAS I
TO
PURl FICA Trot
SECOND-
STAGE I FINES
REMOVAL
®
FIGURE 4. FLow DIAGRAM FoR U-GAs GASIFIER
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 340
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
type of coal feed and is controlled to maintain nonslagging condi-
tions for ash.
The operating pressure of the process depends on the ultimate use
of product gas and may vary between 50 and 350 psi. The pressure
must be optimized for a particular system; for production of an
industrial fuel, a minimum pressure of 80 to 100 psi is desirable.
At the specified conditions, coal is gasified rapidly, producing a
gas mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and a
smaller percent of methane. Because reducing conditions are al-
ways maintained in the bed, nearly all of the sulfur present in
the coal is converted to hydrogen sulfide.
Simultaneously with coal gasification, the ash is agglomerated
into spherical particles and separated from the bed. Part of the
fluidizing gas enters the gasifier through a sloping grid. The
remaining gas flows upward at a high velocity through the ash
agglomerating device, and forms a hot zone within the fluidized
bed. The temperature within the hot zone is greater than at other
locations in the bed. High ash content particles agglomerate
under these conditions and grow into larger and heavier particles.
Agglomerates grow in size until they can be selectively separated
and discharged from the bed into water filled ash hoppers, where
they are withdrawn as a slurry. In this manner, the fluidized bed
achieves the same low level of carbon losses in the discharge ash
that is generally associated with the ash slagging type of gasi-
fiers.
Coal fines elutriated from the fluidized bed are collected in two
external cyclones. Fines from the first cyclone are returned to
the bed, and fines from the second cyclone are returned to the ash
agglomerating hot zone, where they are gasified, agglomerated with
bed ash, and discharged with ash agglomerates. The raw product
gas is significantly free of tar and oils, thus simplifying en-
suing heat recovery and purification steps dictated by the end use
of the product gas.
Pilot Plant Progra.
Most of the U-GASR Process development work has been performed in
a pilot plant which was put into operation in 1974. The pilot
plant is located at test facilities of the Institute of Gas Tech-
nolog~in southwest Chicago; t~ same facilities also contain the
HYGAS pilot plant. The U-GAS plant consists of a gasifier and
all required peripheral equipment, wikh utilities and, _ot~r sup-
port services provided by the HYGAS plant. The U-GAS pilot
plant consists of a drying and screening system, feed storage
silos, a lockhopper system (weighed) for feeding a dry pulverized
material at rates up to 3000 lb/hr, a refractory lined fluidized
bed reactor with a special agglomerate withdrawal system in its
base, a product gas quench system, a cyclone system for removal
341
and recycle of elutriated fines, a product gas scrubber, a product
gas incinerator and all necessary instrumentation and controls.
The U-GasR Process development work is divided into three separate
parts: Part I, during which the process feasibility was demon-
strated using metallurgical coke and char as feed; Part 2, during
which the pilot plant was modified to feed coals and trial tests
were made with coal; and Part 3, during which process feasibility
was proved (using coal as feed), and data were developed for
scale-up of the process and design of the demonstration plant.
The Part 3 operations were conducted with Western Kentucky No. 9
coal. The objective was to provide mechanical, operating, en-
vironmental and process data for the preliminary design of the
demonstration plant, using Western Kentucky No. 9 coal. A total
of 16 test runs were conducted over the period of 15 months begin-
ning with January , 197 8.
A summary of the U-GASR pilot plant tests are shown in Table 3.
The properties of the coals tested in the pilot plant are shown in
Table 4.
The highlights of test operations were as follows:
1. The pilot plant tests firmly established process feasibility
and provided a strong data base for completing the preliminary
demonstration plant design.
2. Four consecutive, extended period tests of up to 200 hours
were conducted, during which good quality raw product gas (285
Btu/SCF) and high ash content ( 80 to 90 weight percent) ash ag-
glomerates were produced from Western Kentucky coal.
3. A technique of feeding caking coals directly into the gasifier
without pretreatment was perfected. Over 400 tons of caking coal
with a free swelling index (FSI) of 4 to 7 were fed.
4. Stable operability of the gasifier while recycling entrained
coal fines back into the gasifier under continuous agglomerating
conditions was demonstrated.
5. Data related to environmental aspects of the U-GASR Process,
particularly wastewater characteristics, which indicated the pre-
sence of only trace quantities of tar and oils were provided.
6. The pilot plant operated for more than 100 hours at pressures
of up to 60 psia (gasifier design pressure is 65 psia), proving
applicability of the ash agglomeration technique and the ash
agglomeration discharge mechanism at moderate elevated pressures.
7. A broad operating window for the major operating variables of
temperatures, superficial velocity and bed ash content was estab-
lished.
342
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3
TEST FEED
RUN MATERIAL
124 Run-of-mine
Western Kentucky
bituminous coal
130 Washed Western
Kentucky
bituminous coal
131 Washed Western
Kentucky
bituminous coal
132 Washed Western
Kentucky
bituminous coal
133 Washed Western
Kentucky
bituminous coal
SUMMARY OF PILOT PLANT TESTS
DATES
6/78
11/78
12/78
1/79
2/79
OPERATING
PERIOD,* Hrs.
168
106
104
74
153
COAL FEED
tons
84
88
70
47
104
* Total hours of operation with coal (coke in No. 51) during the run.
** Based on moisture, ash-free coal feed to the gasifier.
343
COAL
CONVERSION**
ATIAINED,%
81
76
94
89
92
Table 4 -PROPERTIES OF COALS TESTED IN PILOT PLANT
(Western Kentucky No. 9 Coal)
Washed Unwashed
Proximate
Ash 12.0 19.9
Volatile 35.8 34.4
Fixed Carbon 49.1 45.1
Ultimate
Carbon 72.2 64.3
Hydrogen 4.5 4.4
Oxygen 6~8 6.2
Nitrogen 1. 2 1.1
Sulfur 3. 1 4.6
Chlorine 0.13 0.19
Ash 12,1 19.9
Initial Deformation Temperature, °F 2270 2160
Free Swelling Index (FSI) 4-7 5-6
Higher Heating Value 12,498 Btu/lb. 11,570 Btu/lb.
344
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8. Suitable materials of construction were tested, and the design
for the internal components of the gasifier was established.
In addition to the pilot plant activities, support studies have
been conducted on 1) ash chemistry to better understand the prin-
ciple of ash agglomeration, 2) bench scale tests to determine the
main operating variables affecting the formation of ash agglomer-
ates, 3) cold flow model tests to define the mechanism of selec-
tive separation of agglomerates and obtain scale up information,
4) computer modeling to predict the performance of the gasifier
and 5) combustion experiments to determine utilization character-
istics of Industrial Fuel Gas.
Additional coal candidates for the demonstration plant are being
tested in the pilot plant to verify the utilization and to deter-
mine the design requirements. At the end of April satisfactory
tests were completed in the pilot plant, using Pittsburgh #8 coal.
The pilot plant is shown in Figure 5.
Envirormental Progran
Environmental Report
The objective of the environmental work for the Memphis Light, Gas
and Water Plant is to prepare an Environmental Report containing
the necessary background information (field analyses and assess-
ments), so that an Environmental Impact Statement can be written
by the Department of Energy in compliance with the National En-
vironmental Policy Act. The schedule for the Environmental Impact
Statement is shown in Table 5.
The field activities on the existing environment have already been
completed. The engineering and design data contained in the
Environmental Report represent the information available as of
August, 1979 and are consistent with the description available
from the conceptual design activities of the plant designers. The
Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant will be designed, con-
structed and operated to meet all applicable environmental permits
and laws.
Agency Coordination
In order to address the concerns of the city, county, state and
federal regulatory agencies, an active agency coordination program
is being conducted. This enables these agencies to make construc-
tive suggestions, which will strengthen the environmental program.
345
...
! • ~
! • : k
'
I :
I ,I • '
!.
' . ~ i ~·t
'I :' :t
-~ • --:.. I •
FIGURE s VIEW oF rnE JGT PILOT PLANT
346
I
I
I
I
I
1.
li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 5
SCHEDULE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ITEMS
Environmental Re~ort Completed
DEIS to EPA
DEIS Notice of Availability
Public Hearing
End of Public Comment Period
FEIS Available for Public
Review
FEIS (Record of Decision)
347
DATES
August 1979
October 17, 1980
October 24, 1980
December 3, 1980
December 8, 1980
February 1981
March, 1981
Demonstration Plant Design
The Industrial Fuel Gas (IFG) Demonstration Plant produces a
nominal 50 billion Btu/day of product gas, which is equivalent in
energy output to approximately a 10,000 barrel/day oil refinery.
The overall plant balance is shown in Figure 6. The coal feed
rate to the plant is 3158 ton/day of Western Kentucky #9 coal.
The product gas has a heating value of 300 ~ 30 Btu/SCF. 45 bil-
lion Btu/day of this gas is available as send out gas to IFG
customers. The remaining 5 billion Btu/day of this gas is further
processed to pipeline quality (950 Btu/SCF) and deposited in the
Memphis natural gas distribution system to generate Btu credit.
The Btu credit can be withdrawn and used to satisfy IFG customer
demand when the U-Gas production facility is totally or partially
down for maintenance. By the use of the credit generation system
the demand of IFG customers can thus be assured. The demonstra-
tion plant design has been prepared by Foster Wheeler Energy
Corporation.
Figure 7 is the plant block flow diagram showing the process
sequence and process related support facilities of this demonstra-
tion plant. Each process unit, as well as each process related
support facility, is described briefly in the following summary.
Section 310, Air Separation Plant -Compresses intake air and
separates it into oxygen and nitrogen. The oxygen is compressed
and sent to the gasifiers. A small portion of the nitrogen is
returned for plant use. Liquid oxygen and nitrogen can also be
produced to keep their respective storage tanks filled, in order
to provide the necessary reserve for an outage of the air separa-
tion plant.
Section 320, Coal/Coke Treating and Feed -Coal is crushed from 2"
x 0" to 1/4" x 0" and dried to 2.5% moisture in a dryer mill. The
dried, sized coal is stored in a coal silo. Sized coke received
by the plant is also dried by a separate dryer and stored in a
coke silo. Coal or coke is conveyed to the gasifier feeding
systems from either the coal or coke silo. Dual conveying systems
are provided to fill the gasifier feeding systems, with one serv-
ing as a spare. Each gasifier has its own feeding system. The
gasifier feeding system is a multifeed hopper system, each con-
sisting of a receiving hopper, two lock hoppers and two injection
hoppers. Each injection hopper feeds into three pneumatic injec-
tion lines which transport coal or coke into the gasifier.
Section 330, Coal Gasification -Contains the coal gasifiers where
steam and oxygen react with the coal in a fluidized bed at about
1875° and 75 psig to produce hot, raw gas (CO, Co 2 and H2 ).
Within the reaction zone of the fluidized bed is an ash agglomer-
ating zone. The ash agglomerates drop into a water quench. Fines
carried over with the hot, raw gas are returned to the gasifier
through external cyclones.
348
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COAL
AIR AIR
COAL IFG
3158 TPD 154 MM SCFD (300btu/scf)
DEMONSTRATION
PLANT
SPG
4.3MM SCFD(950btu/scf)
WATER
2.71 GPO
SULFUR
IOOTPD
ELECTRICITY ASH
42.2 MW 520TPD
THERMAL EFFICIENCY = 69. 3 %
FIGURE 6. DEMONSTRATION PLANT OVERALL BALANCE
SULFUR
RECOVERY SULFUR
AND
TAIL-GAS 100 ST/0
TREATING
FUEL GAS
SEPARATION 45 BILLION BTU/D
3224T/D
ASH
520 T/0
TREATED
WATER
CREDIT PIPELINE GAS
GENERATION 5 BILLION BTU/D
FIG, 7 DEMONSTRATION PLANT BLOCK FLOW DIAGRAM
349
Section 410, Coal/Coke Handling -Receives the incoming washed
coal (2" x 0") from barges and transports it to a 14 day live coal
storage pile. From there coal is transported to Section 320.
Section 420, Ash Treatment -Receives the agglomerated quenched
ash slurry from the gasifiers (Section 330) and conveys it hydrau-
lically to the dewatering bins. The dewatered ash is then dis-
charged into trucks for disposal to the ash pile. The water from
the dewatering bins is collected in the clarifier where clean
water overflows into a sump tank, while the underflow is pumped
back to the dewatering bins. The clean water is then recycled to
the gasifiers. A start up pump is provided for initial transport
of slurry to the dewatering bins when the gasifier pressure is too
low for conveying.
The nonprocess sections to support the process and to provide
utilities to the process include the following functions:
Section 430, Utility Area which includes:
Steam Generation
Raw Water S~orage
BFW Treatment
Section 440, Waste Water Treatment
Section 450, Cooling Tower
Section 460, Flare
Section 470, General Facilities which include:
Long-Term Coal Storage for 90 days
Long-Term Ash & Solid Waste Storage
Interconnecting Piping
Roads and Fences
Firewater System
Power, Lighting and Communication
Sewers
Section 340, Gas Cooling and Scrubbing -Cools the gas from 1875°
to 450°F. For purposes of heat recovery, the gas pases in se-
quence through a high pressure steam generator, high pressure
steam superheater, another high pressure steam generator and a
boiler feedwater preheater. After heat recovery the raw gas is
quenched to saturation and passes through scrubbers. In the
scrubbers particulate matter is removed by scrubbing with water.
Sections 330 and 340 are four parallel trains and the balance of
the plant is one train.
Section 350, Gas Compression -Scrubbed gas is cooled, compressed
to sufficiently high pressure and cooled again to go through gas
treating and deliver the gas at 150 psig to the industrial fuel
gas distribution header.
350
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section 360, Gas Treating -Receives the cooled gas from gas
compression, Section 350. It then passes to a Selexol unit where
H2s and COS are removed to meet the product gas sulfur specifica-
tion, and enough co 2 is removed to obtain a constant heating value
product gas. The product is then odorized and metered before
being discharged to the industrial fuel gas distribution system.
Section 370, Sour Water Stripping -Receives sour water from
Sections 340, 350 and 360. The major portions of ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide are removed by means of steam stripping.
Section 380, Sulfur Recovery -Receives sour gas from Section 370
and acid gas from Section 360. It converts the sulfur compound in
three catalytic stages of Claus type sulfur recovery unit to
achieve 96S recovery. Sulfur goes through condensers, seal pit,
rundown pit and storage tank before being loaded into tank trucks.
Section 390, Tail Gas Treating -Receives the tail gas from
Section 380. It then goes to a Beavon unit package, where remain-
ing sulfur is converted to H2s and then removed to a Stretford
Unit. The tail gas is reheated to achieve satisfactory buoyancy
and discharged to the atmosphere.
Section 220, Credit Generation -Treats from 10% to 30% of the
product gas from Section 360 to produce pipeline quality gas,
which will be deposited into the Memphis pipeline gas distribution
system to generate a reserve of credit. This reserve can be
withdrawn during U-gas plant outage. Pipeline gas withdrawn from
the Memphis pipeline gas distribution system will be adjusted to
the U-gas heating value prior to its distribution to the U-gas
customers.
CaiiDercial Plant Econani.cs
During Phase I, a commercial plant conceptual design and a cost
estimate were prepared by Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation. The
commercial plant is defined as a plant built after experience
gained from construction and operation of the demonstration plant.
Therefore, there are quite a few differences between the demonsta-
tion plant and the commercial plant design.
The commercial plant produces 50 billion Btu/day of industrial
fuel gas from a total coal feed of 2792 tons/day of Western Ken-
tucky No. 9 coal. Approximately 175 million SFC/day of product
gas with a heating value of 300 ± 30 Btu/SCF is produced. Unlike
the demonstration plant, the commercial plant does not have a
credit generation system to produce pipeline gas. Other major
differences are use of product gas as boiler fuel, catalytic
hydrolysis of carbonyl sulfide, sparing and back ups philosophy
and gasifier carbon conversion efficiency.
351
Using the commercial plant conceptual design, erected plant cost
estimates were prepared on a process unit basis. Costs were
obtained both from process licensors and vendors whenever possi-
ble. Other costs were based on Foster Wheeler Energy Corpora-
tion's in house information. The economic analysis and calcula-
tion of gas costs presented here are based on C.F. Braun Utility
Financing Method. The total capital replacement is estimated to
be $197.4 million expressed in Fourth Quarter, 1979 dollars. The
breakdown is shown in Table 6. The annual operating cost based on
20 year plant life and 90~ stream factor is $45.29 million. Table
7 shows the itemized operating cost. Using the utility financing
method, the average cost of gas is $4.25 per million Btu.
Marketing
Studies
A burner study on the combustion ability of medium Btu gas has
been conducted by the Institute of Gas Technology. No major
problems are foreseen, based on tests conducted on industrial
burners.
A marketing study was conducted by SRI International on medium Btu
gas for Memphis Light, Gas and Water. The study shows that a
potential market exists and the utility with a reliable supply and
a good load factor can deliver the medium Btu gas at the most
economical price.
Another marketing study "Analysis of Industrial Markets for Low
and Medium Btu Coal Gasification" by Booz, Allen and Hamil ton,
Inc. or the Office of Resource Applications, U.S. Department of
energy, also completed in July, 1979 the major conclusions that
medium Btu gas plants that have 1) multiple uses, 2) reliable
supply, 3) utility financing, 4) less environmental problems, 5)
operating experience, 6) coal supply region, 7) natural gas cur-
tailment and 8) shortage of alternate fuels are the most attrac-
tive configurations.
Based on the above items, Memphis can meet all of these conditions
and would be an excellent place to build a medium Btu coal gasifi-
cation plant.
Reliability
The main selling point of the Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant is the
reliability and the assurance of supply. In order to increase the
attractiveness of this fuel gas to potential industrial customers,
the reliability of supply must be insured, even during periods of
plant shutdown or repair and maintenance. The plant is designed
to enhance reliability by the use of modular gasifier trains and
352
I
I
I
I
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
several back up systems, but is not cost effective to build com-
plete redundancy in the plant. For the present, reliability is of
special concern because only one plant, rather than several inde-
pendent plants, as would be the case for an already developed
system, will be available to produce gas for customers.
Credit System
The reliability is to be obtained by using the existing natural
gas system as back up and establishing a credit system. As the
fuel is produced in excess of the system demand, the excess fuel
gas can be injected into the natural gas system in small quanti-
ties to dilute the natural gas. Another alternative is to consid-
er a propane air mixture, and ~ third alternative is to methanate
a portion of this excess U-GAS •
During fuel ga-s operation, up to 30,; of the product gas from the
Industrial Fuel Gas Demonstration Plant can be methanated to
natural gas quality and introduced into the existing Memphis
natural gas system, thereby accruing "credit" against periods of
time when the plant is not operating. During these periods the
"credited natural gas" will be withdrawn, diluted with air to the
proper medium Btu heating value and distributed to the industrial
customer. These conditions are shown in Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11.
This plant would supply industry the supplemental fuel that is
needed and also provide a ready and available fuel for new indus-
try in the area. The industrial fuel gas is expected to be compe-
titive with fuel oil and other alternate forms of energy replacing
natural gas.
Also, as part of the marketing effort, surveys on customers'
burners, processes and uses will be conducted. Technical assist-
ance, conversion procedures and estimated costs will be presented
to each customer. Distribution pipe sizing, metering and opera-
tion procedures will be suggested in the proposal to the customer.
The market of existing customers consists of 25 to 125 potential
customers, depending on their usage and distance from the proposed
plant. Three large industrial parks are being planned within the
proposed industrial fuel gas distribution system. The industrial
fuel gas will be a tremendous asset in developing these idustrial
sites.
EcODalic Benefits
The future of Memphis lies in the ability of this community to
provide jobs for its people. According to the Tennessee Valley
Authority's 1977 Annual Report, only 154 new industries came to
Tennessee, of which only three came to Shelby County. It's unbe-
353
TABLE 6 COMMERCIAL PLANT CAPITAL REQUIREMENT
(Fourth Quarter, 1979 Dollars)
$Million
Erected Plant Cost
Contractor's Charges
Start Up Costs
Working Capital
Interest during Construction
IFGPUIIT
so .....
nuton
Total Captial Requirement
IFC 80'1.
Wl'HANATION
""CREDIT C:EJU.RATOPI ..
S.-ITU/DAY SIIG
FIGURl 8 \:RIOIT SYSTlN .. · PLANT NOAIIAl OPliiA TIDN
IFG PUIH
s~ ... ,.
iiTU/OAY
FIGURE
IFC 70'1.
lllTHANATION
•tnlDIT GENEAATDR•
IUIMM ITU:OAY
SIIG
lOll
'"CREDIT SVSTlM '' REDUCED DUIAND OPER .. TION
354
129.2
21.3
9.1
8.4
29.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IFG
PLANT
Ommm BTU/DAY
:! ;;en ..,a:
a:"' u::i .,o
<"" ul::;
... u <u "'~ ~;; <o z ...
FIGURE 10
+
FIGURE 11
METHANATION
·cREDIT GENERATOR"
D
•CREDIT SYSTEM" -OPERATION DURING PLANT OUTAGE
CREDITS ACCRUE DURING PL"NT NORMAL OPERATION
CREDITS ACCRUE DURING PLANT REDUCED DEM,.ND
CREDITS ARE USED DURING PLANT OUTAGE
·• CREDIT SVSTEM" -SUMMARY OF OPERATION
355
TIME
lievable that the largest county in the state received only 2% of
the industries. The shortage of energy is the most crucial prob-
lem facing the city. Without energy, there are no jobs. Without
supplemental energy, the city will not be able to maintain the
status quo, much less grow and prosper. The Industrial Fuel Gas
Plant is a major step in providing supplemental energy for indus-
trial customers.
Besides serving existing industry, the project would help the
industrial economy of Memphis. The project has been hailed by a
local bank official as the "ticket to at least 15,000 industrial
jobs". According to industrial leaders, industrial fuel is the
missing element in attracting new industry. By adding this im-
portant ingredient to Memphis' good climate, pool of ready labor,
low electric rates and excellent distribution facilities, the city
would greatly benefit.
Labor and Capital
The facility will be constructed at a capital cost of approximate-
ly $350 million based on 1979 dollars. The on site construction
work force will consist of about 3.0 million job site hours over
36 months, with a peak level of about 700 workers. This will
represent a payroll of over $50 million. The vast majority of the
workers required to build the plant are expected to come from the
Memphis area work force. The capabilities and skills required are
presently available in sufficient numbers from the metropolitan
area. The annual operating staff for the Fuel Gas Plant will be
about 270 persons, involving an annual payroll of $6.4 mill ion.
While many of these workers are expected to be drawn from the
Memphis area, the specialized requirements of some jobs may result
in some of the operating staff coming from outside the area.
The objective is to provide a supplemental fuel at a competitive
price. with assurance of supply and reliability. The proposed
Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division's coal gasification project
provides a solution to the business, the technical, socio-economi-
cal and environmental problems associated with coal conversions in
the United States. With the solution of these problems, along
with proof of a working system, Memphis Light, Gas and Water can
significantly improve the city's future and act as a model for
other cities to follow in developing similar energy sources for
their needs.
356
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
References
Patel, J .G., Clean fuel from coal is goal of U-GASR process: Oil
and Gas Journal, p. 51-54, August 1, 1977.
Sandstrom, W.A., et al., The gasification of coal chars in a
fluidized bed ash agglomeration gasifier: Paper presented at
the 69th Annual Meeting of AICHE, November 1976, Chicago, Illi-
nois.
Mason, Dav~ M. and Patel, J.G., Chemistry of ash agglomeration in
the U-GAS process: Paper presented at American Chemical Socie-
ty Annual Meeting, Fuel Chemistry Division, September 9-14,
1979, Washington, D.C.
SRI International "Industrial market potential for itermediate Btu
gas from coal in the United States".
Booz Allen and Hammilton, Inc., Analysis of industrial markets for
low and medium Btu coal gasification: Report for Office of Re-
source Applications, U.S. Department of Energy, July 30, 1979.
357
-l
Beluga coal export market study
W.H. Swift, M.J. Scott and J.P. Haskins
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington
Within this conference's overall appraisal of Alaska's coal re-
source, we report on a study of the marketfbility of Beluga coals,
conducted for the Office of the Governor. Our study's objective
was to estimate if and when the Beluga region should be developed.
The scope of the study was limited to the export market for coal
(including the ''Lower 48" states); it did not consider the demand
for coal to be used in synthetic fuels (synfuels) production or
the potential for in state use.
We have focused on six general areas of study. The first is a
general market outlook, in which we have emphasized analysis of
the overseas Pacific Rim market and briefly considered the domes-
tic "Lower 48" market. Secondly, we analyzed the competitive
position of Beluga coal; i.e., who are the competitors and what
contributes to their position? Third, we separately estimated
transportation costs because they can be a major factor in the
delivered costs to the consumer and because these costs vary so
widely among suppliers. Fourth, we estimated competitors' prices
and examined what will determine those prices in the future
(through 2000). Fifth, we addressed the issue of coal quality and
attempted to quantify it from the consuming industries' point of
view. Finally, we recognize that price will not be the only
factor in the future development of Beluga coal, and thus briefly
note what we believe will be the most important nonmarket fac-
tors--most of which will work in favor of the marketability of
Beluga coals.
We first reviewed a number of forecasts to come up with a general
market outlook for the "Lower 48", West Coast and East Asian
markets. General agreement prevails among these many forecasts,
although many done by consumer groups tended to be higher; this
may be due to the natural inclination of consumer groups to bias
their forecasts to promote competition.
There are a number of important points to be made about the "Lower
48", West Coast market, which can be divided into the California
and the Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington) markets. First
1 For more detailed information, the reader is referred to the
report: Ward Swift et al., Beluga Coal Market Study, prepared for
the Division of Policy Development and Planning, Office of the
Governor, Juneau, Alaska, November 1980.
358
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
and most important, the electric utilities, which would of course
form the major market, have already initiated plans (including
coal supplies) that will extend until at least 1990. Further,
most of the Northwest's plans are for the use of Wyoming coals,
with a small indigeneous coal contribution, and 98% of Californ-
ia's coal requirements are scheduled to be met by Utah coals.
About 60% of California's coal demand will be "coal by wire"; that
is, the power plants will be sited outside the state and electri-
city will be transmitted to the state over power lines. This
means that, in effect, the potential of the California coal re-
quirement that can be captured is equal to about 38% of the total
requirements (including "coal by wire").
Secondly, our study suggests that because this market is frag-
mented, it will not provide the critical mass necessary for the
initial development of Beluga coals; nor is this area growing
rapidly enough to absorb this new supply. Finally, however, we
think that the West Coast could, after ~, form a potential
market for expansion once the Beluga fields and related facilities
are in operation, but only for that part of the market that is
actually burnt in California. It is difficult to predict condi-
tions beyond that time, although it would seem clear that West
Coast utilities would welcome another fuel and siting option near
the coastal load centers.
East Asia will most likely be the major market for the Beluga
coals. This market is characterized by extraordinarily rapid
growth from essentially a zero base. Japan is clearly the princi-
pal market, followed by Korea, Taiwan and others such as the
Philippines, Singapore and Hong Kong. The driving force behind
this market's growth is of course the marked increases in the cost
of crude oil. Figure 1 depicts the East Asian market for steam
coal, expressed in short tons per year. The heating value is
expresed as 9,000 Btu/lb, which is approximately the heating value
of a higher rank or beneficiated Beluga coal. This forecast is
plotted on the semilogarithmic scale, which underplays the explo-
sive growth of this market.
The forecast represented by Figure 1 illustrates the one overrid-
ing reason for the improved outlook for Beluga coals; i.e., the
rapid increase in demand for steam coal in East Asia. In fact,
three years ago, the point on the scale for that period would be
Qff ~ scale to the lower left (i.e. near zero). The 21% per
year growth rate forecast for the 1985-1990 period is truly im-
pressive, and this is the low forecast of the several we reviewed.
Alaskan coals will have a number of competitors for these East
Asian markets. Austrailia's exportable coal supply regions are
primarily in New South Wales and in Queensland on the East Coast
(Figure 2). New South Wales has the lowest mining and transporta-
tion costs of Australia's coal regions. Queensland, just to the
north, follows, but Queensland coals will increasingly have to
come from the interior regions, with some additional overland
transportation charges. The major sources of incremental produc-
359
(/)..c Z-
0"-..... ~
t-Cil
a::o oo :z::O cnC'l
u..@J
Oa::
(/)<( zw o>
:::::ia::
...IW -c.. :::!:
400
200
100
80
60
40
20
HIGH ESTIMATE
21%/YEAR
GROWTH RATE
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
FIGURE 1. East Asia Steam Coal Market Outlook
tion are expected to come from Queensland II, which is in the
interior and beyond the Great Dividing Range.
Among Canada's coal supply regions (Figure 3), Southeastern Brit-
ish Columbia will be the principal source of competition. The
coal would be moved westward by rail out through Vancouver, or
through an expanded Robert's Bank facility. Canadian costs are
higher than Australian costs, and geological conditions limit the
amount that coal production can increase. British Columbia's
current coal exports consist almost exclusively of metallurgical
coal, which does not compete with the steam coal market. Canada
is discussing the possibility of developing a new coal port at
Prince Rupert to allow delivery of northeastern British Columbia
coals, which are not currently being mined; however, the rail
transportation costs could be quite high. The Alberta Plains
coals, which are further east, could contribute to Canada's ex-
ports but their high rail haulage costs would probably prevent
them from being competitive.
South Africa (Figure 4) is currently a major exporter of steam
coal. Our reviews of cost information available for South Africa
showed coals from the Southern Transvaal region to be the princi-
pal competitors, with their reference port at Richards Bay. The
Southern Transvaal area currently has the lowest mining and over-
land transportation costs of all the competitors; but, their ocean
360
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WESTERN
AUSTRAliA
Coal Rank
Bituminous
Subbituminous
lignite 0 200 400
I WI
Scale of Miles
FIGURE 2. Australia Coal Supply Regions
transport costs to the East Asian markets are much higher than
those for Australia, Canada or even the contiguous United States.
The western United States could compete for this East Asian mar-
ket, although lack of ports somewhat limits the movement of both
Utah and Wyoming coals, the major suppliers for this region.
While Utah has a high quality coal, its development requires
expensive underground mining, followed by about 800 miles of rail
transport to a port such as Long Beach, California. Wyoming's
mining costs are low, but so is the quality of its coal in terms
of Btu per pound. Wyoming's bid for this market is further ham-
pered by high overland (about 1000 miles) and ocean transport
costs. Wyoming coal for export most likely will have to move down
the Columbia River corridor by rail to new ports on the river's
lower reaches. The Columbia River Bar constrains the size of
ships that can get in and out, and hence increases shipping costs.
utah coal might be shipped out of California in ships of larger
deadweight tonnage (DWT).
361
----British Columbia --.. ..._ , __
I
NORTHEASTERN /
B.C. 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal Rank
Bituminous II
Subbituminous ~
Lignite l]j
Alberta --~----r-
, Saskatchewan I
I I
I I
I I
I
ALBERTA I I
PLAINS 1 :
I I
I I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
. I .. SASKATCHEWAN I (@]) I
---~~-L
FIGURE 3. Western Canada Coal Supply Regions
We have no clear picture for the People's Republic of China. We
know only that they have a lot of coal. Their announcements
regarding their intentions to develop their coals change almost
weekly. As far as we know, they currently have no major ports to
handle a large volume of exports but are considering their con-
struction. While it is possible that the People's Republic of
China could eventually become a major supplier, it can currently
be regarded only as a dark horse.
Transportation costs vary so widely, depending upon supplier and
route, that we analyzed them separately from the overall estimates
of competing prices. Figure 5 illustrates the ocean freight
distances relevant to the East Asian markets in round trip nauti-
cal miles. The longest round trip distance is clearly from South
Africa to Japan (14,500 miles); the shortest is from Cook Inlet to
the "lower 48" West Coast at 6,300 miles. Australia and lower
362
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BOTSWANA
SOUTH WEST AFRICA
(NAMIBIA)
CAPE PROVINCE
ATLANTIC OCEAN
FIGURE 4. South Africa Coal Supply Regions
~--
FIGURE 5. Ocean Freight Distances--Round Trip Nautical Miles
363
INDIAN OCEAN
Coal Rank
Bituminous and l!t!ll
Anthracite •
0 100
Miles
North America are at intermediate distances. Given the nature of
the trade routes and markets, it appears that coal carriers are
likely to return in ballast, and thus coal shipments must bear the
full cost of the round trip. Any additional overland haulage
costs must be included in consideration of trade routes.
Transportation costs comprise capital recovery, operating costs
(other than fuel), fuel costs and port costs, as well as variables
such as trade route, flag of operation, deadweight tonnage (DWT)
and financial structure of ship ownership. Figures 6 and 7 illu-
strate the levelized ocean freight rates calculated for a Japan
destination and a California destination, respectively. These
rates are for ships of 110,000 deadweight tonnage, using a 3S real
rate of escalation in fuel costs, and sailing under foreign flag.
The costs are expressed in levelized dollars per million Btu for
various coals that might be available from the locations shown on
the graph for the year of initial fleet operation, i.e., export
contract initial fulfillment.
:I ...
Ill
:2 :a:
a: w
0..
en a:
<(
...J
...J
0 c
1.1~-----------------------------------------------,
1.0
0.9
0.8
1985
WASHINGTON
(60,800 DWT)
1990 1995
YEAR OF INITIAL OPERATION
GHUITNA
2000
FIGURE 6. Levelized Ocean Freight Rates to Japan
364
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.9~------------------------------------------------,
0.8 AUSTRALIA ALL PORTS
110,000 DWT
:l ... m
~ 0.7
~
a: w
D.. 0.6 (/) WATERFALL ROM
a:
<t
...J
...J
0 0.5 MOSS LANDING c CHUITNA 110,000 DWT
0.4
0.3~----------~----------~----------~----------~~
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEAR OF INITIAL OPERATIONS
FIGURE 7. Levelized Ocean Freight Rates to California
Wyoming coals shipped via Washington State represent the highest
costs, primarily because of the ship size limitations imposed by
the Columbia River Bar, higher overland tariffs and the low heat-
ing values of those coals. South African coals, though of high
heating value, suffer from a much longer trade route. The bottom
line on the curve is for Chuitna coal dried to about 10~ moisture.
It is clear that it enjoys an advantage of several cents per
million Btu over its nearest competitor, primarily because of low
overland and ocean freight charges. Figure 7, which gives similar
data for a California destination, assumes the use of large bulk
carriers that might be accommodated at sites such as Moss Landing
(although a new port facility would be required), the use of U.S.
flag vessels employed under the Jones Act, and operation of the
shipping system by private corporations.
Having briefly described the possible competitors and analyzed
transportation costs, we present the methods used for estimating
the price of steam coals competing with Beluga coals for the East
Asian markets. Estimating these prices is difficult for a number
of reasons. First, explosive growth in steam coal use is forecast
for this area. Because the demand for such coal here has histori-
cally been very low, no real trading patterns have been estab-
lished. Finally, even where price quotations are available, they
tend to refer to the spot market and not to the long-term market
that we would anticipate prevailing in the future. (For example,
365
given the forecasted rapid growth rate of the East Asian market,
we expect that new reserves will have to be developed.)
Despite these factors, we believe that price will be determined
largely by the cost of production and transportation plus economic
rents obtained by producers and host governments. First of all,
long-term contracts will prevail as markets expand. In fact, it
is highly likely that the customers for coal will wish to take a
significant equity position in the coal development, to assure
some control over supply and price.
Secondly, we expect the market to be highly competitive; there is
no cartel as there is with oil, and the geographically and
politically diverse nature of the supply system renders car.tel
development unlikely. There is at least one case in which price
may not be determined solely by production and transportation
costs: where the potentially lowest cost producer or the host
government will extract an economic rent to raise his price to
that of the nearest competitor. This might be the case for coals
from New South Wales, Australia.
Our method for estimating competing prices was to employ supply
curves based on expected mining co~ditions and basic cost compo-
nents of mining and transportation. These curves show the mini-
mum additional costs for incremental production. In essence, the
supply curves provide the marginal costs for developing the next
unit of coal production. Based on the concept of net present
value and on managerial finance considerations, this method yields
the minimum acceptable selling price for incremental production.
This includes an acceptable rate of return on investment (ROI) in
real terms.
Figure 8 shows three supply curves2 for coals that might compete
with Beluga coals. These curves represent the minimum selling
price necessary to encourage additional production. These supply
curves include most fees, all royalties and all transportation
costs as we know them. They do not include export fees or loading
costs because we lacked the data. Nor do they include any provi-
sion for new investment or supporting infrastructure costs such as
will be necessary for the Beluga coal fields. Therefore, these
supply curves should not be compared to those presented for Beluga
coals (Figure 9). Further, the estimates shown in Figure 8 are
based on a 5 to 9S real return on investment, whereas typical
investment analysis--and the analysis of Beluga coals--uses a 15
to 20S real return.
2 ICF, Inc., May 1980. Draft Report. ~ Supply Curves f2L
Australia, Canada ang South Africa. Washington, D.C.
366
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
S.E. BRITISH COLUMBIA
2.00
1.50
NEW SOUTH WALES ::I ..
CD
~ 1.00
~
" 0
10 20 30 40 50
MMTPY
60 70
FIGURE 8. Typical Supply Curves--FOB Dock
80
A sample supply curve for Beluga coal ~ses the Chuitna field with
coal dried to 10% moisture (Figure 9). This estimate, which is
based on a 75% debt and 25% equity, illustrates the effect of
production rate on price. This supply curve differs significantly
from those shown in Figure 8 because it includes a high degree of
initial infrastructure costs. As production and shipment rates
increase, the effect of these costs is diluted. The estimate
includes all costs for mining, drying, overland transport, port
and handling facilities and town site and other infrastructure
charges. As previously mentioned, these estimated costs are
biased higher than those shown in Figure 8, primarily because of
the difference in basis for return on investment and because the
port costs (5 to 10 cents per million Btu) were not included in
the costs estimated for the other supply sources. Thus the prices
shown for Beluga coals are for F.O.B. trimmed vessel in December,
1979 dollars.
3 Bechtel Corporation. April, 1980. "Executive Summary -Pre-
liminary Feasibility Study Coal Exports Program." Study conducted
for Marubeni Corporation, San Francisco, California.
367
90 100
....1
~ 1.50
(/) w > .... m
0
LL.
:I
~ m
:E
:E
a: w
Cr.
(/)
a:
<l:
....1
....1
0 c
1.00
0.50
----------MAXIMUM
-----t
PROBABLE PRICE
RANGE
----------MINIMUM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
MILLIONS OF TONS PER YEAR
FIGURE 9. Effect of Production Rate on Price--
Chuitna Field, 10% H20
Figure 10 shows our estimates of the CIF (cost, insurance,
freight) price for seven steam coals delivered to Japan under
production and market conditions that are likely to prevail in the
mid to late 1980s. The prices are expressed in 1980 dollars per
million Btu. The figure does not show the minimum delivery cost
of steam coal from New South Wales, as this lowest cost (esti-
mated) producing region is expected to effectively price its coal
near that of its closest higher priced competitor, i.e., to
Queensland coals, which are the lowest of those shown here. We
also believe that our comparative analysis may be biased against
Beluga coals for two reasons: 1) loading port costs are not in-
cluded, because of lack of data, for foreign and western U.S.
coals but are for the Beluga coals; and 2) a 20~ real return on
investment was used by Bechtel for the Beluga coal, versus a 5 to
9~ real return used by ICF for the other coals. Table 1 summa-
rizes this information on competing prices.
We briefly addressed the effect of coal quality on operating and
plant capital costs as might be judged by a prospective purchaser,
such as an electric power utility. The effect of coal quality on
a power plant's operating costs can be reasonably indicated by the
heat rate in Btu per kilowatt-hour of power generated (Figure 11).
368
I
I
I
I,
I:
I
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
Table 1. Example of Min~um Delivery Cost (CIF) for Steam Coal
to Japan, 1985 Conditions in $1980, Exclusive of Port
Costs, $/Million Btu.
Source
Queensland
South Africa
Utah via California
Wyoming via Washington
Western Canada
Beluga Fields (a)
Chuitna Dried to 10% H2o
Capps ROM
FOB Mine (M)
or Port (P)
1. 00 (P)
0.10 (P)
1. 25 (M)
0. 55 (M)
1.20 (P)
1. 05 ( P)
1.15 (P)
Overland
Freight
0.48
0.84
Ocean
Shipping
0.46
0.78
0.49
0.87
0.48
0.45
0.58
Delivered
Price CIF
1.46
1.48
2.22
2.21
1. 68
1.50
1.73
(a) Beluga field FOB port price includes ship loading costs which are not included
for other coals. This differential is on the order of $0.05 to $0.1 0/million Btu.
Chuitna costs are based on Bechtel base case.
2.20
2.00
1.80
::::J 1.60
~ cc
~ 1.40 ~
a: 1.20 w a..
C/)
w a: 1.00
--...J ~
0 ...J
...J
0 0.80
0
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
~MINING
~ BENEFICIATION AND RAIL TRANSPORT
nrr. OCEAN FREIGHT
2.21
1.73
QUEENSLAND SOUTH CHUITNA BRITISH WATERFALL WYOMING
AFRICA 10% H 2 0 COLUMBIA SEAM
FIGURE 10. Steam Coal Prices~Cost Insurance Freight (CIF) Japan-
1985 Conditions
2.22
UTAH
-------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10,000r-----------------------------------------
..c:
~
~
..........
::::J ... m
w ~ 9,000
<(
a:
~
<(
w
J:
WATERFALL, R.O.M.
I
CHUITNA COAL@ 10% MOISTURE I AUSTRALIAN EXPORT
~I TYP.ICAl
0~
8,000~~~~----~--~~--~----~----------~
7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000
COAL HEATING VALUE, Btu/lb
FIGURE 11 Effect of Coal Quality on Power Plant Heat Rate
As heating value declines, more coal must be handled at constant
plant output, all other things being equal. As a result, more
energy is consumed in the coal handling, grinding, ash handling
and draft system operation. For a point of reference, we used the
tentative specifications developed by Japan's Electric Power De-
velopment Corporation (EPDC) for the Matsushima Plant and calcu-
lated heat rates for this and two representative Beluga coals.
Chuitna coal, dried to 10i moisture, incurs about a 3% penalty on
a Btu basis; Waterfall seam coal run-of-mine from the Capps area
incurs about a 7% penalty.
Figure 12 illustrates the effect of coal quality on electrical
power generation plant capital costs. These estimates are based
on a 1,000 megawatt plant, constructed under U.S. conditions and
to come on line in 1985. The analysis considers corrections for
heating value, ash content and characteristics, grindability, and
about five primary power plant construction cost centers. Again,
the Electric Power Development Corporation's Matsushima plant
specifications are used as a point of reference. The Waterfall
seam suffers about a 2% penalty for its run-of-mine coal; the
Chui tna field (dried to 1 Oi moisture) coal actually gains about
1%, primarily because its ash content is lower than that of the
specification. These Figures (11 and 12) suggest that the quality
of Beluga coal is not as significant a factor as might previously
have been thought.
Finally, as we suggsted earlier, we must recognize that price will
not be the only factor that determines the future development of
the Beluga coals. We have identified five nonmarket factors that
371
(Jl
a:
~
...J
...J
0
0
u..
0
(Jl z
0
:::i
...J
~
1000
+ $13.5M -$8.7M
800 ~ \
E.P.D.C .
MATSUSHIMA
600 ~ PLANT
WATERFALL CHUITNA SPECIFICATIONS
SEAM FIELD
400 ~ R.O.M. 10% H 2 0
200 ~
0
FIGURE 12. Effect of Coal Quality on Plant Capital Cost
(1,000 MWe, 1978 dollars)
we believe may be important in decisions to open the Beluga coal
fields. The first is the desire for diversity of supply sources.
We expect this to become increasingly important as international
steam coal trade increases; security of supply will be a major
factor in the minds of prospective customers.
Secondly, we believe that the acceptance of foreign investment by
the producing host country will be a strong consideration on the
part of the prospective customers, as they will wish to establish
significant equity participation for assuring some long-term price
stability. This factor is liable to be detrimental for both
Australia and Canada, but may be an advantage for U.S. coals,
where restrictions on foreign investment may be less confining.
Third, political stability will be a very strong consideration.
Similarly, stability in labor relations will be important. Cus-
tomers have been severely hurt by work stoppages in the past and
are understandably very sensitive. This is a particularly signi-
ficant problem in Australia, which is known for its tumultuous
labor relations problems.
Finally, we believe that prospective customers will be searching
for what might be called a "positive attitude" on the part of the
producing countries. By this we mean a display of willingness to
negotiate openly and with guarantees that there will be no sur-
prises in the future. It also means that the host countries will
provide support in working through the institutional problems,
such as regulations and licensing.
372
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
All of these nonmarket factors should work to the advantage of
Beluga development vis-a-vis the competition. Clearly, the U.S.
is considered politically stable and allied to the East Asian
markets. Foreign investment is not discouraged, although there
are some restrictions on direct investment in mineral resource
extraction. Labor problems exist in all countries, but likely
less so in the U.S. where mediation procedures are well estab-
lished.
373
A preview of the Beluga methanol project
Noel W. Kirshenbaum
Placer Amex, Inc., San Francisco
.Abstract
A coal-to-methanol plant with a capacity of 54,000 barrels/day
(7,500 ton/day) is proposed for a site close to the Beluga coal
field, near Cook Inlet, Alaska. The extensive proven reserves of
coal, abundant water and favorable environmental conditions are
complemented by an existing liquid transportation system, and
marine shipping for efficiently serving markets in all Pacific
Coast States. Commercially proven technology, using large size
Winkler gasifiers and low pressure Imperial Chemical Industries
(ICI) process for methanol synthesis provides assurance of techni-
cal success and economical production. Principal markets for the
methanol are expected to be as fuel for electric power generation
and for motor vehicles. A study is now in process to ascertain
the technical and economic feasibility of this project.
A Preview of the Beluga Methanol Project
Despite the announced intent of the United States to utilize more
fully its coal resources, the coal industry remains stagnant with
unused capacity. The Pacific Coast in particular has moved but
little towards the use of coal. In the five Pacific Coast states,
there are several reasons why the conversion to coal, and the use
of coal, have lagged:
1) Reluctance on the part of major West Coast markets, the
electric utili ties, to consider this "new" fuel because of
environmental constraints. 2) Distance of Pacific Coast markets
from the large, producing coal fields of the Rocky Mountain and
Plains states-and attendant high transport costs. 3) Need for
liquid fuels--especially those which are clean to handle and clean
to burn.
Production of methanol from the Beluga coal field adjacent to Cook
Inlet would surmount each of these obstacles, and employing this
large resource for clean fuel production would lead the way for
coal to be a significant energy source along the entire West
Coast.
374
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A Brief History of the Beluga Coal Resource•
The Beluga coal field has confirmed reserves of over one billion
tons of very low sulfur content subbi tuminous coal, and more as
yet unexplored and at depth. It is located about 60 miles west of
Anchorage, Alaska. A noteworthy feature of its location is the
proximity of tidewater and low-cost ocean transport (Fig. 1). The
detailed location map (Fig. 2) depicts the three areas where the
Beluga Coal Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Placer Amex,
Inc., holds seven coal leases. Five are from the State of Alaska
and two are from Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (one of the Alaska Native
Regional Corporations).
Prospecting permits were first obtained by Placer Amex in 1967;
since then the company has continued to explore these coal leases,
and to conduct studies of mining feasibility, environmental impact
(6), transportation and marketing (Fig. 3).
Like other subbi tuminous coals, the Beluga coal can be: 1) di-
rect shipped (or washed) for use in steam powered electric gener-
ating plants or, 2) converted to synthetic fuels and chemicals by
various existing or developing processes.
Studies indicate that an export market for direct shipped or
washed coal would have to amount to five or 6 million tons per
year in order to amortize the expense of the mine, the
infrastructure, and, principally, the costly port development (7).
More modest operations, however, would suffice to supply a local
electric generating plant (8).
Although direct burning is the most efficient means to utilize tne
energy contained in coal, it is cleaner and more convenient to use
when converted to gaseous or liquid fuels. Alaskan coal can
certainly be considered as a raw material for gasification if
snipped to a site near potential markets for the gas and tnen
processed; or the coal can be made into liquid products near the
resource and shipped by tanker to various markets. Thus, several
other possible forms in which Beluga coal could be used have been
considered. Following the 1973-74 international petroleum crisis,
the U.S. Office of Coal Research, Nissho-Iwai American Corporation
and Placer Amex, Inc. sponsored a study to evaluate the technology
and economics of producing solvent refined coal (SRC) products
from the Beluga coals by the Pittsburg and Midway process (9).
Since about 1975, consideration has been given to upgrading of the
coal before shipment and producing coal oil mixtures. Investiga-
tion of this concept is continuing, and last year a sample of 350
tons of coal from the Capps area of the Beluga coal field was
shipped to Japan for testing. The paper presented by Mr. Naka-
bayashi at this conference (10) describes some of the coal oil
*Previous papers have covered the history and geology ( 1 ,2, 3) of
the Beluga coal field, mining (4) and transportation (5).
375
CENTRAL ALASKA
NENANA-:::~~~-----:.'.
SUSITNA' •• -,
.--:' MATANUSKA
' ,.
\v
·'.,_--\::? .·
~COOK INLET
Q
FIGURE 1: ALASKA COAL AREAS
FIGURE 2: ~OCATION >lAP
376
·-
I
I
II
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
f I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
BELUGA ACTIVITY CHART
------~----
t~"tate--anfaska li---1967-69 -~ 197SJ_1_9_7_2_j=_1_9_7_3+_1_97_4-+ 1975 1976
;' --Coa_l Pt'OS[l_ectin_g Permits ---
1977 1978 1979 1980
.. Co a 1 Leases :1
jl_' -~~-tie_r_:_~ 1 Deve 1 opment Pl p"-'n<-/-+--+----'lii"'l----+---+----+----t------4----'l------=l------t-----;;;.-il-------1~--~jat~_~o~rt~~~i~i ~-~---+---+--~--_,--~~--r~~-+---+---~~--_,-~ca~~~----1 Tidelands Lease Anolication
ir_Bu]l_S~pl i ng -_,[],__----', 5,_,2'-t---t---'a"'---"'11'!!---+-"ll"--------!----"''-----t---"'"------t----+---+---'~--l----+---"'l!'=--'~'----4
il Storage Test Piles 111 •I
! Reserve & Quality ·=====~l=====~~==]~~~~~~==t=====t=====1====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ IW<e i reo ! IDGi 3131 li 11
; CT&E !• 1!1
1111
f 11
I
I POL Project DevelQRment
1 Environmental : H
11 Harbor & Transportation II
;1 Earl & >iriaht: N.Foreland Doc Iii rl
1i Nikiski Slurry Pipeline II II
'li Soros_ Associates: Ship!Loadin
I Barge Loading :1
Lk_ag_Ll)QJ_<;_e_GaQ<ie;_j·!jnt,_;:ebr__s__n,d!,!AjJ!-'ni1!4J.llrlll!!b--"""""===-t-=~+==+==+==~~--~=-+-==+===+==~+=--
il__j__f-1QDCQ: Sl urrv Loading_f:----+-----+----+---+---+---+-----+----1=--_, __ _, __ ~---if---==-!: Hv"ron3•rtjcs _:! r:%1
•:___l!!:yil1_g___"__ :: __ _, ___ !~--t---t----+---+----r----==---+----t----+----+-------"----
:: __ B_i~~-leY.J_r:!_(Ji~e_lj_1]_9_1'----l----t---+---+----+----+-----= -=-----jf---t---+-----1----+ii ___ _
•i USBI•t-Grand For_ck,_,_s ___ ''lr ---f--------11---l----t----+-----l---==t-----+----+----+---+------==~ ': ~~--Japan-=-El'm:~---11 ... -----:J
i!_l;r_1J~h_i_~ & Grinding !· 1
:
;I flilliams Patent Crusher rl
. Bituminous Coal Research 'I
j; BabcoCk& Wilcox-~~~~=1-=~==~==!=~=t::::~~t~=t==t~=t==~=::::::l~~~~~jl===~j ~~-----c-om5Usfioi1tn~fineer1ng __ ------l----t--------11---t---t---+---+----+-----+----l-----l----"ll""+·i ___ _ 11 CO..flbustion _______ ii ,,
:: B~~Q~!Li~o_x ____ !:t~, -----~-----+-----+-----4------l----~l----~~~--~~--+-----4------~-----~~r---------
;: USB:'·t-Grand Forks -'';;--------1---f---t----+---+----+----F=--+---~---+--~---+-II ___ --,
q I ,-_-c=-Q_-a""L---,c=-o-n-v_-~-r2-i=-o-n==~~C~o::::a~l~-b't'·.' C:R~~~=~~t~~t~~t~~=r~~~~~.,~~j~~:::::t~~=J~~~~=~~t~ ~~~=1
' Solvent Refined ~
Coa 1-i n-0'-'i_,_l ____ _;l,l'---------11---t---+---+---+----+-----+-----"'"----+---+----l &\UW.ft**"¥> ;a r ~~ r~ethanol *Jtif WI
~
llj r-larketing
' r·line r1outh Po1·1er Plant Studv
·h ------------------------~----4-----~--~-----+----+----+-----~----t-----+----+--~+,:-------~
!~-----------.,-----t----+-----+----+----+---~---+---+--~------jf---t---1r--,i----
l'-----------------------~----+---~-----r----+---~----~-----+---~-----r----+----~"l ______ __ 1'------------------~~----+---~-----r----+----+-----r-----l-----+-----r----+---~----~"L_ ____ __ :l----------------------,-----+-----+-----+-----l-----~-----1-------+-----+---~~----+-----+----~-------
'-----=------_-_-__ ----------1---+---+---1------t-----j---1----c----~---l----+----------i;-----
!i __________ ____c::::_~__::9--l~-~-~-~-~-~~ -_:"_~:'::.4-+~--_-_-_-_++--~----_~_;_-_-_-_-_=++~--_-_--_;:::.:_r:~"::~~::::_:r:::.:~·r::.:~+-_-_~_--_~_
FIGURE 3
377
mixture (C.O.M.) technology that has been pursued in Japan, and
how certain aspects may fit in with Beluga coal development.
Most recently, since the West Coast petroleum product shortages of
1979, much of our attention has been directed to conversion of
Beluga coal to liquid fuels, specifically to the production of
methanol (methyl alcohol).
lbe Beluga Methanol Project
Early this year the Department of Energy solicited proposals for
feasibility studies of "alternate fuels", advising that repayable
grants of up to four million dollars each were available to those
submitting proposals for the production of such fuels (e.g. coal
liquids, shale oil, biomass, unconventional natural gas, etc.).
Placer Amex, Inc. and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. jointly submitted a
proposal under the category of coal liquids to study the feasibil-
ity of producing 7,500 tons per day (54,000 barrels per day) of
methanol from Beluga coal (11). The Beluga project was officially
awarded the Dept. of Energy grant on August 28, 1980.
The Beluga proposal was deemed to satisfy the various criteria
established by the Department of Energy, among them being:
1. Availability Q[ Specific Resources
The only raw materials needed for the process are coal, water and
air. The drill proven coal reserves of the Beluga coal field
total a billion tons, with a resource base estimated by the U.S.
Geological Survey to be four billion tons or more (3). Water is
available in abundance.
2. Readiness ~ Suitability Q[ Technology
The Beluga Methanol Project will utilize commercially proven,
well-established technology. The processes selected are suited to
the particular coal and to the site of operations, are simple,
have minimal environmental impact and investment cost, and use
equipment of proven size. An important criteria of the Dept. of
Energy in awarding grants was that a project get underway expedi-
tiously without preliminary research and development. Moreover,
the process technology for the Beluga methanol project can be
utilized for other types of coals, and therefore can have wide-
spread application.
3. ~ SUitability ~ Enyiroomental Considerations
The project site has several environmental advantages as a loca-
tion for construction of a synthetic fuels plant. The long summer
growing season will aid revegetation of the mined areas. Environ-
mental monitoring and assessment of the region, undertaken as part
of the feasibility study, will insure that discharges and em is-
378
I
I
I
1.
li
I,
I
I
I
I
I
li
I
'
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
sions will in no way be detrimental. The coal derived fuel has no
ash nor sulfur and produces a notably small amount of nitrogen
oxides following combustion--important environmental advantages in
the market areas where the product will be ultimately consumed.
4. Capability Q( Proposers
Complementing the coal mining and resource experience (including
Alaskan coal operations) of the proposers is the technical and
business expertise of the team engaged for the study. This in-
cludes the Davy McKee Corp., an international engineer/contractor
having extensive experience in the proposed technology. This firm
is responsible for engineering the largest methanol plants ever
ordered (2,760 short ton per day units now being built in the
U.S.S.R.), the largest plant in operation (Celanese at Clearlake,
Texas, 2,200 short tons per day) and was involved in most of the
plants in the world producing in excess of 1,000 tons/day.
5. Regional Benefits ftQm Plant Operation
This synthetic fuels project can benefit nearby Cook Inlet commun-
i ties as a source of full time employment, both directly at the
mine, the methanol plant and the ship loading facility; and indi-
rectly in support activities which would require materials and
services from other areas, including the Anchorage region. Native
land owners will have a management role in the development of
resources on their lands, and a significant presence in the study
team. The project can provide an additional local source of
electric power, a natural complement of the methanol plant's self-
sufficiency in electric power.
Basic Process Technology of the Proposed Plants
Coal liquefaction processes can be characterized as either direct
or indirect, with production of methanol from coal being accom-
plished by indirect liquefaction. Direct liquefaction is not yet
a commercial reality, although considerable effort has already
been spent in research and development. Such processes would
typically use coal that is crushed and ground to a fine size,
mixed with liquids from the process, and then reacted with hydro-
gen at high temperature and pressure. The sol vent refined coal
(SRC) test facility located at Fort Lewis, Washington, is an
example of such a project.
Indirect liquefaction of coal has been commercially used for many
years. The process is "indirect" because the crushed, dried coal
is first gasified with steam and oxygen in a reaction vessel. The
product gases ("synthesis gas") are then purified and reacted
catalytically to form such products as liquid hydrocarbons or
methanol, as shown in Figure 4. The world's largest operation of
this type is South Africa's Sasol which, with a coal input of up
to 90,000 tons per day, uses Lurgi gasification and Fischer-
379
COAL COAL
~ STORAGE &
PREPARATION
COAL GASIFICATION
AIR
AIR
SEPARATION
PLANT
WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
PARTICULATE REMOVAL ~ ... ~..-·--
COMPRESSION 02
CO SHIFT
SUPPORTING
OFF SITES
METHANOL
SYNTHESIS.
DISTILLATON
& STORAGE
GAS TREATMENT
& COMPRESSION
PRODUCT .Jo
METHANOL
FIGURE 4: COAL TO METHANOL -------------------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tropscn synthesis to produce a wide variety of products. Another
South African firm, African Explosives and Chemical Industries,
has produced methanol from coal at Modderfontein for twenty years
and plans to substantially expand this operation.
Selection of System
A major decision for our project was the selection of the type of
coal gasification system to be used. A comparison of the
principal commercially proven systems proved instructive for the
selection:
Lurgi Gasification: A fixed bed gasifier, requiring sized coal,
preferably of low ash content. This process
produces fuel gases and low value bypro-
ducts, such as tar and ammonia; although
such byproducts can be worthwhile commodi-
ties in the appropriate locations, in a re-
mote site distant from markets they would
impair the logistics of the operation and
marketing.
Koppers Totzek: An entrained bed system, requiring coal to
be pulverized to 70S under 200 mesh, prefer-
ably with low ash content, and a fluid ash
at the operating temperature. Synthesis gas
or medium Btu gas is produced without bypro-
ducts.
Winkler Gasifier: A fluid bed system which can accept crushed
coal up to 3/8 inch in size and in which
fines are satisfactory. Synthesis gas (or
medium Btu fuel gas) is produced without by-
products. Medium and high ash contents are
acceptable. Fuel source for the plant
boilers is coal and the reactive char witn-
drawn from the gasifiers along with ash.
The gasifier has considerable potential for
future capacity increase when developed for
operation at elevated pressure.
Among the above outlined characteristics of these processes are
several that fit the requirements of the Beluga project very well.
The Beluga coal seam varies in ash content, and therefore a pro-
cess accepting higher ash coal is desired so as to maximize utili-
zation of the resource*; the low Hardgrove grindability of much of
the Beluga coal suggests a coarse size feed to the gasifier;
*Unburned carbon in the char from the gasifiers will be utilized
in the boilers to be used for generating power· at the plant.
381
byproducts should be avoided and environmental effects minimized;
a low capital cost is desirable. All of these factors pointed to
the selection of a fluid bed gasification system, the Winkler
gasifier, which has operated commercially since 1926 in Europe.
The synthesis gas leaving the Winkler gasifier will consist of
hydrogen, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and small quantities of
methane, nitrogen and oxygen. Sulfur containing compounds are
removed from the gas mixture before the gas enters the converter.
Converters can produce methanol from synthesis gas regardless of
the source of the gas mixture, i.e., whether derived from steam
reforming of methane or naphtha, or from the partial oxidation of
oil or coal. The synthesis reaction of hydrogen and carbon monox-
ide to form methanol requires a catalyst and is favored by low
temperature and high pressure. The rate of reaction is, however,
retarded by the low temperature. The zinc/chrome catalysts origi-
ally used proved so unreactive at the low temperatures that favor
the equilibrium, that it was necessary to raise the temperature.
This action had an adverse effect on the yield, so it was neces-
sary to operate at very high pressures--typically 4,500
pounds/square inch (psi)--to obtain economic production.
Before World War II, a copper catalyst was developed which pro-
vided high reactivity at low temperatures (typically 400 to 550°
F) and at modest pressures (750 psi). However, the copper cata-
lyst could not become a commercial reality until the 1960s, when
gas purification techniques enabled the removal of the trace
quantities of sulfur which poisoned this catalyst.
Nearly eighty percent of the world's methanol productive capacity
built during the past decade has used the same low pressure pro-
cess as selected for the Beluga methanol project. This low pres-
sure process is used for:
The largest single stream methanol plant in operation
The largest plant being built
The methanol plant currently in operation which uses coal
as the raw material.
The Beluga project will use three production trains (i.e., paral-
lel units of equipment), each with a capacity of 2,500 tons of
methanol per day, allowing equipment to be used in the largest
sizes readily available and minimizing costs.
Looking toward the future, the gasifier will be structurally
designed to operate at slightly higher than the intial four atmos-
phere operating pressure. This will enable improved production
efficiencies to be achieved as permitted by actual operating
experience. The coal handling equipment will be designed to ac-
commodate increased feed rates, and additional downstream proces-
sing capacity can be added as needed. Thus the process selected
382
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will demonstrate a major commercial technology, while providing
the means to test and utilize innovative improvements.
PlaDt Construction aDd Infrastructure Developnent
During the planning of the proposed project, Cook Inlet Region,
Inc. and Placer Amex will work closely with native village repre-
sentatives, the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the various govern-
mental agencies involved. A grass roots industrial complex and
its supporting community and infrastructure can be developed in a
manner that can serve as a model for future similar projects
elsewhere.
The proposed plant site is near the shore of Cook Inlet, a dis-
tance of about 25 miles by rail, or less by conveyor from the
source of the coal and close to tidewater. Barge transport can
deliver supplies and even entire preconstructed modules of the
plant. The construction season will be limited, but a combination
of conventional and modular methods should minimize costs and time
of construction. Fabrication in the Pacific Northwest of modules
for the plant will be considered.
The proposed plant location is also adjacent to an existing pipe-
line which has sufficient capacity to carry the methanol produced,
on a batch or intermittent basis. This pipeline extends about
forty miles to an existing shiploading facility in Lower Cook
Inlet where tankers as large as 80,000 dead weight ton (DWT) are
currently handled. This pipeline and marine operation will be
studied during the initial stage of the feasibility study, to
ascertain what modifications may be necessary to enable the exist-
ing system to carry methanol and to store and load it on ships.
Markets for Beluga Methanol
Marketing of the product will benefit from the low-cost marine
transportation used to ship the product from Cook Inlet to receiv-
ers in the various Pacific Coast states. Year round shipping in
both Upper and Lower Cook Inlet is practicable (5), as verified by
the now routine service provided to Anchorage by several marine
carriers. As distinct from the fixed nature of pipeline trans-
port, and from projects having major markets adjacent to the plant
site, the transport system for the Beluga methanol project will
provide a highly flexible, relatively low-cost method of product
delivery.
We anticipate that the principal markets for methanol from the
Beluga project will be in electric utility fuels, motor vehicle
fuels and the chemical industry. The selling price of the product
is obviously a major consideration in marketing, and one of the
principal objectives of the feasibility study is to develop and
383
confirm sufficient data to determine costs and price of the pro-
duct.
Electric Power Generation
Methanol has been tested in gas turbines at Florida Power Corpora-
tion (1974) and at Southern California Edison Co. (1978-79) (12).
Because of the favorable emission characteristics (13) (no sulfur
dioxide or particulates and very reduced oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
levels as compared with natural gas combustion), there is special
interest in methanol in such pollution prone regions as exist in
Southern California. Methanol has also been tested in a boiler
(New Orleans Public Service Co., 1972), and tests are proposed at
a Southern California Edison Co. boiler unit.
A very large potential exists for fuel methanol use in combined
cycle power generation, where it can produce power at a heat rate
comparable to best commercial practice. Where peaking units are
installed, methanol satisfies the Power plant and Industrial Fuel
Use Act which mandates use of alternate fuels, if available.
Inasmuch as exemptions to burn gas or oil are not allowed for more
than 1500 hours per year, new combined cycle plants are not being
implemented in this country. Availability of an alternate fuel
would enable such plants to operate as a base--or intermediate--
load producer and could thereby enable the efficiencies of com-
bined cycle operations to be achieved. For power production in
combined cycle plants there are more than ample markets for the
entire plant capacity. One base load plant of 400 megawatts would
require one half the plant's production of methanol. Because of
their much higher (i.e., poorer) heat rate, an even smaller capa-
city of simple cycle combustion turbines would use the plant
capacity for an equivalent amount of power output.
Combustion turbines provide an excellent opportunity for introduc-
ing methanol into a market of substantial size; existing distribu-
tion systems and this type of generating unit can be easily accom-
modated to this fuel. Combustion turbines currently use gas or
distillate fuel, and thus can be more likely candidates for metha-
nol use than are boilers where residual fuel is currently used.
Nevertheless, repowering of existing steam boilers with methanol-
fired turbines to obtain combined cycle units is feasible and may
be attractive, especially if legislation is passed to "back out"
oil and gas from the boiler units.
Among the factors favoring introduction and use of methanol into
the electric utility market are:
1) Technical capabilities of electric utility personnel. 2)
Relatively small number of applications (generating stations)
compared to potential users such as motor vehicles, thereby mini-
mizing possible distribution problems. 3) Regulation by federal
and state governments, both of which have made efforts to encour-
age (or mandate) use of such fuel.
384
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Motor Vehicle Fuels
The transportation fuel market provides methanol its best
opportunity to be competitive at an early date without subsidy.
Methanol can be used:
for gasoline blends
for gasoline replacement
as a denaturant for gasohol
as a feedstock for MTBE
as a feedstock for "synthetic" gasolines
Automotive fleets using fuel containing about 90 percent methanol
already exist and gasoline/methanol blends analogous to gasohol
are under development. Methanol is currently available at about
one half the price of ethanol, although tax benefits currently
available for ethanol serve to reduce the effective price of the
latter.
Approval has been given by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for MTBE additions as a high octane blending component in
gasoline. Each ton of MTBE requires about 0.37 ton of methanol
for its manufacture. Formerly MTBE was not expected to be pro-
duced in quant1ty on the West Coast because of limited supply of
isobutylene from ethylene plants; however, it has been found that
butenes from catalytic cracking stream of refineries can be used
with methanol to produce MTBE.
Conclusion
It may be seen that methanol produced from Beluga coal can readily
overcome each of the obstacles to coal use in the Pacific Coast
States that was mentioned in the Introduction. Methanol will help
satisfy the need for liquid fuels; it is clean to handle and clean
to burn. Methanol from the large reserves of the Beluga coal
field can be delivered to widespread markets by an economical and
highly flexible marine transport system.
Consummation of the Beluga Methanol Project will be in the inter-
ests of the State of Alaska, the several states where the product
will be marketed and the nation, which will benefit from reduced
consumption of imported petroleum.
Bibliography
1. Patsch, B.J .G., 1975, Exploration and Development of the
Beluga Coal Field, in Rao, P. Dharma and Wolff, Ernest N.,
ed., Focus on Alaska's Coal '75, Proceedings of the Confer-
ence held at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, October
15-17' 1975, p. 72-83.
385
2. Maloney, R.P., 1958, Reconnaissance of the Beluga River Coal
field, Alaska: U.S. Bureau of Mines R.I. 5430.
3. Barnes, F.F., 1966, Geology and Coal Resources of the Beluga-
Yentna Region, Alaska: U.S. Geological Survey, Bulletin
1202-C.
4. Laird, A.M., Beluga Field Potential, Proposed Coal Operations
(presented at the Coal Workshop, Alaska Coal and the
Pacific, September 22 and 23, 1977, Juneau, Alaska).
5. Kirshenbaum, N.W., Beluga Field Potential; Transportation
(presented at the Coal Workshop: Alaska Coal and the
Pacific, September 22 and 23, 1977, Juneau, Alaska).
6. Environmental Baseline Studies, Proposed Coal Mining Opera-
tions, Cook Inlet, Alaska, 1974, Dames and Moore Rept.
7. Preliminary Design Report for Coal Loading Facilities; Sores
Associates, Consulting Engineers, New York, 1975.
8. Ebasco Services Incorporated: Cost Study for a 400 MW Coal
fired Power Plant -North Foreland Area, Cook Inlet, Alaska,
1979.
9. Clean Energy from Alaskan Coals, Final Report, January, 1974
to December, 1975, Stanford Research Institute, 1976,
Energy Rsearch and development Administration.
10. Nakabayashi, Y., The Feasibility of Beluga Coal as Fuel for
the Power Industries of Japan and the Present Status of
Research and Development on Beluga Coal in Japan. (Focus
on Alaska's Coal 1 80, proceedings of Conference held at
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, October 21-23, 1980.)
11. Proposal submitted by Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and Placer
Amex, Inc. to the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Coal to Methanol
Project (Resource/Technology Area: Coal Liquids) Feasibili-
ty Studies for Alternative Fuels Production No. DE-PA01-
80RA50185. April 25, 1980.
12. Weir, A. and von KleinSmid, W.H., Nox Emissions from Synfuel
Combustion (National Meeting Amer1can Institute of Chemical
Engineers, Philadelphia, June 10, 1980).
13. Pruce, L.M., Methanol Holds Promise for Gas Turbines. Power,
Sept. 1980, p. 105.
386
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Alaskan coal to west coast kilowatts
Jack B. Robertson
Regional Representative of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy,
Seattle
Introduction
The U.S. Department of Energy, through its Regional Office in
Seattle, recently completed a Draft Study, the Transportation ~
Market Analysis .Qf Alaska ~. The Draft Study has been made
available to the newly organized Interagency Coal Export Task
Force in Washington, D.C., where it has been favorably received.
President Carter charged the Task Force with finding ways to
substantially increase U.S. coal exports. The expanded export and
domesitc use of coal is one of the cornerstones of the Administra-
tion's energy policy. The Department of Energy Draft Study, which
will be printed and distributed in January 1981, found, in part,
that:
(a) Alaskan coal could be delivered as steam coal to primary
market areas (Puget Sound, Northern California, Japan, Taiwan and
Korea) for a cost of between $1.87 and $3.31 per million Btu ( $28
to $53 per ton) depending on the coal source and the destination.
In this price range it would be competitive with coal from other
sources (both domestic and foreign) in Far East markets but pro-
bably not competitive in U.S. West Coast markets.
(b) By converting Alaskan coal into a synthetic fuel (e.g.,
methanol) which has clean burning characteristics, Alaska coal
could provide a valuable energy source to serve U.S. West Coast
markets. This would be particularly so in those urban areas close
to electric load centers, which are in Clean Air Act "nonattain-
ment" areas.
Today I will concentrate on the second finding of the Draft Study
because the concept needs to be more widely discussed, and because
there appear to be mutually reinforcing relationships between the
desire to market Alaskan coal, the need for rapid construction of
additional electric generation capacity in the Pacific Northwest,
the need to reduce consumption of foreign crude oil and the con-
tlnuing need to protect the environment.
Need for Power
The Pacific Northwest is currently experiencing electrical short-
ages. The Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee fore-
387
cast that such shortages, in the range of 2,000 to 4,000 MWe, will
continue until the early 1990's, when some of the nuclear power
plants currently under construction are expected to come on line
(2). There appear to be only three ways which, used alone or in
combination, would effectively meet this shortage:
1. Encourage strong conservation programs (much stronger than
those now in effect);
2. Bring on line those alternative power plants that can be
qu~ckly constructed, e.g., combustion turbine or wind turbine
driven electric power generators, or small hydroelectric addi-
tions; and
3-Perhaps import supplemental electric power into the region--if
and when it may be available.
Canbustion Turbines
It is my view that combustion turbine powered generators, fueled
with methanol ( CH~OH) derived from Alaska coal, may prove to be
both an economically and technically sound alternative to burning
imported oil. The technologies, costs and ~anagement of combus-
tion turbine powered generators are well understood. The equip-
ment may be ordered by electric utilities, essentially as catalog
items.
For example, the Puget Sound Power & Light Company was recently
granted an exemption from the Fuel Use Act to use petroleum or
natural gas as a primary energy source in two planned 81 MWe oil
or gas fired combustion turbine peak load power plants in Whatcom
County, Washington (3). These two power plants will be on line
this coming spring. It is my further view that these two turbines
may be only the harbinger of many more to come in the Pacific
Northwest, much like those now being used on the East Coast.
I also believe that had coal derived methanol been available at a
reasonable price, it would have been specified for the two Puget
Power turbines. In fact, there is an almost automatic temporary
exemption from prohibitions of the Fuel Use Act, which would allow
new and existing power plants to use oil or natural gas pending
availability of synthetic fuel.
Methanol
Methanol, being a simple hydrocarbon molecule without troublesome
elements linked into it, has the attractive property of being very
clean burning. Southern California Edison recently burned metha-
nol for 500 hours in one of its existing natural gas fueled tur-
bines, which is used for peak loading purposes. Particulates and
388
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
so 2 emissions were found to be zero and NO was measured at 40 to
50 ppm (4), a very acceptable level under the requirements of the
Clean Air Act.
All parts ot· the U.S. are subject to the Clean Air Act. Adminis-
tratively, the most significant differences in application of the
Act occur between areas where National Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards have been attained, and areas where they have not.
In general, urban areas are "nonattainment" for one or more "cri-
teria" pollutants,* which means that it is most difficult to
obtain permits to construct new industrial facilities that have a
pollution potential in such areas. These same urban areas have
the heaviest electrical loads. Because of transmission loss and
for reasons of reliability, electric utili ties prefer to locate
new generating facilities near such load centers.
It is in precisely these same urban areas that combustion turbine
powered generators logically would be located, provided ~ fa=
cilities bYrn ~ clean ~.
Aside from the requirements of the Clean Air Act, I am persuaded
that the public will not willingly accept a major industrial fuel
using facility any place in the coastal strip west of the moun-
tains along the West Coast in the "Lower 48" states, unless it
will burn a clean fuel. Methanol is such a fuel.
Proven Technology
The technology for producing methanol from coal is in commercial
use. In general, the process calls for the gasification of the
coal and then conversion to methanol with the aid of catalysts.
In the process, pollutants such as ash, sulfur and heavy metals
are removed. The resultant methanol is clean burning.
In support of the prospective use of this technology, in July,
1980 the Department of Energy awarded a $3.9 million grant to
Placer Amex, Inc. and the Cook Inlet Native Corporation, Inc. to
study the commercial feasibility of producing 54,000 BPD of metha-
nol from Beluga coal.
Transportation
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, methanol may be transported by
tanker or pipeline by using similar equipment and precautions used
to transport gasoline. Therefore, it can be transported to con-
ventional docks or tank farms. It can also be stored for rela-
*Sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, total suspended particulates,
carbon monoxide, ozone, volatile organic compounds (hydrocarbons),
and lead.
389
tively long periods of time without deterioration. For example,
methanol could be stored in tank farms near combustion turbine
facilities during the off season, and drawn down during the peak
usage period. The fact that methanol transport can make use of
conventional transportation facilities and systems could translate
into major savings.
Economic Situation
Our knowledge of the economics of the "Alaskan Coal to West Coast
Kilowatts" concept is admittedly scanty, and preliminary at best.
But, based on what we do know, I am optimistic that it could prove
to be economically competitive in its own right. Should this be
so, the other advantages of such a concept would be compelling
reasons for use of private industry. We trust that the feasibili-
ty study just mentioned will provide specific answers to most of
our economic questions. However, there are some alternatives,
about which we do have good economic data, that may be used for
indirect comparison.
The Washington Public Power Supply System has estimated in a 1979
study that new coal fired power plants and nuclear fired power
plants would produce electricity at a bus bar cost of 51.3 to 62.0
mills/KWH, and 54.8 to 59.0 mills/KWH respectively in 1989 dollars
(15).
The Puget Sound Power & Light Company has estimated that the cost
of producing electricity using the combustion turbines previously
mentioned, fueled with natural gas or oil, would be 63.3 and 72
mills/KWH respectively in 1980 dollars (16).
Based on the above, we estimate that methanol could directly
compete with the Number 2 distillate fuel oil, which may be used
in the Puget Sound Power & Light Company's combustion turbines, if
the methanol could be produced and delivered to the combustion
turbine site for $6.01 per million Btu or less in 1980 dollars.
Current cost estimates for methanol production from coal range
from approximately $3.25 to over $11.00 per million Btu, depending
upon the location and capacity of the plant, the process used and
the quality of the coal (7).
While we do not know the precise costs for transportation of
methanol from Alaska to lower 48 markets, it appears certain to be
less than transportation costs for coal. Further, it is expected
that the Placer Amex/Cook Inlet Corp. feasibility study referred
to earlier, and ongoing Maritime Administration studies will pro-
vide credible answers to methanol transportation cost questions.
However, we must not lose sight of the fact that methanol is both
clean burning and free from foreign control. Therefore, it could
be competitive even at prices somewhat higher than OPEC oil
prices.
390
I
I
I
I I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Conclusion
Today I have discussed one possible scenario for the use of Alas-
kan coal. We need more concrete answers before we can definitely
conclude tnat it is a viable alternative, but, conceptually, it
has many things going for it. It is an example of the kind of
coal using system tnat national policy supports. Presently, the
U.S. Department of Energy is implementing this policy, in part, by
funding industry directed feasibility studies, and by supplement-
ing these studies with in house analyses of the socio-economic and
technical issues.
As a Nation, we need to consider such options as "Alaskan Coal to
Pacific Coast Kilowatts", recognizing that social and technologi-
cal changes may suggest better choices tomorrow. In short, while
there is no single technology that can be guaranteed to solve an
energy problem today or tomorrow, I believe methanol has a bright
future. The Nation needs initiative, enterprise and willingness
to take risks--well-known characteristics of Alaskans--to help
solve our energy problems and reduce our vulnerability to the
political and economic policies of the oil exporting countries.
References
U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation and Market Analysis of
Alaska Coal, Second Draft: Seattle, Washington, November, 1980,
p. vi.
Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, West Group Fore-
cast of Power Loads and Resources, July 1980-June 1991, Supple-
ment 1: Portland, Oregon, July, 1980, p. 7.
U.S. Department of Energy, Economic Regulatory Administration, ERA
Case No. 52416-6120-22, 23-22, Whitehorn Generating Station
Units 2 and 3, Puget Sound Power and'Light Company, Washington,
D.C., September, 1980.
Electric Power Research Institute, Methanol as a Turbine Fuel:
Palo Alto, California, 1979.
Washington Public Power Supply System, Comparative Study of Coal
and Nuclear Generation Options for the Pacific Northwest: Rich-
land, Washington, August, 1979.
Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Private Communications:
Seattle, Washington, October, 1980.
B. Rubin, I.Y. Borg and W.J. Ramsey, Lawrence Livermore Labora-
tory, An Assessment of the Potential for Using Alaskan Coal in
California: Livermore, California, July, 1978, p. 16-17.
391
Mining methods at UsibeDi coal mine using dragline
Joseph Uslbelll
President. Uslbelll Coal Mine. Healy. Alaska
Since a lot of you are going to be visiting the mine tomorrow, I'm
going to cover a couple of areas in our mining program that will
need a little explanation before you get there; or that will not
be readily apparent because of the time of year and are not cur-
rent activities.
The areas I'm going to cover in detail are the use of the dragline
and the planning thereof, and some of the reclamation work we do.
Now our mine is located in a very beautiful area, with an abun-
dance of wildlife and an occasional outcrop of coal. The start of
the stripping sequence starts with the planning. Survey and
geological work is done on the outcrops, followed by an extensive
drilling program. There is a very extensive drilling program,
logging of the holes, followed by plotting and engineering work,
which results in cross sections. Our dragline is a standard of
the industry and we've learned a few things.
Your planning has to be much more precise because you're very
limited in scope. You're limited to the length of reach of the
dragline and, therefore, you'd better have your ducks in a row
before you get started or you're going to find yourselves in real
trouble, probably spoilbound with dirt to move and no place to put
it.
The purpose of the dragline is to move the overburden only. It
does not handle the coal, contrary to what a lot of people have
envisioned. It is strictly a method for moving the dirt. The way
we do that is by making a cut, in this case a 4,000 foot long cut,
approximately 100 feet wide, sidecasting the overburden. Cut
number one starts with the original ground surface, taking that
amount of overburden and sidecasting it.
Cut number two, which would be when you got into the next seam,
would then place the overburden from the upper seam into the hole
that you've already mined. Now, obviously, that means that you
have to move the coal out of the way first.
Unfortunately, tomorrow we may not see the dragline in operation
because we've come to the end of a pit. We have to shut down the
dragline in order to get the coal out of the way, so that we can
start back and take advantage of this hole. In some cases we have
a little longer distance between number three and number four
seams, so we actually took two cuts on three prior to getting to
392
I
I
II
I
II
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the four seam, We are starting back on our first cut of four seam
at the present time.
With the dragline you're limited by the height it can dump, the
depth it can dig and the distance it can dump out. These are the
constraints that you have to design in.
Our initial work with the dragline was to cut an access slot which
is used primarily to road network. The original outcrop parallels
Lignite Creek. The first cut, obviously we don't have a nice
straight edge to work with, and let me tell you it is nice to have
straight pits with draglines. You definitely do not want inside
curves, because you immediately run out of spoil room. We found
that out the hard way. You are limited in your ability to
straighten out these curves by how far you can reach maximum with
a minimum of how much room you need to place the dragline. So
your first cut on the high points, you would take a maximum
reach, narrowing down on the others. Our solution at a very deep
gully was to take overburden and actually construct a dam or a
walkway across that, walk the dragline across and dig itself out
behind it. We then continued on, roughly paralleling the surface,
but with still a few curves in it.
Bv the time we get to our third cut back our pit will be straight.
We are now at this point with the dragline moving the top cut. My
crewmates surprised me a little bit. They may have moved that
pole out of the way. Maybe we will be in production. I certainly
hope so. I've been gone two weeks, so I'm not sure where things
stand.
With a very mature pit we have the full depth of overburden. The
top overburden is somewhat shallow. In actuality, when we get to
a completely mature pit we will have a top overburden of about 150
feet in depth, approximately 20 feet of coal, 85 feet of interbur-
den and 17 feet of coal. Now that is very deep for most surface
mines: that's almost 300 feet of total pit depth.
Once these things are all laid out on paper, you go out into the
field and stake the pits. That's followed by ditch preparation
with tractors, blast hole drilling and loading of the holes. As a
point of interest, now we're drilling 9 inch holes and we have the
capability of going 120 feet. We use ammonium nitrate fuel oil
mixture for our explosive. Each hole is primed with a high explo-
sive primer, using primacord as a detonating agent. then filled
with the ammonium nitrate. The truck carrying ammonium nitrate is
licensed just like DuPont, because we buy fertilizer grade ammo-
nium nitrate. It is mixed with fuel oil and becomes an explosive
at that point.
These are then shot. The ground is leveled for the dragline,
because draglines do not work very well on slopes. The overburden
is then moved.
393
Figure 1 shows the sequence of operations in the mining system.
When working from the top bench, removing the overburden above 4
seam, the dragline casts the overburden into the previous, adja-
cent cut where 3 seam and the 3-4 parting had been removed. The
coal of 4 seam is removed and the the dragline ramps down to the
lower bench. From this bench it removes the 3-4 parting above 3
seam, stacking it on top of the overburden just moved from above 4
seam. The coal of 3 seam is removed and vacates a place for the
dragline to cast the next strip of overburden from above 4 seam.
The machine is self-propelled and obviously can't do all its
digging from one place, so these machines do not work on crawlers,
they are walking draglines. These shoes on the side are operated
by cam mechanisms, which actually pick up the back of the machine
and slide it back, a step at a time. The step is seven feet. It
picks the machine up and repositions for the next step. It's not
very fast, taking about 43 seconds to make a seven foot step, but
it corners like it's on rails. Quite often the machine is used to
prepare its own pad ahead; in this case you see it dumping on the
pad. This is done in permafrost conditions. We remove the thawed
permafrost and backfill with dry material. Actually, we use the
bucket to help level the pad and then finish it up with a tractor.
In most cases the overburden is sidecast into the previous hole.
The machine is electric and powered from this substation, getting
25,000 volt power out through this extension cord, which we call a
trailing cable, at 6, 900 volts, 6, 000 feet of power cable to the
machine. It really has only four functions. The hoist drum has
two cables, paired, all cables are paired. These are 2 5/8 inch
cables which lift the bucket. The drag drum positions the bucket
laterally. There is a swing mechanism. Actually there are three
of these units which control the rotation of the machine. Then of
course, the fourth function is the walking. In normal digging,
you're only using these three.
The machine is completely automatically lubricated. It is a
fairly efficient machine. We find that we're getting about 2,000
cubic yards per hour when we're digging. We have averaged an
availability of about 80$ and a usage factor of about 80$ of that.
We're running almost 1,200 yards per scheduled hour. Now in order
to keep that up you have to do some pretty intense maintenance.
The largest area of maintenance is bucket repair. This thing is
in the dirt all the time, and it wears itself out rather rapidly.
As a matter of fact, we find we have higher wear rates than
anywhere in the country, possibly in the world. We get as little
as 600 hours of digging before we have to switch buckets. Fortu-
nately we have two of them. This is a preventative type mainte-
nance, repairing cracking and wear on the bottom of the bucket.
We have a forklift that can handle the 47,000 pound bucket, posi-
tioning it in the shop where it is repaired by welders. We have
one man, full time, doing nothing but welding on dragline buckets.
We also get a lot of wear in the chains and so we have extra sets
of those, which are also constantly under repair. We have a
394
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIG. 1 al PROFILE SHOWING 3 SEAM MINED AND 4 SEAM HIGHWALL
original surface ~----(---.:.. waate excavated . ....._
4 se.am ------1--~--
3 seem
aurface
FIG. 1bl PROFILE SHOWING 4 SEAM WASTE EXCAVATED
~lginal surface
--~ --................
--::4:-::.:-:.=-.=-m=--'--- -m1 ned-~
------............
eam
FIG. 1 cl PROFILE SHOWING 4 SEAM COAL MINED
4 seam
3 waate,
eJ~cev'ated
I
\
\
FIG. 1dl PROFILE SHOWING 3 SEAM WASTE EXCAVATED
~face
3 •••••
---------,
rtace
~~~~~~------{. .. ,
~origin aurface
FIG. 1eJ PROFILE SHOWING 3 SEAM MINED '--.(...........__
original surface
leveling followed
FIG. 11) PROFILE SHOWING NEXT PROPOSED STEP TO SOUTH WITH RECLAMATION FOLLOWING
395
little bit of unscheduled maintenance. In one case we lost a
bearing on one of the 1, 300 horsepower drag motors, and this is
just the brake assembly which had to be removed before the rotor
could be taken out, trucked up in the lathe and the bearing ground
off. It had welded itself to the shaft because of overheating.
After the overburden is removed and sidecast, the coal is exposed.
It is loaded in the trucks by rubber tired front end loaders and
hauled to our preparation plant, the tipple, as it is known in the
industry. In this case we're hauling it over the top of a moun-
tain, about a 40 minute round trip haul. We will soon have a new
tipple. and I'll discuss that this afternoon. The coal is dumped
in the tipple where it is crushed, crushed again, screened in this
case, and loaded into rail cars for shipment to our customers.
Now we get into the portion of the reclamation which follows the
stripping. The total reclamation starts from day one. You may
have noticed in one of the early diagrams of the pit, we actually
had the reclamation planned in there with the repositioning of
the spoil, to leave the approximate original contours. We then
seed it. Our reclamation has been rather successful (Figures 2a,
2b, 3a and 3b). The reclaimed areas are returned to the wildlife
(Figures 4 and 5).
Thank you.
396
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
il
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
Figure 2a. Before (1977). Figure 2b. After (1977).
Figure 3a. Before June 15, 1979. Figure 3b. After August 25, 1979.
Figures 2 and 3. Effectiveness of new seeding of reclaimed land showing
advance in growth in one season.
photo by Malcolm Lockwood
Figure 4. Caribou in Usibelli Coal
Mine area.
397
photo by Malcolm Lockwood
Figure 5. Moose in Usibelli Coal
Mine area.
Coal mining and exploration under permafrost
conditions at Spitzbergen, 78 o N
Alv Orheim
Geologist, Store Norske, Spitzbergen, Norway
Abstract
The annual mean temperature at Spi tsbegen is -5°C (+23° F).
Maximum thickness of the permafrost is 450 meters--almost 1500
feet.
Mining coal within the permafrost zone does offer some advantages.
Most important is the improved mechanical behavior of the rocks in
frozen state and the effect of this on roof stability. When mild
air ventilates the mine during summer the stability of roof and
walls is reduced. Under unfavorable stress conditions this effect
may be noticeable as far as 800 m. from the mine opening.
When using conventional mining techniques, like undercutting and
blasting, the dry environment of permafrost at the coal face is
favored. With introduction of full face shearers and large drill
rigs this changes. Such equipment requires very good dust
suppression, that is to say a surplus of water right at the face.
Thus, modern mining in permafrost is faced with a major problem:
how to deliver and use ample water at the face, and at the same
time avoid'clogging of wet coal enroute through the mine, or
freezing at subzero surface temperatures.
There is no single solution to these problems, however, preheated
ventilation air reduces some of them.
Special attention is given when mining in the region just below
the permafrost. Pockets of Artesian water and methane may be
encountered here.
Mapping of the coal reserves is severely hampered by the Arctic
climate and rigid countryside. The sensitive environment also
requires special considerations to avoid pollution and damage.
Picking surface samples, or samples from test adits, the effect of
weathering must be considered. For sulfur, volatile matter and
ash content this effect is measurable more than 50 m. from the
surface.
Brine, diesel and heated water have been used as drill fluids. If
the permafrost is less than 150 m., heated water may be the most
economical. However, it requires absolutely continuous circula-
398
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tion. Brines or diesel, preferably cooled below 0°C, offer great-
er flexibility. On the other hand, they are corrosive and pollut-
ing. Stabilizing muds, cement and fresh water/ice are used to
stop large losses of fluid on fissures.
Horizontal, deflected wire line drilling have been tested. Using
this method in the mine may replace surface boreholes through
permafrost, and hence be advantageous.
The cost of mining and exploration in the Arctic is very high.
The coal product must therefore have a favorable market value.
Realization of this fact in mining means to emphasize uniform,
stable production. In exploration, great efforts are made to
predict mining feasibility and product quality at the earliest
possible stage. One of the key factors in these assessments is
the distribution of permafrost.
Introduction
At the Norwegian archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard), two Rus-
sian and two Norwegian coal mines are in operation. These mines
represent the northernmost industrial activity of the world (Fig.
1 ) •
The m1n1ng was started by the American J.M. Longyear in 1906.
Later several other nationalities began mining, but during the
difficult economic times of the 1920s most settlements were
abandoned.
Today the Russian company Trust Arktikugol ("Arctic Coal") employs
2200 people, and have a total annual production of 0.4 million
tons from their two settlements, Barentsburg and Pyramiden.
Longyearbyen is the administrative center for the islands, and is
also the center for the Norwegian mining company Store Norske
Spitsbergen Kukkompani.
The total population of Longyearbyen is 1200. The annual coal
production is 0.4 million tons.
50 km SE of Longyearbyen a new mine, Svea, is now being developed.
Small scale production and larger exploratory works are carried
out, while plans for a 0.25 million tpy production in 1983 are
being considered.
There are several coal formations on Svalbard. However, only the
coals from the Carboniferous period (north of Isfjorden) and the
lower Tertiary in the central basin, are of any importance. The
Tertiary coals represent the most promising reserves for the
future, and they outcrop along the rim of the large central
trough. So far explorations and mining have only been done along
399
18°E
Fig. 1 Svalbard (Spitsbergen) location of present coal tnlnes
N
airport
Fig.2 Location of mines by Longyearbyen
Coal reserves in blacK.
400
10 ><.m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the outcrop. The whole basin, and in particular the eastern part
from Longyearbyen to Svea, has favorable conditions for coal.
There are five coal seams in Longyearbyen, but only one of tnem,
the Longyear seam, has satisfactory thickness and quality for
extraction. It is subbituminous with low ash and sulfur content,
well-suited both as metallurgical coal and steam coal. The thick-
ness varies between 0.8 m. and 1.8 m. The main seam at Svea has a
maximum height of 5.5 m. with quality similar to the Longyear
seam.
Clillate
The annual mean temperature at sea level is -5°C. During summer
the temperature rarely exceeds +15°C. At its coldest it may get
as low as -45°C, but only for a few days. Precipi tat1on varies
considerably, in Longyearbyen it is less than 300 mm. (11.8 in.)
per year.
In the mountains the permafrost goes down as far as 400-450 m.
from the surface. In lower lying broad valleys the thickness is
100-130 m. On south facing slopes, covered by black shale, the
permafrost is greatly reduced.
Glaciers, which cover 50$ of the potential coal resources, also
reduce the underlying permafrost.
During periods of somewhat milder climate, far-reaching frost
actions took place. Fissures, now filled with frozen surface
water, have been encountered 150 m. below present surface.
Today the only evident frost action takes place in the active
layer of the permafrost. The thickness of this active layer
varies from 0.5-1.5 m., depending on the type of vegetation and
SOll.
The coldest area of tne ground, throughout the year, is found at
10 m. below the surface. The temperature here reflects the annual
mean surface temperature.
Mining
The mines in Longyearbyen are drift mines, 150 to 500 m. above sea
level (Fig. 2). Today the production of coal comes from mines 3
and 6. The seams here are 80 to 90 em thick.
At the face only coal is extracted. This is traditionally done in
a 3 shift cycle, each shift engaging 3 men. The first shift
undercuts the coal bed and blasts the coal to a width of 1.5 m.
along the total face length of 180 m. During the second shift,
401
coal is scraped into mine cars in the crosscut. The scraper box
is pulled back and forth along the face by a two drum slusher
haulage winch. On the third shift, to complete the cycle, the
steel friction roof supports are moved parallel to the advancement
of the face.
From the crosscuts the mine cars are hauled to the mine portal by
means of trolley locomotives. The main haulage roads and cross-
cuts are driven both in the seam and below it, so that the top of
the mine car is level with the scraper boxes on the face.
In the gateroads roof supports are steel girders, wooden props and
2 meter expansion bolts. From the mines the coal is transported
by ropeway and trucks to a dry cleaning plant. During the winter
(Nov. to June) the coal is stockpiled. As long as the height of
the stockpile is less than 8 meters, spontaneous combustion does
not occur.
In Mine 7 the average thickness of the seam is well over 1 m. It
is therefore possible to use mechanized equipment, and a face with
hydraulic roof supports and shearer loader was installed in 1977.
The productivity here is 50 t/ms, more than double that of Mines 3
and 6.
With a seam thickness of 1.5 to 5.5 m., work in the Svea Mine is
also mechanized. Continuous miners are used and the coal is
transported on rubber conveyor belts.
Mining and Per.afrost
In Longyearbyen the mines are within the permafrost zone (Fig. 3),
while the greater part of the Svea Mine is below the permafrost
table (Fig. 4). In both areas the thickness of permafrost is 350-
400 m., but the coal seam has a larger overburden in Svea than in
Longyearbyen. These circumstances reflect one of the key issues
for coal mining at Spitsbergen, whether to "fight" the permafrost,
or to "exploit" it.
When using the traoitional methods of production (Mines 3 and 6),
the advantages of being within the permafrost are obvious, and
probably vital to a successful mining.
If full face shearers are being used, or if the mining takes place
below the permafrost table, the subzero temperature in parts of
the mine is disadvantageous. When evaluating how the permafrost
will effect mining, the following must be considered:
roof stability
dry conditions
water drainage
dust suppression
coal handling
gas accumulation
402
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MINE6
DISTRIBUTION OF
PERMAFROST
permafrost zone
1 2
km
Fig. 3 Distribution of permafrost
SVEA
deflected WL drilling
. 1 km
Fig. 4 Deflected WL drilling
403
Roof Stability
The mechanical strength of the rocks is generally improved in the
frozen state. Partly this is due to a more uniform strain situa-
tion in the rock. In particular this is evident in soft shales.
In the unfrozen state, they will crumble and disintegrate under
pressure, e.g. under roof supports. However, when the rock is
frozen, each thin layer of shale is held together by the frozen
water, and the shale acts like one uniform, solid block of rock.
Stability of roof and walls is also improved because all water on
fissures and joints is frozen. Thus, the ice hampers movement
along fissures.
Consequently, the permafrost does improve the mining conditions to
a great extent. However, one must bear in mind that this is a
comparatively unstable condition. When mild summer air ventilates
the mine, or in areas of heat sources like large motors or rest-
rooms, the rock is constantly exposed to heat, and the permafrost
recedes. The outer part of walls and roof will then achieve
normal mechanical properties. Unless extra precautions are taken
rockfalls will eventually occur.
The effect of ventilation in summertime may reach as far as 800 m.
from the mine portal. Rebolting of the roof and picking off loose
rocks on the walls are annual activities in tnis area.
Dry Conditions
Traditional mining requires that the men work in a kneeling posi-
tion right at the face, and the method is laborious. It is rather
obvious that a cool and dry climate is greatly favored among tne
men.
Admittedly, the equipment they use produces some dust, but this
can be countered by wearing face masks. As far as possible, all
workers position themselves so that the ventilation carries the
dust away from them.
Where drilling in sediments over or under the coal is needed, e.g.
roof bolting and driving of headways, all rigs are equipped with
vacuum dust collectors.
Water Drainage
Below the permafrost zone very high water pressure develops as a
form of Artesian well. The permafrost will act as a tight lid,
giving rise to high pressure and rapid inflush of water in tne
mine. However, the permafrost will also prevent any surface water
404
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
from sustaining the pressure, and within a few weeks the water
pressure will have dropped considerably.
One problem is that the quantities of water may at first be very
great, thus exposing the mining equipment, especially electric
material, to far more water than it is constructed for. In gener-
al, the biggest problem is how to drain the water out of the mine.
The best solution has been to use insulated double walled heated
PVC pipes. These are easily put together, when and where they are
needed. One particular problem using these pipes has been that
they are not constructed for the great temperature differences
experienced in the mine, where the outer tubing is at air tempera-
ture of -30°C, while the inner tubing has water running through at
+0°C.
Dust SUppression
The measures in dealing with dust under dry conditions are not
satisfactory when using mechanized equipment. This is presently
the major concern of coal mining in the Arctic. The only way of
suppressing the dust is to spray with water.
In order to keep the water consumption at the lowest possible
level, the water may be "atomized" by mixing with high pressure
air at the nozzle. The direction of the waterspray in relation to
the rotating cutting bits is adjusted to give maximum effect.
Foam additives have not been tried, as there is uncertainty as to
how they will react at low temperatures.
Introducing water to machines at subzero temperatures requires
several precautions. To avoid ice forming in pipes and nozzles,
the water may either be kept constantly flowing, or all pipes
drained whenever circulation is stopped. In Spitsbergen the prob-
lem is approached by adding antifreeze solution to the water, and
by heating the water. Thus, during brief stops for maintenance,
etc. the water will not freeze. For standstills of more than
several hours, all pipes are drained.
In the main supply pipe, water is kept constantly flowing in a
closed circuit by having a thin return pipe back to the pump or
reservoir.
Coal Handling
From a quality and preparation point of view, a constant drizzle
of water or excess use of water for dust suppression is never
ideal. When working in the Arctic, high moisture content causes
more severe problems.
405
Whether the coal is produced within the permafrost zone or below
that, the product must pass through this zone on its way to the
surface. Run-of-mine coal consists of large percentages of both
coarse and fine grain sizes. Moisture content above 6-BS will
cause clogging or freezing of this mixture. However, to achieve
satisfactory dust suppression, the dust must hold at least 10S
"atomized" water. Consequently the degree of moisture has to be
well balanced within narrow limitations.
Above ground the coal is exposed to air temperatures down to -40°C
on its way to the preparation plant and during stockpiling. Coal
cleaning in Longyearbyen is done by a dry air process. The yield
of this process is considerably reduced if the coal is wet. For
this reason a wet preparation process is now being proposed, both
for Longyearbyen and at the new mine at Svea. This process will
then require a thermal drier for the fines to bring the moisture
below 7S before stockpiling. The coarser coal (+12 mm) may hold
as much as 1 OS moisture without freezing, and thermal drying of
this coal will probably not be required.
Gas Accumulation
The lower permafrost level acts as a trap for methane accumulation
where an inclined coal seam enters the zone of permafrost. In
Spitsbergen the gas concentrations are low, and advancing roadways
through the lower permafrost level have not met with serious
problems. However, in cases when gas concentrations are high,
extra boreholes for gas ventilation may prove necessary in these
regions.
Future Mining
Most of the coal reserves within the permafrost have now been
extracted. Future mining will therefore be faced with the problem
or mining both frozen and temperate rock.
Acknowledging this fact, the mine at Svea is now run with pre-
heated ventilation. Using oil furnaces at the mine portal, the
intake air is heated to at least 0°C. Furnace capacity is suffi-
cient for air temperatures down to -30°C. By this means, mecha-
nized equipment, dust suppression, wet coal and water drainage do
not create any particular problems. The drawbacks are, of course,
the cost of heating air, and the loss of stabilized frozen rock in
roadways.
It is important to hinder the heat from gradually penetrating
deeper and deeper in the walls. To achieve this, the walls are
bolted using horizontal resin bolts made from oak. These bolts
are somewhat flexible, but will keep loose blocks of coal in
406
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
place. The part of the walls effected by thawin~ thereby act as
insulation to prevent further penetration of the 0 isotherm.
Usually coal mining equipment is not manufactured for subzero
conditions. To assess how new ideas will respond to lower temper-
atures is therefore one of the major considerations in planning.
The need for a frost restraint emulsion for the hydraulic roof
supports in mine 1 at -10°C, or resin components that would mix
satisfactorily at -5°C, are illustrations of unexpected problems
of this type.
Exploration
Quite a few factors determine the success of exploration in the
Arctic. Difficult logistics, unstable weather conditions, rigid
terrain and vulnerable flora and fauna that require special pre-
cautions all increase the costs of any program. Without doubt
permafrost causes the main problems for any coal exploration at
Spitsbergen. It effects core drilling and seismic surveys and
has, so far, excluded any attempt at borehole geophysics. For
trenching or small adit workings the permafrost represents both
advantages and drawbacks.
Core Drilling
One of the most important intentions when drilling through perma-
frost is to keep the wall of the borehole frozen. This will keep
ice filled fissures stable, and wedging is not likely to occur.
At the same time, with most fissures closed great losses of dril-
ling fluid are reduced.
To maintain the stable permafrost in the wall it is necessary to
use brine (salted water) or other liquids with freezing point
below the lowest temperature in the ground, i.e. -8°C. Any such
available liquid will be a polluter, toxic and corrosive, and is
therefore not very desirable. To realize their full effect, those
liquids should also be kept below zero on entering the ground.
This is not always easy to accomplish.
Thus, more than 50% of the boreholes at Spitsbergen suffer from
great losses of drilling fluid (Fig. 5). To sustain a proper
fluid composition may become a major challenge when everything has
to be air-lifted to the drill site.
In this situation it is tempting to use heated water rather than
brine. This could cause wedging, although in fairly soft but
stable sediments this can be avoided. However, more severe prob-
lems will occur if, for any reason, the circulation is hindered.
As Fig. 6 shows, the temperature curve for water is satisfactory
for· drilling snort holes ( 150 m.). Indeed, when drilling short
407
recirc: max 80
... , .... ::·. cg:i~5 m
:~:·:=:=::·.:·.-water loss: ....... ·.· 20 100% . . .. .. " .... ~
,.· .. ·.·: ... · .. ·.·... -0
f:~·~~V~\? •.••• .. ·.•.· .. ·.:44 ···:· ... ·.·:·:··.· .. ·
Fig. 6 Technical values from
core drilling
-1
I
I
I
I
---I
I I
I
I
I
Fig. 8 Temperature curve for ground
temperature and fluid temp I
at different drill depths
WEATHERING
0 /o
42~--~--~~~~.-
I
I
40
38
respective mean values I
from later mine operations
In the area
8~~~~~~-----1 I
I 6
4~-----.~~--~~-
2 distance perpendicular I 95 ~to the surface ~--~~---=~---=T=--~~--
150 m ....... horizontal distance 50
Fig. 7 Effect of weathering on outcrop samples from adlta In coal
408
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
holes, heated water may be the most economical provided there is
great awareness from the drillers, and sufficient back up equip-
ment if any vital part fails.
However, as the hole gets deeper the water is cooled more, and
eventually reaches subzero temperature. If circulation is
stopped, instant freezing will occur. One particular deceiving
factor in this picture is heating of the returning water close to
the surface, caused by the warm water entering the borehole.
There is, therefore, no way the driller can keep control; quite
often it happens that the rods suddenly are stuck.
The selection of drill sites is important. Quite often a
satisfactory water supply, expected shallow overburden and
environmental and logistic considerations are more decisive fac-
tors than the optimal geological grid pattern. If at all accepta-
ble, locations close to creeks or on the brinks of small gorges
are chosen. However, these are the areas where one might expect
to encounter high pressure water and gas below the permafrost.
Great losses of drilling fluids have successfully been reduced or
stopped by using A 1 cement, cohlmercial muds or even fresh
water/ice. In the latter case the ice is cored, and whatever is
left on fissures will keep walls tight for a short while. If it
is a question of completing the last 20-30 m. of the borehole,
using ice is an inexpensive and easy method.
Wire line drilling has been tested. Due to the slower penetration
for the first critical 300 m., and larger fluid requirements to
obtain the same core diameter (46 mm.), this technique is not
desirable at Spitsbergen.
Seismic Surveys and Borehole Geophysics
The first attempt to apply high resolution seismic surveying at
Spitsbergen was done last summer, and an assessment of the method
is not complete. However, the lower level of the permafrost and
the subsoil, and the active layer on top are expected to cause
great problems. In order to obtain the necessary accuracy in the
reflected signal, high frequencies are used. It is not possible
to transmit these frequencies with very high energies, and most of
the signal may be absorbed in the upper layers.
Geophysics in the borehole will probably function satisfactorily.
On the other hand, due to the permafrost the chance of retrieving
equipment lowered down into the borehole is not good, and no tests
have been carried out.
409
Trenches and Jdits
Besides core drilling, trenches and adits made along the outcrop
of the seam are the major exploration methods.
Working the adits during spring or autumn makes it possible to
take advantage of the stabilizing effect of permafrost without
severe thawing due to ventilation.
The weathering of frost action can be seen both in proximate and
ultimate analysis (Fig. 7). Inorganic as well as organic sulfur
and the ash content are all reduced by 30% in the outer part of
the adit. Measuring the distant perpendicular to the surface, the
effect can be seen more than 50 m. from the surface.
Volatile matter and calorific value are effected as far as 100 m.
from the surface.
Ezploration Future
Three different concepts are now being considered:
1) Taking more careful note of· the available results from coring
and adi ts.
2) Larger, heavier equipment.
3) Wire line deflected drilling from the mine.
The first of these points is rather obvious. It is, however, also
true that the many technical problems due to permafrost and Arctic
conditions tend to dominate the geological results of exploration.
Accurate core logging, and all kinds of sample analysis and inter-
pretations can hardly be more justified than in the Arctic, where
every coal sample is collected under considerable strain. Conse-
quently, different approaches to correlative analysis of trace
elements, core logging and quality are being tried.
Larger, heavier equipment would in many instances perform better
compared to what is now being used. However, there are logistic,
environmental and financial considerations to be made.
In most cases the chances of success are better with larger equip-
ment, but the amount of work accomplished in one summer season is
reduced.
Deflected wire line drilling has been tried at Svea (Fig. 4). For
local exploration within 600 m. of advancing headings this method
will be used extensively. The method offers two great advantages:
work is done underground, thus no climatic problems; and the
drillhole is below the permafrost, thus no fluid problem, so water
410
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
can be used. The most serious problem encountered when the method
was tested was the rod pulling and pushing. No diamond drill rig
has so far been made for use in long inclined pushes. However,
due to the problems when drilling from the surface, and because
modern equipment requires more complete and advanced planning, it
is hoped to solve this problem soon.
Conclusions
There are satisfactory solutions to most of tne problems caused by
the permafrost.
The traditional method of mining at Spitsbergen has been to "ex-
ploit" the frozen ground. However, with the introduction of
mechanized equipment dust problems become more serious.
Consequently, water has to be used, but only to a limited degree.
Below the surface, preheated ventilation seems to offer a fairly
complete solution to many different problems, but also causes new
ones.
The move towards modern equipment coincides with the extraction of
the last coal reserves solely within permafrost. As mining
continues in areas below the zone of permafrost, water and wet
coal will be major daily considerations. Even in areas below the
permafrost the temperature will still be fairly low, and not all
equipment is readily adaptive to these environments.
With production moving further underground, so will the explora-
tion tasks, with more emphasis put on core drilling. This is a
technique severely hampered by permafrost. For deeper holes drill
fluids must be of types with freezing point below 8°C, but these
normally have properties undesirable for ·the equipment and the
environment.
In local exploration and in early planning for production, de-
flected wire line drilling underground will play an important
role.
411
Soil characterization of Alaskan coal mine spoils
G.A. Mitchell. W.W. Mitchell and J.D. McKendrick
Agricultural Experiment Station, Unlv. of Alaska, Palmer
Introduction
Reclamation of surface mined land requires close attention to
spoil manipulation for optimizing the establishment of vegetation.
Approaches include topsoiling, mulching and surface manipulation,
which is aimed at increasing moisture status, water infiltration,
tilth and nutrient availability and retention. Topsoiling is
highly desirable but is not feasible or practical in all si tua-
tions. Thus, plant must be established in spoils made up of a
wide range of mixtures of coal and overburden materials.
Selective versus random placement of overburden materials during
mining operations generally results in greater benefits for future
land use (8). However, even with selective placement by mine
operators, overburden materials deposited on the surface will be
largely devoid of organic matter, and deficient in certain essen-
tial plant nutrients. Additional characteristics may include low
moisture and nutrient holding capacity, poor tilth, compaction,
the presence of phytotoxic substances and other physical and
chemical characteristics which may inhibit biological growth.
Problems with coal spoils and overburden materials elsewhere in
the U.S. range from general nutrient deficiencies to severe toxi-
cities, as well as physical soil problems due to dispersive ef-
fects of high exchangeable sodium concentrations. In the eastern
part of the nation, spoils from higt sulfur coal are acidic and
often result in aluminum and heavy metal toxicity to plants ( 1 ).
In the arid west there are saline and/or sodic spoil materials;
without some method of amelioration, they result in specific ion
toxicity or general salt (osmotic) effects on plant growth (3, 7).
Nutrient deficiencies frequently include nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P) and sometimes potassium (K). Secondary nutrients, calcium
(C), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S) and micronutrient deficiencies are
less common in revegetation trials.
Very little information is available on the physical or chemical
properties of Alaskan coal spoils and overburden materials. Alas-
kan coal is generally low in sulfur content; therefore, sulfur
oxidation and resultant acidification of spoil material should not
be a major problem. Climatic conditions at locations of immediate
interest would not generally be considered conducive to accumula-
412
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tions of excess soluble salts. However, local incidence of salt
accumulation and high sodium in substratum materials cannot be
ruled out.
Knowledge of the chemical and physical nature of the spoil and
undisturbed overburden is essential in predicting its suitability
as a growth medium, in determining necessary ammendments for plant
establishment and for initiating and sustaining the soil forming
processes.
Methods and Procedures
Preliminary sampling of spoil and overburden material was ini-
tiated in the summer and fall of 1979 at the Usibelli Mine at
Healy, at the Capps Lease in the Beluga field, at an abandoned
strip mine in the Matanuska Valley near Sutton, and at an aban-
doned site at Meade River. Composite samples were taken to a
depth of 15 em at all locations. At Healy, in~ overburden
material was sampled down to the coal seam.
All samples were air dried and sieved through a 2 mm stainless
steel screen. Chemical analyses were performed according to
methods recommended for mined land spoils and overburden in
western United States (6) and according to methods used for soil
testing (2). These included extraction of ammonium and nitrate
ions (NH# and N03N) with 2H potassium chloride and analysis
using a Technicon Autoanalyzer. Potassium, calcium, magnesium and
sodium were extracted with 1H ammonium acetate (NHijOAc) and deter-
mined using atomic absorption spectroscopy. Phosphorus was ex-
tracted using a Bray P-1 solution and analyzed on the Autoanaly-
zer.
Micronutrient cations were extracted with DTPA-TEA buffered to pH
7.3 and determined by atomic absorption. Saturation extract anal-
ysis involved saturating a 200 g soil sample with deionized water,
and extracting the soil solution under vacuum. Total soluble
salts (E.G.) were measured with a Beckman conductivity bridge, and
soluble cations were determined by atomic abbsorption. The sodium
absorption ratio (SAR) was calculated by the modified Gapon equa-
tion:
SAR = (Nay ~ ± .Mgl
2
where sodium (Na), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) concentrations
are expressed in meg/1.
413
Results and Discussion
Extractable nutrient concentrations in surface spoil material at
five sites are given in Table 1. Values reported are the means of
three or more samples.
The Healy A site was exposed substratum material overlying a coal
seam but containing no coal, while the Healy B site was from a
spoil bank containing significant amounts of coal and shale mater-
ial. The Sutton site was a relatively old (perhaps 15 years)
spoil bank containing appreciable amounts of both coal and shale
material. The Beluga site represented recently disturbed and
shallow overburden material containing little coal or shale. The
Meade River sampling was from an abandoned disturbance of unknown
age and had a high shale content.
Spoil (pH) ranged from 5.5 at Beluga to 8.3 at Sutton. The lower
end of this range at Beluga would indicate a serious acidity
problem, and sulfur content of the coal in the Beluga field (ap-
proximately 0.2$) should not adversely affect pH. The high pH at
Sutton could adversely affect availability of phosphorus and cer-
tain micronutrients; field studies currently underway should con-
firm or deny this possibility.
Extractable nutrient concentrations would indicate probable growth
response to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer applica-
tion at most of the sites tested. Soil test calibration work on
agricultural soils indicate probable response to phosphorus when
Bray extractable phosphorus is less than 10 ppm. All sites except
Meade River fall in that category.
Similarly, growth response to potassium application has been ob-
served on Alaskan soils when exchangeable potassium levels fall
below 50 ppm. Both Healy sites and the Beluga site are definitely
marginal with respect to potassium supply. Soil test nitrogen is
more difficult to interpret because of its many forms and high
mobility in the soil. However, Healy A. Sutton and Beluga are
clearly deficient in both the ammonium ion (NH4) and nitrate
(NO~N). Healy Band Meade River sites demonstrated relatively
hign ammonium levels and slightly elevated nitrate levels. Over-
all, the Beluga and Healy A sites were least fertile and should
show response to a complete N, P, and K (nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium) fertilizer. The other sites will perhaps show less
response to one or more nutrients, but will require some level of
fertilization. Optimum application rates and N, P and K ratios
must await results of field trials which are now underway. Cal-
cium and magnesium levels were adequate on all sites with the
possible exception of Beluga, which demonstrated a very low ex-
changeable magnesium level. The unusually high magnesium level at
the Healy A site, in combination with marginal potassium levels,
could interfere with potassium uptake by plants.
414
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Saturation extract analysis (Table 2) showed a range in soluble
salts from 0.05 to 2.90 mmhos/cm. While the upper value would be
considered high for surface soils in Alaska, it should not affect
plant establishment or growth. Sodium levels ranged from 0.21 to
6.13 meq/1; however, as sodium increased, concomitant increases in
calcium and magnesium resulted in sodium adsorption ratios (SAR)
well below levels that would cause serious soil physical problems
(9). High pH at Meade River are explained by relatively high COi
levels, indicating the presence of free calcium and magnesium
carbonates. The even higher pH at Sutton would appear to be
controlled by a HCOj system. High spoil pH and the presence of
free carbonates ra1ses serious questions with respect to the
availability of phosphorus and certain micronutrients. Micronu-
trient metal cations such as zinc, manganese, copper and iron are
involved in complex chemical reactions in the soil, which affect
their availability; one characteristic common to all is that their
concentration in the soil solution decreases with increasing pH
and concentration of free carbonates (4).
The chelating agent diethylenetriaminepentaactic acid (DTPA) has
proven an effective extracting solution for assessing the availa-
bility of micronutrient cations in the soil (5). Concentrations
of DTPA extractable zinc (Zn), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu) and
iron (Fe) along with an interpretive guide are given in Table 3.
With the exception of zinc at the Healy A and Beluga sites, all
locations ex hi bi ted trace metal concentrations in the "adequate"
range. Generally, the values reported are equal to, or greater
than, those obtained on a wide range of agricultural soils in
Alaska.
In view of this, and of the fact that micronutrient deficiencies
have not been documented for forage grasses in Alaska, it is
unlikely that micronutrient deficiency will be a major problem in
mine spoil revegetation.
Additionally, these preliminary results would not indicate prob-
lems of metal phytotoxicity or accumulation of metals in plant
tissue that might be toxic to wildlife. Field trials are current-
ly underway to test for possible zinc response in barley at Healy
and zinc, manganese, copper and iron response in barley at Sutton
site.
Since spoil materials are often a heterogeneous mixture of over-
burden strata, it is desirable to know the chemical characteris-
tics of these horizons as they occur in~ before the mixing
process takes place. Samples were taken with depth down to a
relatively shallow coal seam in the Lignite Creek area at Healy.
Results of these analyses are summarized in Tables 4 and 5.
The primary differentiation with depth occurred between upper soil
horizon.:' and the underlying alluvial parent material. Finer soil
texture and presence of organic matter are reflected in the higher
cation concentrations in the upper soil horizons. These generally
decreased with depth. Phosphorus concentrations increased with
415
depth, probably in response to a lesser adsorption and fixation
capacity in the coarser textured alluvial deposits. Extractable
nitrogen concentrations were unaffected by depth. Saturation
extract analysis (Table 5) showed no zones of salt accumulation,
nor sodium adsorption (SAR) values that would be detrimental to
the establishment of plants in these materials.
Anticipated problems with a mixture of these materials would be
infertility and certain physical problems related to low water
holding capacity of the coarse textured parent material. Addi-
tional in~ sampling of overburden materials was made in 1980
at Beluga, however, analytical results are not yet available.
The preliminary sampling for overburden characterization was re-
stricted to sites (with the exception of Meade River) where reveg-
etation studies are currently underway. In addition to providing
background information, these data will be used to determine
initial amendment treatments in the revegetation work. The data
presented is representative only of the sites thus far sampled.
Because of the heterogeneous nature of coal spoil materials, and
because of variations in soils, climate and geologic formations
between locations within the state, chemical characteristics far
different from those reported here are possible.
Coal spoil and overburden materials from existing and potential
strip mining sites were characterized for chemical properties.
The Alaskan spoils were generally found to be infertile with
respect to the major plant nutrients sodium (Na), phosphorus (P)
and potassium (K). With the possible exception of magnesium (Mg)
at Beluga, the secondary cations, calcium (Ca) and magnesium
appeared to be at satisfactory levels. Of the micronutrient
cations zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn) and iron (Fe), only
zinc at one Healy site was marginal according to DTPA soil test
values. High acidity (pH) values at Sutton, however, may limit
plant availability of one or more of these nutrients. Soil reac-
tion at all sites was above the level normally associated with
aluminum and manganese toxicity. No elevated levels of manganese
were observed in DTPA soil tests. Saturation extract analysis
showed no potential for high levels of salt or sodium accumula-
tion. Sodium adsorption ratios were below the range commonly
associated with poor soil structure and resultant effects on plant
growth.
Acknowledgements
Financial support for this work is provided by a grant from the
U.S. Department of Energy and by the Alaska Agricultural Experi-
ment Station. The authors wish to express appreciation to Placer
416
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Amex, Inc. and the Usibelli Coal Mine for their continuing cooper-
ation and for providing field study sites.
Acknowledgements and appreciation are extended to Joseph Offner
for assistance in the field work and for laboratory analysis, to
Janet Barickman and Laurie Leckwold for analytical assistance and
to Donna Fowler for preparation of the manuscript.
References
Armigar, W.H., Jones, J.N. and Bennet, O.L., 1976, Revegetation
of land disturbed by strip mining of coal in Appalachia. USDA-
ARS Pub. ARS-NE-71, 38 p.
Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, 1974, Handbook on
Reference Methods for Soil Testing. Coun. Soil Test. Plant
Anal. Athens, GA, 101 p.
Doering, E.J. and Willis, W.O., 1975, Chemical reclamation for
sodic strip mine spoils. USDA-ARS Pub. ARS-NC-ZO, 8 p.
Lindsay, W.L., 1972, Inorganic phase equilibria. of micronutrients
in soils, p. 41-57, .in Mortvedt, J.J., Giordano, P.M. and
Lindsay, W .L. (eds.) Micronutrients in Agriculture. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer., Madison, WI.
Lindsay, W.L. and Norvell, W.A., 1978, Development of a DTPA test
for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J.
42:421-428.
Sandoval, F.M. and Power, J.F., 1977, Laboratory methods recom-
mended for chemical analysis of mined land spoils and overburden
in western United States. U.S. Dept. of Agri., Agri. Hdbk. No.
525, 31 p.
Sindelar, B.W., Hodder, R.L. and Majerus, M.E., 1973, Surface
mined land reclamation research in Montana. Montana Agri. Expt.
Sta. Res. Report No. 40, Bozeman, Montana, 122 p.
Smith, R.M., Witty, J.E. and Arnold, R.W., 1974, Report of commit-
tee on highly disturbed soils. National Coop. Soil Sur.,
Northeast Soil Survey Conf.
U.S. Salinity Laboratory, 1954, Diagnosis and improvement of sa-
line and alkali soils. U.S. Dept. Agri., Agri. Hdbk. No. 60.
Viets, F.G. and Lindsay, W.L., 1973, Testing soils for zinc,
copper, manganese and iron, p. 153-172 in Walsh, L.M. and Bea-
ton, J.D. (eds.) Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Madison, WI.
417
Alaska surface coal mining study
Public Law 95-87
Earl H. Beistline
Dean, School of Mineral Industry, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Authority and Objectives
The authority for the Alaska Surface Coal Mining Study is Public
Law 95-87, August 3, 1977, 95th Congress, known as the "Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977". This Act is to
provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior
and the states with respect to the regulation of surface coal
mining operations, the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned
mines and for other purposes. Section 102 of the Act states the
13 major purposes of the Act and these may be summarized generally
as making surface coal mining compatible with society and the
environment; to reclaim mined areas as soon as possible; to obtain
a realistic working approach involving environmental protection,
agricultural production and the need for coal, and to give infor-
mation for the basis of formulating effective and reasonable
regulations for surface mining operations.
The specific reference for the Alaska study is in Title VII -
Administrative and Miscellaneous Provision, Section 708 "Alaskan
Surface Coal Mine Study". This section states:
Alaskan Surface ~ ~ Study
Sec. 708. (a) The Secretary is directed to contract to such extent
or in such amounts as are provided in advance in appropriation
Acts with the National academy of Sciences -National Academy of
Engineering for an in depth study of surface coal mining condi-
tions in the State of Alaska in order to determine which, if any,
of the provisions ~ ~ AQt should ~ modified ~ respect tQ
surface ~ mining operations in Alaska.
(b) The Secretary shall report on the findings of the study to the
President and Congress no later than two years after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) The Secretary shall include in his report a draft of legisla-
tion to implement any changes recommended to this Act.
(d) Until one year after the Secretary has made this report to the
President and Congress, or three years after the date of enactment
of this Act, whichever comes first, the Secretary is authorized to
modify the applicability of any environmental protection provision
of this Act, or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, to any
418
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
surface coal m1n1ng operation in Alaska from which coal has been
mined during the year preceding enactment of this Act, if he
determines that it is necessary to insure the continued operation
of such surface coal mining operation. The Secretary may exercise
this authority only after he has (1) published notice of proposed
modification in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general
circulation in the area of Alaska in which the affected surface
coal mining operation is located, and (2) held a public hearing on
the proposed modification in Alaska.
(e) In order to allow new mines in Alaska to continue orderly
development, the Secretary is authorized to issue interim regula-
tions pursuant to section 501(b) including those modifications to
the environmental standards as required based on the special
physical, hydrological and climatic conditions in Alaska but with
the purpose of protecting the environment to an extent equivalent
to those standards for the other coal regions.
(f) There is hereby authorfzed to be appropriated for the purpose
of this section $250,000: provided that no new budget authority
is authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1977.
Study Calloittee Procedure
The National Academy of Science and the National Academy of Engi-
neering, through their Board on Minerals and Energy Resources,
appointed a committee composed of 16 persons recognized for their
professional competence in associated disciplines. Seven members
were from Alaska and others had considerable Alaskan experience.
Disciplines included permafrost, agriculture, coal mining, mining
consultants, State and Federal agencies, forestry and wildlife
management, environmental concerns, economics, biobehavioral sci-
ences and earth sciences.
The committee had a number of meetings, two of which were in
Alaska. Members viewed the Usibelli Coal Mine operation in subze-
ro temperatures in February of 1979, and later visited and viewed
the Beluga field, the Matanuska field and coal outcrops on the
North Slope. Many consultants, including Joe Usibelli and staff,
Cole McFarland of Placer Amex, and other knowledgeable people from
Alaska and from other states provided the committee with realistic
pertinent information on topics such as Alaskan coal mining,
Alaskan physical and socioeconomic characteristics, land laws and
regulations and environmental concerns. Discussions with North
Slope Borough personnel at Point Barrow were included on coal
mining, the environment and subsistence hunting.
Using this information and their background knowledge, members of
the committee prepared reports on subjects in their areas of
competence. An editorial committee did an outstanding job of
consolidating the material into the final draft report. This
final draft had the approval of the members of the Study Commit-
419
tee. The report was then sent to a group of specialists in the
disciplines for individual review, their comments were rceived and
incorporated in the report by the Editorial Committee. The final
report was submitted to the National Research Council for review
and was approved by the Governing Board of the Council. Excellent
staff support for the entire project was received from the staff
of the Academies. Publishing of the report is now underway and
hopefully a limited number of copies will be "off the press"
within the next two weeks!
The channel of communication as visualized is that the report will
be transmitted to the Secretary of Interior for his consideration,
and then recommendations will be made to Congress.
Basic Considerations
The committee recognized a number of basic points as it developed
its report, which has since been reprinted by the Mineral Industry
Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. These in-
cluded:
1. The vast coal resources in Alaska which may well be equal to
those of other states in the Nation.
2. The great and increasing importance of coal in the nation's
energy picture of the present and future.
3. The need for appropriate consideration of environmental con-
ditions, reclamation and pollution.
4. The large size of Alaska (1/5 the United States), and the
wide variety of natural conditions which have a great bearing on
coal mining and reclamation, and which are considerably different
than those in the other states.
5. Some of these conditions are unique to Alaska because of the
extreme northern latitude, and some occur more often than in other
states and are more severe.
6. Such conditions include:
a) Permafrost occupying about 3/4 of the state's land area;
b) Tundra vegetation occupying large treeless regions of the
state;
c) Extremely cold weather and short summer season in many parts
of Alaska;
d) Hydrologic conditions that are considerably different than in
the other states;
420
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e) Much of Alaska's coal is low in sulfur;
f) Major streams fed by heavily silt laden meltwater from gla-
ciers that contain sediment load concentrations greater than effi-
cient discharge limits permitted under Federal regulations for
coal mining;
g) The location of some coal deposits in areas subject to fre-
quent earthquakes (Beluga);
h) The need to consider three different regions within Alaska
because of the great differences in natural conditions. These, as
established by the committee, are:
(i) The Arctic Region (North Slope) (with vast coal resources,
continuous permafrost, tundra vegetation, long periods of severe
cold, limited daylight in winter and limited water supply).
( ii) The Interior Region, which lies between the Brooks and
Alaska ranges (with modest coal resources, discontinuous perma-
frost, tundra and boreal forest vegetation, severe winter weather,
summer and winter extremes in temperature and limited ground water
supplies).
(iii) The southcentral region, south of the Alaska Range (with
large coal resources, generally free of permafrost, tundra and
boreal forest vegetation, generally ample ground water supplies,
moderately cold winters and warm summers, and some areas subject
to seismic risk).
7. Socioeconomic and Environmental conditions that are different
in Alaska than in other states, including:
a) Subsistence aspects of the economy of many Native Alaskans;
b) Limited surface transportation systems.
(i) Desire of some to restrict access to coal areas.
(ii) Difficulty of constructing roads in permafrost zones.
c) Division of land ownership among Federal, State and private
ownership.
8. The realization that overall the law did not seem to be as
unreasonable as the regulations that came from the laws.
9. That flexibility must exist in procedures to accomplish
overall intent because of the wide variation of natural, socioeco-
nomic and environmental concerns and conditions.
421
10. The inadequacy of scientific data about much of Alaska to
comply with permit requirements, and the relatively limited exper-
ience of surface coal mining and reclamation in parts of the
state.
11. The Commi tee considered Alaskan conditions from the broad
viewpoint of potential increase of coal development and produc-
tion, and not of production limited only to local use.
Report Format
The organization and content of the report is described in the
report as follows:
"The report begins with a summary that presents the essential
findings and recommendations of the Committee. Chapter 1 provides
background information on the objective of the study and the
procedures used to carry it out; an overview of unique or unusual
environmental conditions in the major coal bearing regions of
Alaska; and a brief history of mining in Alaska, from both an
environmental and socioeconomic perspective. Cbapter 2 describes
the geography and geology of the coal bearing regions of the
State. Chapter 3 discusses the environmental, socioeconomic and
regulatory conditions that have a special bearing on coal mining
and reclamation in Alaska. As a matter of convenience, these
conditions and some relationships among them are described under
separate headings. Combinations of conditions, and especially
fluctuations of conditions between summer and winter, may have a
far greater impact on coal development in Alaska than any one
environmental factor by itself. This discussion, together with an
understanding of conditions analogous to those in the conterminous
United States, provides the basis for analysis of the Act's suita-
bility for Alaska and for suggestions with respect to alternative
approaches to control surface mining and reclamation in the State.
Chapter~ discusses criteria for evaluating the Act. Chapter 5.
analyzes the suitability of the Act for mining and reclamation
conditions in Alaska, and suggests alternative procedure for deal-
ing with these conditions. The text is followed by an annotated
Bibliography of selected references on Alaska.
Appendix A analyzes the provisions of the Act for their applica-
bility to Alaska and suggests where the Act may need to be modi-
fied for Alaskan conditions. Appendix ~ discusses Federal, State
and local law for control of the environmental and general health
and safety impacts of coal mining in Alaska. The information was
obtained from a comprehensive review of the pertinent laws and
from interviews conducted primarily in Alaska with persons con-
cerned with the administration of these laws.
Following the appendices is a Glossary which includes, in addition
to technical terms, a description of commonly referenced legisla-
tive acts and regulatory bodies."
422
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Summary of Findings & Recommendations
The summary of the report presents both main findings and then
principle recommendations. Each finding and recommendation is
referenced to the pertinent sections of the report for more de-
tailed information. In addition, a table is presented that re-
lates the recommendation to specific Alaskan conditions as well as
to specific provisions of the Act.
The summary of findings and recommendations are stated on about 17
pages and consequently cannot be stated in a meaningful way in
this presentation because of lack of time.
My further consolidation of the summary of the findings are that
unique conditions exist in Alaska and create special problems for
coal mining and reclamation. These conditions include: climate,
permafrost, hydrology, wildlife, geologic hazard, geographic di-
versity of Alaska for three major coal basins, limited coal mining
and reclamation experience in some areas (North Slope), unique
Native economy, lQH population -large area, lack of a sophisti-
cated transportation network, influx land status, and understand-
ing of acceptable post mining land use.
Again a consolidation of the summary of major recommendations
given are:
1. Appropriate standards for m1n1ng and reclamation are yet
largely to be defined, but can be expected to vary in the three
major geographic coal areas. Thus, on the North Slope, much is to
be learned about acceptable mining of coal; however, private
industry, if given a variance for a commercial mining operation,
could provide a considerable amount of information about mining
and reclamation technologies in arctic areas.
2. Regulations pertaining to hazard and nuisances such as that of
blasting should exercise levels of control appropriate to local or
regional conditions. The same overall thought applies to wildlife
and water discharge regulations.
3. Designation of prime coal lands to prevent their being classi-
fied as lands precluding mining. Such classifications would pre-
vent development of a major energy resource important to the State
and Nation.
Use of the Report
1. Basis for information and recommendations by the Secretary of
the Interior to Congress to allow a dynamic coal industry to
develop in Alaska in an environmentally acceptable manner.
423
2. A source of pertinent Alaska physical, socioeconomic and
environmental information for numerous other affiliated reports
being prepared.
3. Hopefully a helpful source of information for the preparation
of "The Alaska Surface Coal Mining Program" being prepared by the
State Division of Minerals and Energy Management. Pedro Denton
will be making a presentation on this topic later in this Section.
424
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
National Research Council
Calmission on Natural Resources
Board on Mineral and Energy Resources
Committee on Alaskan Coal Mining and Reclamation
Dr. Earl H. Beistline, Chairman
Dean, School of Earth Sciences
and Mineral Industry
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 479-7366 or 7572
Dr. Clayton G. Ball
1500 Hinman Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201
(312) 869-1612
Dr. Jerry Brown
U.S. Army Cold Regions
Research & Engineering Lab
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
(603) 643-3200
Dr. Perry R. Hagenstein
Visiting Professor
Dept. of Forestry &
Wildlife Management
University of Massachusetts
P.O. Box 44
Wayland, Massachusetts 01778
(617) 358-2261
Mr. Charles F. Herbert
Mining Consultant
1435 Inlet Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907) 274-1865
Mr. Glenn J. Phillips
Regional Mgr. for Engineering
and Environmental Affairs
Consolidation Coal Co.
4577 Stonegate Drive
Newburgh, Indiana 47630
(812) 479-8911, ext. 345
425
Dr. William S. Laughlin
Dept. of Biobehavioral
Science
University of Connecticut
Box U-154
Storrs, CT 06268
(203) 486-2556
Mr. Harold Malde
U.S. Geological Survey
Mail Stop 913
Box 25046
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80115
(303) 234-2864
Dr. Jay Dee McKendrick
Agriculture Experiment Station
P.O. Box AE
Palmer, Alaska 99645
(907) 745-3257
Dr. A. Thomas Ovenshine
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 323-8111
Ms. Celia Hunter
Executive Director
The Wilderness Society
Backwoods Trail
Star Route #20972
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
(907) 479-2754
Dr. Arthur H. Lachenbruch
Office of Earthquake Studies
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(415) 323-8111, ext. 2272
Dr. George W. Rogers
Professor of Economics
University of Alaska
Juneau, Alaska 99801
1790 Evergreen Ave. (home)
Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 586-1202
Dr. Francis J. Pettijohn
Professor Emeritus
Department of Earth and
Planetary Sciences
Johns Hopkins University
Balt~ore, MD 21218
(301) 338-7034 (dept.)
(301) 338-7044 (office)
George White
Senior Staff Officer
(202) 389-6368
(703) 256-9247 (home)
Erika H. Douglas
Staff Associate
(202) 389-6368
(703) 569-0530 (home)
426
Dr. Lidia L. Selkregg
Professor
Resource Economics & Planning
University of Alaska
3221 Providence Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Mailing address:
Box 2217
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
(907) 263-1767 (office)
(907) 333-8260 (home)
Dr. Ross G. Schaff
State Geologist
Alaska Division of Geological
& Geophysical Surveys
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
(907) 277-6615
Dr. Richard G. Ray
Staff Officer
(202) 389-6368
Charlotte A. Gott
Secretary
(202) 389-6368
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Overview -abandoned mined land reclamation
Hugh B. Montgomery
Asst. Regional Director, Office of Surface Mining, Denver
Introduetion
At one time, the need to reclaim mined lands was not as accepted
as it is currently. At present, however, post mining land is of
continuing concern in a number of areas in the nation. What
follows is a brief statement on the current status of this con-
cern, and the resources and approaches now available to address
the problem.
Status of Recla.ation
Abandoned mined lands are being restored unaer two s1 tuations:
first, as an integral part of active mining of coal located both
vertically below and horizontally adjacent to previously mined
areas and; second, as land use restoration targets to be addressed
under dedicated programs and funds specifically designed to abate
or control undesirable effects of past mining.
Examples of both approaches to reclamation of abandoned areas have
occurred under the auspices of a number of states, on their own
init1ative. Federal involvement has also been a pertinent part of
the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, predecessor agencies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
and regional economic development commissions, most particularly
the Appalachian Regional Development Commission. The activities
of these agencies are varied; for example, they are involved in
research and demonstration, site correction, site development and
general improvement of the environment. Many handicaps had to be
overcome, such as: incomplete understanding of the range of the
problems, the size and relative costs of curative work; the inter-
action between problem, cure and results; and the economic, social
and developmental impacts of the project or program.
Recently the interest in mining and reclamation work was height-
ened through passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 (SMCRA 95-87). This legislation provides for a part-
nership to be established between the states and the Department of
the Interior's Office of Surface Mining. On one hand, a permanent
program for mine planning, inspection and enforcement ensures that
current min1ng will result in reclaimed lands suitable for a
variety of post mining land uses. On the other hand, a special
427
reclamation fee is collected to establish a fund to reclaim cer-
tain previously mined lands to a useful purpose not now possible
for lands affected by mining activity that occurred before the
passage of SMCRA 95-87.
Not all lands and water are eligible for reclamation work under
this Act, but only those that meet one of the following tests:
1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
Eligible Lands and Water:
Sec. 404. Lands and water eligible for reclamation or drainage
abatement expenditures under this title are those which were mined
for coal (or which were affected by such mining, wastebanks, coal
processing or otner coal mining processes) and abandoned or left
in an inadequate reclamation status prior to the date of this Act,
and for which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility
under state or other federal laws.
The Regulations:
5.1 Eligibility requirements for reclaiming lands and water af-
fected by mining for noncoal minerals and materials.
5.11 Applicability -The eligibility requirements apply to recla-
mation activities under a state or Indian program. Monies from
the fund can be used for reclamation of lands that were mined or
affected by mining for noncoal minerals, and minerals and mater-
ials if the findings set out below are met.
5.12 Findings-The Director or Regional Director must make a
finaing in writing that:
1) The lands and water were mined or affected by m1n1ng for non-
coal minerals and materials and abandoned or left in an inade-
quately reclaimed condition prior to August 3, 1977, and that
there is no continuing responsibility to reclaim under state or
other federal laws (determine this by using the same procedures
that were used for coal above; get legal opinion);
2) The governor of the state or head of the tribal governing body
has requested the reclamation;
3) All coal mined lands within the state or reservation have been
reclaimed, QL the particular noncoal reclamation effort is neces-
sary for the protection of the public health or safety (if the
latter is the basis for the request it must be substantiated by
facr.s);
4) The monies are available for the reclamation of the noncoal
mined lands from the state's/tribe's allocation (it would not be
possible, therefore, to have a noncoal reclamation project in a
state where there is no coal production, although it is possible
428
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to have a coal reclamation project in a state where there is no
current coal production). Some examples are as follows:
a. A coal producing state with no state plan in existence, but
with the state actively pursuing the goal of a state plan, can use
mon1es that are part of that state's allocation. These monies can
be used for reclaiming lands that have been affected by mining of
noncoal minerals and materials, even if all abandoned coal mined
lands have not been reclaimed, if the requirements in (1) and (2)
above are sat1sfied, and the proposed reclamation of the noncoal
mined lands is for the protection of the public health or safety.
b. A coal producing state with an approved reclamation plan,
which includes projects for reclaiming abandoned coal mined lands,
as well as lands adversely affected by mining for noncoal minerals
and materials, can use grant monies to reclaim noncoal abandoned
mine lands before all coal reclamation is completed. In such
cases, the requirements in (1) and (2) above must be satisfied and
the proposed reclamation of the noncoal mined lands is for the
protection of the public health or safety.
Elgible lands will also be subject to the following priorities:
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.
Sec. 403. Expenditure of monies from the fund on lands and water
eligible pursuant to section 404 for the purpose of this title
shall reflect the following priorities in the order stated:
1) the protection of public health, safety, general welfare and
property from extreme danger of adverse effects of coal mining
practices;
2) the protection of public health, safety and general welfare
from adverse effects of coal mining practices;
3) the restoration of land and water resources and the environment
previously degraded by adverse effects of coal mining practices,
including measures for the conservation and development of soil,
water (excluding channelization), woodland, fish and wildlife,
recreation resources and agricultural productivity;
4) research and demonstration projects relating to the development
ot surtace min1ng reclamation, and water quality control program
methods and techniques.
5) the protection, repair, replacement, construction or enhance-
ment of public facilities such as utilites, roads, recreation and
conservation facilities adversely affected by coal mining prac-
tices;
6) the development of publicly owned land adversely affected by
coal mining practices, including land acquired as provided in this
429
title for recreation and historic purposes, conservation and re-
clamation purposes and open space benefits.
Although the range of opportunities for reclamation are very
broad, what amount of money can be expected for the program and
how mucn reclamation can be anticipated?
Funding Level of Abandoned Mine Recl.ation Progran
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA 95-
87) provides for a collection authority in the Office of Surface
Mining to handle a fifteen year reclamation fee. Fees are paid by
coal operators, at the rate of 35 cents a ton for surface mined
coal, 15 cents a ton for underground mined coal and 10 cents a ton
for all lignite mined and sold. Current estimates of total income
expected is $4 billion by 1992, the end of the currently author-
ized collection period. A preliminary estimate for reclamation
demands is $30 billion, to be applied to the eligible portion of 1
million acres of land affected and presumed abandoned prior to the
passage of SMCRA 95-87. Obviously, if only one in ten of the
dollars needed are to be available, then a policy for program
strategy and project priority setting and selection must be con-
structed by the states, tribes and Office of Surface Mining.
Those decisions will be made by the appropriate jurisdictions
responsible for allocations of the fund. Exact oraganization and
proceuures will vary somewhat among individual tribes and states
and tnere will be periodic variations in the guidelines applicable
to the feaeral share of the fund. Basically, however, they will
conform to the legislated allocations of the fund.
Under the law, money in the abandoned mine land reclamation fund
is earmarked as follows:
50 percent goes to the state and Indian tribe where the fee is
collected, once they have OSM approved regulatory and reclamation
programs.
Up to 20 percent goes into the Rural Abandoned Mine Program
(RAMP), run by the Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation
Service, to reclaim rural lands. The rural land owner can apply
for these funds through the local soil conservation district.
Up to 10 percent, or $10 million, goes to assist small coal mine
operators (those producing less than 100,000 tons of coal a year)
in obtainlng min1ng permits. The funds are used to help pay
laboratory and consulting fees to collect and analyze soil and
water data needed before a permit can be issued.
The remaining 20 percent is used by the Office of Surface Mining
to handle emergency and high priority projects, and to administer
the reclamation program.
430
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
An accounting of the fund as to the most recent quarterly report
shows substantial fund growth in the last several years.
Reclamat1on Fee Collections, Region V
CY Qtrs. Ending 31 Dec. '77 -31 Mar. '80
State/Indian Tribe 1
Alaska
Arizona 2
Colorado
Crow (MT)
Hopi (AZ)
Navajo (AZ, NM)
New Mexico
North Dakota
Utah
Wasnington
Wyoming
10TAL
Tonnage Monies Collected
1,854,295.04 $ 649,003.23
37,787,201.61 10,655,177.18
10,391,522.00 3,637,032.70
3,139,016.00 1,098,655.60
40,626,281.14 14,075,517.09
13,588,414.50 3,953,076.67
36,285,700.04 3,422,323.17
24,190,940.44 3,622,427.56
12,152,920.50 4,253,522.18
164,957,634.91 57,143,245.35
407,661,725.74 $123,975,747.65
1 Indian tribe figures are not included in state totals.
2 All figures for Arizona are Indian tribe totals.
Although it is not yet known how large or expensive the reclama-
tion needs of tne nation will be, it is possible to predict tne
nature of expenditures.
Application of tbe Reclaaation Fund
Several expenditures have occurred since the reclamation fees have
begun to accrue.
One type of expenditure is reclamation planning. At the national
level, a nationwide inventory of mined lands' problems is under-
way. Approximately four states and tribes are working on inven-
431
tories with federal funds specifically designated for that pur-
pose. The inventories of abandoned mine lands for the remainder
of the states and tribes are underway in various stages of con-
tracting. Alaska is in this stage and a contract to do the work
is being considered.
At tne regional level reclamation planning is underway in five
states and two tribes. This planning essentially establishes the
frameworK for selecting projects, conducting control and improve-
ment work, evaluating the results and coordinating the multijuris-
dtctlonal interests in reclamation activities.
A second type of expenditure provides for potential project inves-
tigations, analysis and preliminary selection of probable curative
measures. These expenditures are handled by both the Office of
Surface Mining through its regional structure and in other in-
stances by states and tribes. To date this work has been limited
to tne more extensive and complex conditions caused by mining.
For example, under mined urban areas, interfingering of under-
ground areas and their drainage, inadequate mine maps, mine dis-
charges from indistinct sources and coal mine fires whose burn
boundaries, direction and rate of combustion are uncertain.
A third type of expenditure is reclamation work to alleviate or
eliminate undesirable et fects of mining. This type of work is
also being done through the regional Office of Surface Mining, in
states desiring it, through their appropriate abandoned mine land
agency. Projects are underway currently where there is a need to
counter a threat to life, health and property. These emergency
situations receive immediate and expeditious attention. For exam-
ple, a cavity open1ng in a family's yard at their very doorstep.
In other hazard situations the usual routine and timing of con-
tracting and construction are applied.
To date $61,000 has been applied to 19 emergencies and $2,217,000
to 31 projects. An additional $686,000 for nine projects is in
various stages of application, approval, funding and contractual
obligation in Region V.
There have been 32 projects completed to date; they have con-
trolled such adverse conditions as mine openings, surface subsi-
dence, highwalls and pits, and unstaole mine facilities. In tne
near future tnere will be projects involving mine drainage and
radiat1on hazard related to coal mining.
An overview of the progress to date of reclamation activities in
the western Region V of the Office of Surface Mining is shown on
the following page.
432
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------------------
Progress in Reclamation -Region V
Program Participation
Participate State 1st Year's Emergency Other Fee
in National Reclamation Annual Projects Projects Collection
Inventory Planning Reclamation
(Underway) Work Plan
X
X X X X X X
X X Pending X
~ w X X Pending X X w
X X X X X
Pending X
X X X
Pending X X X X
Pending X Pending X
Pending X X
Penaing Pending Pending X
Pending
New ProgJ-a. Entrants
Although Alaska and other states and tribes are not participating
in this program currently, there have been several expressions of
interest in future involvement. When the timing is appropriate
the following flow chart establishes a guide to the general route
and milestones to follow, which should provide resources for
abandoned mined land reclamation assistance where desired and
needed.
References
Public Law 95-87, August 3, 1977, Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act of 1977.
AML Fee Compliance 62713-62716, December 13, 1977, 30 CFR 837.
AML Final Rules 49932-49952, October 25, 1978, 30 CFR Boo.
AML -1st Annual Work Plan (Cooperative Agreement) 67057, November
21, 1979, 30 CFR 872.
AML Final Guidelines 14810-14819, March 6, 1980.
Final E.I.S. Title IV, March 1980.
Office of Surface Mining, Operations Manual.
RAMP 44748-44756, September 28, 1978, 30 CFR 632.
AML Recordkeeping and Reporting 60285, 1979.
Federal Assistance (AML) Impact -Public Facilities, Natural
Gas/Petroleum Conservat1on 58006, August 29, 1980, 30 CFR 886.
Grants: Mining & Mineral Resources Research Institutes and Min-
eral Research Projects, 38556, 1978.
434
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---- - -----
FIJJW CHART FOR REVIE\1' OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR DEVEWRm\'T OF THE REm.AMATIOil PLAN
State/T~ibe Agency
BUbzr.its PrOPOsed
coope-ative"agreement
to Red.ona' Directo:-.
l
Regional St~f reviews
cooperative agreement.
Regional Solicitor
reviews agreement.
l
Draft briefing paper .I
and press release nrepered.
l
Regional Director transmits
cooperative agreement
package ~·i th reco!lllllendation
to Director, OSM (3 copies)
l
Headqua.-ters AML reviews L J 0 -$99, 999 to Director I
cooperative agreement, forwards [ l noo,o:x>+ to Assistant Secretary
briefirlt': uarer for approval. $1 OOO,o:x>+ to President
l
Headquarters forwards press release
to Public Affairs for review and
forwards budget to Financial
!Management for review. J,
-
Upon COIIIpletion of reviews and ~ 0-$99,999 to Director I
approva.l.s of b::-iefing paper, A."!L $100,CXX>+ to Assistant Secretary
reassembles cooperative agreement $1,000 000+ to President
package and forwards to approving
official.
l
Upon approval package returned
to AML Headquarters. Public
Affairs notified. Budget notified
to prepare letter of credit. Two
copies of approved agreement forwarded
to Re~ional Director.
t
Regional Director transmits
approved agreement to
State/Tribe and designates
OSM Project Officer.
~
State/Tribe Agency begins I
plan development.
------
F"...;)W CHART FOR STATE/INDIAN
RECLAMATION PLAN P.E'IIEW
State/Indian Tribe
begins preparation of
~ reclamation plan.
Director returns plan to
Region for correction of
deficiencies. Review
period stops until plan
resubmitted.
requested
recommendation
or
State/Indian Agency
submits proposed
projects or makes
grant application.
--
Alaska surface coal mining program
Pedro Denton
Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources, Anchorage
Introduction
Almost everyone recognizes that coal mining in Alaska requires
different technology than in the other coal producing states.
Alaska's remoteness, climatic extremes and sparse population ob-
viously pose conditions not common to the other states. The
differences were recognized by congress when it commissioned, in
Section 708 of Public Law 95-87, a special study to determine if
any of the provisions of the law should be modified because of
unique conditions in Alaska.
Partly in anticipation of the results of this study, and also to
accurately assess a program by which the state could assume juris-
diction over surface coal mining in Alaska, the Department of
Natural Resources started preparing a draft program early in 1980.
A preliminary draft of this program is nearly complete, and is
ready for legislative, public and federal review. The purpose of
this paper is to give an overview of Alaska's program development
progress to date.
The opinions and interpretations in this paper are the author's
and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the state or the
Department of Natural Resources. The paper has not been reviewed
by the state. The author has served as program development coor-
dinator for the program since early in 1980 on a special project
basis and is not a permanent employee of the state.
Federal Act and Regulation
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law
95-87, 91 Stat. 445 (30 U.S.C. section 1201 et. seg.)) is essen-
tially an environmental law designed to regulate surface coal
mining on a national scale. Its primary purpose is to prevent
water and air pollution and other adverse environmental impacts,
and to require that disturbed areas be reclaimed to an appropriate
post mining use. It pertains to all coal mining regardless of
whether the coal is on federal, state or private lands.
The Act recognizes that 11 the primary governmental responsibility
for developing, authorizing, issuing and enforcing regulations for
surface mining and reclamation operations11 should rest with the
436
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
states. The Act took the power to regulate coal m1n1ng from the
states and provided a mechanism by which this power can be par-
tially returned to the states, upon approval (by the federal
Office of Surface Mining (OSM)) of a state program incorporating
minimum federal standards.
OSM reported in a news release dated March 5, 1980 "Twenty four
states, including all of the nation's major coal producers, have
submitted plans to assume primary responsibility for regulating
the surface effects of coal mining". States submitting plans were
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennes-
'see, Alabama, Mississippi, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Arkansas,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisianna, Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Georgia,
Wasnington and Alaska, none of which are considered major produ-
cers, did not submit plans by the March 3, 1980 deadline for state
program submittal.
In this same news release. OSM Director Walter N. Heine noted that
"The bottom line is approval by January 3, 1981. Where programs
are not approved by that date a federal program is required". The
foregoing statement would seem to indicate that federal regula-
tions will be applied to Alaska on Jan. 3, 1981. But Alaska has
argued that the special study by the National Academy of Sciences-
National Academy of Engineering required by Section 708 of the
Federal Act would dictate a different time frame for Alaska. This
was noted by OSM in the May 16, 1980 Federal Register, which
states on page 32330:
Alaska did not submit a program and has asserted it does not
have to do so at this time because the study of surface coal
mining in Alaska being carried out by the National Academy
of Siences pursuant to Section 708 of the Act is not com-
plete. OSM is currently examining what action should be
taken with regard to Alaska.
The issue has not been resolved, but obviously Alaska cannot
design a final program until the results of the 708 study are made
available. Even then the uncertainty of what changes will be made
to the federal act could further complicate the time schedule.
The time frame for submittal under the Act is important for Alaska
because the deadline for program submittal (March 3, 1980) has
passed and OSM's position is that if a state fails to meet the
deadline, a federal program must be imposed befor the state can
apply for program approval. This is an extremely narrow and
impractical interpretation of 30 CFR 731.12, but so far the state
has been unable to change the OSM position. It apparently does
not matter that the 708 study is already over a year late, and
that both Alaska and OSM consider the 708 study a critical element
in developing an Alaska program.
437
The following excerpt from OSM's 1979 annual report is a good
indicator of OSM's recognition of the importance of the 708 study
to developing Alaska's program:
A number of outstanding issues related to Alaska's program
may have to await formulation and resolution until after
completion of the Alaska Study and Departmental response
mandated by the Act. Study scheduled for completion by May
31, 1980.
It should be noted that the Act required the study be completed no
later than two years after the date of enactment, or by Aug. 3,
1979.
The Federal Act is one of the most complex and detailed statutes
ever written. If Alaska adopts a companion law, which it must if
it wishes to regulate coal mining in Alaska, it will be one of the
longest statutes on the books for such a special purpose, contain-
ing over 50 pages. For comparison, the Statute which regulates
oil and gas operations in Alaska, AS 31, contains only 25 pages.
But it is the regulations and their seemingly endless detailed
requirements for procedural matters that has caused the most
criticism. These regulations and their program submittal require-
ments are extremely tiresome to read and work with and require a
very cumbersome and unwieldly process for approval of a state
program.
Alaska's draft of the regulations is nearly 350 single spaced
pages, and this includes many consolidations which OSM may not
approve. The section on bonding alone contains over 40 pages. In
addition, there will probably be two to three hundred additional
pages of explanatory materials. In comparison, the Alaska Oil and
Gas conservation regulations contain only 35 pages.
Much of the problem that the other states have had is in getting
variations from the federal regulations. The federal act provides
in section 101(f) that "because of the diversity in terrain,
climate, biologic, chemical and other physical conditions in areas
subject to mining operations, the primary governmental responsi-
bility for developing, issuing and enforcing regulations •••••
should rest with the states."
OSM has implemented this policy by regulations under 30 CFR 731.13
(called the state window), which provides for detailed state
justification for any state variations to the federal regulations.
Many states have complained that the window is closed, but one of
the most interesting characterizations was by the United States
Court of Appeals in a July 10, 1980 decision on the Peabody Coal
Company case. In a footnote to a statement that the statutory
scheme "leaves broad discretion in state officials while ensuring,
through federal oversight, that the minimum requirements of the
Act are achieved." they made the following comment:
438
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"The Secretary insists that he has left this discretion
intact through the so-called "state window" provision in the
regulations. This section allows states to propose alterna-
tives that are "consistent with the regulations" the Secre-
tary has issued, 30 CFR 731.13(c)(1). The language of this
provision, however, is deceptively comforting. Elsewhere,
the regulations define "consistent with" as meaning "no less
stringent than and meet( ing) the applicable provisions of
the regulations" the Secretary has issued. Id 730.5(b).
Thus there is little room for states to maneuver. The
"window" would be more accurately described as a one way
mirror."
These characterizations could be alarming for Alaskans, knowing
that mining in Alaska will require different mining practices than
in the other states if it were not for the 708 study. The 708
study could provide an open "window" for Alaska that will allow
variations from the federal program to adjust to the unique condi-
tions in Alaska. In this respect, Alaska could have it easier
than some of the other states, but to accomplish this it must
aggressively follow through on the 708 study to be sure there is
appropriate rsponse by the Secretary of Interior and Cogress.
Progr. Developaent Progress
Alaska received a $100,000 program development grant from OSM on
March 11, 1980. The actual monies were received on April 8, 1980.
The grant required that the state contribute $25,000 to the pro-
gram. The grant application was the beginning of the formal
process to determine whether Alaska would assume control of sur-
face coal mining in Alaska. Under this grant, the Department of
Natural Resources hired the author full time early in the year to
coordinate development of a state program including regulations,
statute and other program submittal elements. Prior to that time
several individuals had, on a part time basis, closely followed
OSM activities and had analyzed how the program might impact
Alaska. There was also considerable participation in the NAS-NAE
hearings in Alaska, and most of the general problems in applying
the act and regulations were identified.
The program development grant provided for accomplishing the
following:
1. A comprehensive review of existing Alaska statutes and regula-
tions to identify current authorities relevant to the regulation
of surface mining.
2. Draft legislation and regulations necessary to comply with PL
95-87.
3. Recommendations for a process by which lands could be deter-
mined to be suitable or unsuitable for surface mining.
439
4. Recommendations for the coordination of review and issuance of
permits for surface coal mines among all state and federal permit-
ting authorities.
5. Assembly of all the elements into a program submittal for the
purpose of assuming state jurisdiction.
The proposal provided for an advisory committee to be appointed by
the Governor, to guide the Department of Natural Resources in
developing a program and in deciding whether or not the state
should assume jurisdiction over surface coal mining. The commit-
tee was appointed by the Governor in early April 1980, and con-
sists of Earl H. Beistline of the University of Alaska; Richard
Douglass of the Alaska Conservation Society, Cole E. McFarland of
Placer Amex, Inc., Margaret Sagerser of Cook Inlet Region, Inc.,
Joseph E. Usibelli of Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. and Philip Waring
of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Since Earl Beistline was chairman of the NAS committee on Alaskan
Coal Mining and Reclamation and to avoid any possible conflict of
interest, Ernest N. Wolff has served on the committee on his
behalf to the present time. Now that the report is complete, Mr.
Beistline is back on the Advisory Committee. The first committee
meeting was held on May 13, 1980 and two meetings have been held
since then.
Perhaps the major task in developing the program was in identi-
fying the specific federal standards and regulations which were
not applicable to Alaska, and determining what change would be
necessary for Alaska. To accomplish this objective, the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources invited all state coal lessees to a
workshop in Anchorage on March 18, 19 and 20, 1980 to go through
the federal regulations with the state section by section, identi-
fying the specific sections requiring a variance and the need for
the variance.
A state team composed of members of the Departments of Natural
Resources, Fish and Game and Environmental Conservation was formed
to participate in the workshop and to develop recommendations for
a state position on the proposals. The proposals developed at
this meeting and in subsequent meetings of the state team were
reviewed by the involved state departments and the advisory com-
mittee, and have been accepted for review purposes.
The proposals are the basis for the Alaska Regulations proposals,
which are presently nearly complete in review draft form. It was
decided to closely follow the federal regulations, except where
substantive changes were necessary, or where necessary to conform
to style requirements of Alaska legislation. It was felt that
this procedure would minimize explanations to OSM and would con-
siderably shorten preparation time.
A key to the success of this approach is the extent to which the
708 study will justify the need for the variances in Alaska, and
440
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will provide the data necessary by the regulations to support in
variance from the federal regulations. A summary of the substan-
tive variances to the federal regulations is attached.
In a somewhat backwards process, a proposed Alaska statute is also
being drafted which would conform to the regulation variances and
the federal requirements. This is, of course, a variation from
the normal procedure, but in this case it may be justified by the
strict federal standards which leave very little latitude for
statute or regulation drafting.
There are numerous other program elements which must be developed
as a part of the program submittal, 30 CFR 731.14. The most
important of these relates to the organizational structure of the
surface mining authority and how it will function, the process for
determining lands suitable or unsuitable, a compilation of exist-
ing state laws and regulations, a section-by-section comparison of
proposed state laws and regulations with the federal, and the
permit coordination and review process. The other submittal ele-
ments are largely narrative explanations of the regulatory process
provided by the proposed state regulations, and statistical infor-
mation on Alaska's past and projected coal activities.
It has been proposed and endorsed by the Advisory Committee that
the surface mining authority be in the Department of Natural
Resources. The authority would be with the Commissioner and he
could delegate this authority to an appropriate director. The
director would be supportd by a technical advisory team of experts
from other Departments, or from within the Department of Natural
Resources. The proposed team would consist of a hydrologist, a
geological engineer, a habitat biologist, an environmental engi-
neer, an air quality engineer, an agronomist, an attorney and a
coal mining engineer. The team would be available for permit
review as well as special problems in enforcement and administra-
tion. The members would serve on an as needed basis. The coal
mining engineer would be in charge of enforcing and administrating
the program. Total costs of such a program are estimated at about
$125,000 a year, half of which would be funded by the federal
government under program administration grants. The Department of
Environmental Conservation has countered this proposal with a
proposal that the authority be in their Department.
The unsuitability process required by Section 522 of the Act has
been one of the most troublesome to develop. The requirements of
the law and regulation are difficult to understand, and people
working with it generally have a problem in separating the plan-
ning process required by the Act from a process that would be used
in leasing considerations. The data base and inventory require-
ments are also troublesome, primarily because of the lack of
detailed data in Alaska.
The proposed process allows for petitions patterned after the
federal regulations. In addition, a process is provided by which
coal lessees or other coal owners can petition the authority to
441
have lands declared suitable for mining. The primary objective of
this provision is to provide a process by which determinations can
be made as soon as possible, so that long-range land use and mine
planning can be done with as much certainty as possible. Alaska
already has programs in the Department of Natural Resources which
can be adapted to this process. Also additional program develop-
ment funds have been requested from OSM to refine the process and
to develop a data base and inventory system.
The permit coordination and review process is not complete, but it
probably will be patterned after existing programs requiring de-
tailed review.
A preliminary draft of the section-by-section comparison of the
regulations is nearly complete. This should considerably facili-
tate review of the program by the public and others.
Alaska's program development has been easier than other states' in
several respects. First, Alaska has not been on the same time
schedule. This has allowed the utilization of other state pro-
grams as guides. The Texas and Montana programs, already ap-
proved, have served as models for much that has been done. Liti-
gation by the National Coal Association/ American Mining Congress
(NCA/AMC) and others may also resolve many of the issues that
would cause problems for Alaska.
A long series of issues have been decided at the U.S. District
Court and Court of Appeals level in industry's favor, and general-
ly in favor of more flexible regulations. The exact number is
difficult to determine because of the interrelationship of so many
of the issues, but a figure of 38 regulations withdrawn and 44
invalidated has been used by NCA/AMC. These issues have not been
finally decided, and how many of the federal regulations will be
redrafted to address the court decision is not known. This prob-
lem is often characterized as a "shifting target". Allowing the
"target" to settle down will make it easier in Alaska.
A preliminary draft of a program for Alaska to assume jurisdiction
over the surface mining of coal is nearly complete. Within a few
weeks, a complete package will be sent to the involved agencies
for final review, before going to Alaska's Surface Mining Advisory
Committee for their review and help in resolving any differences.
A complete program package should emerge ready for pulic, federal
or legislative review. It is difficult to determine how the draft
program will be adjusted as a result of this process, or what
final decisions will be made. The issues are complex and under-
standing is complicated by extremely detailed procedural regula-
tions; but the decisions that will be made could have considerable
impact on the development of Alaska's coal resources.
442
I
I
I
I
I II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal
~~
700.11(c)
701.5
764.13(b),
Part 765
779.13(b)(3)
783.13(a)(3)
780.15
816.95
785. 14(c) ( 1)
785. 16(c)
(4)(i)
785.19(a)
786.25(b)(1)
815.15(c)(1),
(c)(2)
815.15(f)(1)
815.15(i)(3)
Proposed Significant Modifications
to
Federal Surface Coal Mining Regulations
Summary ~ Change tQ Federal Concept
Allow groups of individuals to mine cooperatively
without permit, in excess of the 250 ton limita-
tion where approved by the regulatory authority.
Allow exception from classifying waters with pH
of less than 6 as "acid drainage" where a lower
pH is natural for the area.
Special procedures for determining lands unsuit-
able for mining in Alaska.
Allow exception in Alaska for requiring all hy-
drologic data in all cases.
To provide for Air Quality control in Alaska to
be based on state and federal air quality stan-
dards.
Allow wildlife habitat as postmining use which
could qualify for exceptions from restoring to
original contour.
To allow returning watershed to original condi-
tion as standard for getting exception to return
to original contour, rather than requiring im-
provement (the regulation and statute standard).
Limits application of "alluvial valley floor"
standards based on lack of agricultural poten-
tial. ALVs would not apply in the Northern,
Nenana, Yentna, Susitna, Beluga and Matanuska
fields.
Allow longer time for commencement of operations
than provided by statute and regulation.
Provide special standards for exploratory roads.
To allow other than native species for revegeta-
tion for areas disturbed in exploration.
To allow leaving exploration equipment in the
field where it will facilitate future explora-
tion.
443
Federal
~~
816.11(a)
816.21(b)
816.22(e )( 1)
816 .22(e )( 1)
(ii)
816 .22(e )( 1)
(iii)
816.22(f)
816.71(c)
816.42(a)
816.42(c)
816.57(a)
816.64(a)
816.65(a)
816. 71(a)
816.83(a)
816.89(b)
816.97(b)
Summary ~ Change 1Q Federal Concept
To allow reduction of marker requirements where
area is inaccessible.
To allow mixing of topsoil with overburden where
it will not be used in revegetation.
To allow exception from requirement to seek out
separate "best" material even if other material
is adequate for revegetation.
To not require trials and tests of topsoils
being certified by a laboratory unless required
by the state.
To allow the state to use practices proven in
other areas as guide in approving use of topsoil
substitutes.
To allow leaving topsoil and vegetative cover in
place where needed as insulating layer.
To allow alternate sediment control methods to
sedimentation ponds, and to rely on federal and
state water quality standards rather than OSM
effluent standards.
To allow exception from treating all waters as
"acid water" where natural conditions are less
than a pH of 6.
To allow exception from the requirement to re-
store all streams to original channel without
regard to importance.
Remove the requirement to publish blasting
schedule and rely on notice to residents and
agencies.
To relate blasting time to time of day rather
than "sunrise" and "sunset".
To allow excess spoil to be placed in mined
area to limit disturbed area.
Allow alternative to the requirement to make all
waste banks impervious.
To allow discretion in reporting requirements for
eagles because of numbers of eagles in some
areas.
444
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Federal
m~
816 • 97 ( d )( 2)
816.104(a)
816.104(b)
816.106
816.150-176
825, New
Section
843.12(c)
845.18(a)
Summary ~ Change 1Q Federal Concept
To clarify that some interference with wildlife
is inherent in any structure in remote areas and
allow recognition of this in Alaska.
Remove the numerical relationship of final thick-
ness to initial thickness because of difficulty
in determining in permafrost areas.
To prevent redisturbance of storage areas in
permafrost areas where material condition is not
adaptable to temporary storage methods.
Allow discretion by regulatory authority in re-
quiring repair of revegetated areas.
Special road building standards for Alaska.
Special performance standards for Alaska areas
with natural cliffs and highwalls.
Allow more time for abatement actions where
needed because of remoteness or weather.
To allow more time for service by mail.
445
Alaska's coal-leasing program
Laurel A. Murphy
Division of Minerals & Energy Management, Anchorage
Introduction
Five years ago, the Director of the Division of Lands placed a
"temporary suspension" on the issuance of new coal prospecting
permits. Although the problems involved with public notice were
the immediate cause of the suspension, the need for reform in the
state's coal management program has continued the moratorium to
the present day. It should be noted that all of the state's most
accessible prospective coal areas were already under lease or
permit prior to this "moratorium".
In recent years, many efforts have been made to remedy the situa-
tion. In 1978, portions of the coal leasing regulations were
revised and public hearings were held in Anchorage, Fairbanks and
Juneau. These revisions, however, were not formally adopted. In
the spring of 1979, House Bill 420 was introduced to amend the
leasing and royalty provisions of the present coal statute, AS
38.05.150. That bill was withdrawn by Representative Bill Miles.
In November of 1979, the Department incorporated many of the 1978
revisions, along with comments from public hearings, into a more
extensive rewriting of the regulations. These proposed regula-
tions were held in abeyance pending the possible action on House
Bill 955, introduced last spring by the House Resource Committee.
That bill would have codified many of the coal leasing regula-
tions. House Bill 955 was considered and died in the House Re-
sources Committee.
The Department of Natural Resources' position with regard to the
1980 legislature was that if no bill was passed, the current coal
leasing statute, AS 38.05.150, would allow the Department to adopt
any necessary changes in coal management through regulation. To
fulfill that commitment, regulations will be adopted after addi-
tional public hearing.
In addition, the Division of Minerals and Energy Management is
adjudicating the 415 coal prospecting permit applications which
have accumulated during the past five years. It is hoped that
valid permits can be issued as soon as the new regulations are
adopted.
446
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The Current Leasing Progn.
1 State Coal leases • • • • •
State Coal Prospecting
Permits Pending Conversion
. .
State Coal Prospecting Permit
Applications • • • • • • • • •
1 -As of October, 1980
Number 1
52
6
415
* Acreage
102,989
15,849
1,989,5552
2 -The leases are located in the Healy, Yentna, Beluga, Kenai and
Ma tanuska areas.
3 -Further information, including maps, on these permits and
leases is available from the Division of Minerals and Energy
Management, 703 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, Alaska
99503.
The royalty rate on the current coal leases ranges from 5 to 35
cents per ton. (2 leases at 5 cents, 20 at 10 cents, 9 at 15
cents, 3 at 20 cents, 1 at 30 cents, 17 at 35 cents.) Royalty
rates have not been adjusted for any of these leases, although
several leases were issued prior to 1960 and could be readjusted.
The 6 permits under request for conversion to lease have been
examined and recommendations made. These conversions will be
subject to th~ new regulations.
Of the 415 permit applications which have been received, 90~ are
located in the Yentna-Susitna area. Approximately 25 permits are
located in the Beluga area and the rest are scattered throughout
the Matanuska, Kenai, North Slope and Herendeen Bay coal areas.
These applications have been examined to ascertain any defects
which could prevent issuance of a permit. For example:
33 applications are for land which has never been opened to non-
competitive coal leasing.
55 applications are totally, and 28 applications are partially,
for lands which were previously under coal lease or permit. This
land is not available for an over-the-counter permit.
9 applications are for lands within Denali State Park.
1 application is for land partially within the area of the pro-
posed Willow Capital site.
1 application is for land in an area which is restricted to com-
petitive coal leasing.
447
The applications are currently being reviewed to determine the
compatibility of surface uses and classifications with coal mining
actvity. For example, one of the applications is for an area on
which the Skwentna airfield is located. Other applications in the
Susi tna Valley are located on areas chosen for public land dis-
posal and critical habitats areas. In some cases, incompatible
land use may prohibit the issuance of a permit and in other cases,
special permit stipulations will be established.
In addition, the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys is
currently studying Alaska's coal resources. Based on these find-
ings, the Commissioner may determine that some of these areas
contain commercial quantities of coal. Such a determination would
mandate competitive leasing, and prospecting permits would not be
issued.
Finally, each permit area will have to be carefully examined prior
to issuance, for any surface and subsurface title conflicts.
the Coal Leasing Regulations
Although the proposed coal leasig regulations have not yet been
put into draft form, a number of issues have been identified and
analyzed. The following list of issues, although not all inclu-
sive, represents current thinking of the Dept. of Natural Resourc-
es. These regulations will encourage the establishment of a Coal
Mining Unit (CMU), based on the federal government's logical
mining unit, in order to achieve more efficient and orderly opera-
tions. Under this concept, lessees of adjoining coal leases may
establish a coal mining unit or the Commissioner may require a
lessee to become part of a unit. In such a case, the Commissioner
could modify the terms and conditions of the individual leases, to
ensure that all leases within the unit were equitable and governed
by substantially the same requirements. Lease terms for diligent
development and work commitment could also be modified and applied
to the unit rather than to each individual lease.
1. Competitive Leasing
State land may be offered for competitive coal leasing if the
Commissioner of Natural Resources determines that:
a) The land contains commercial deposits of coal. The determi-
nation of comercial quantities will be based on estimates of the
quantity and quality of coal derived from sample analysis, meas-
urements,and from geologic projections.
b) There is substantial geological or geophysical evidence to
indicate the probable existence of significant commercial deposits
of coal in the land.
448
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c) There is interest in competitive leasing of the land for coal
exploration or development.
2. Noncompetitive Leasing
State lands may be offered for noncompetitive coal leasing if:
a) The Comissioner determines that the land does not qualify for
competitive leasing.
b) No bids are submitted for land offered for competitive coal
leasing, and the Commissioner determines that it is in the best
interest of the state to offer the land for noncompetitive leas-
ing.
3. Competitive Leasing Method
a) The Commissioner may choose any appropriate coal leasing
method for tracts to be leased by competitive bidding. This could
include, but is not limited to, a combination of a cash bonus,
royalty share or net profit share as the bid variable.
b) For noncompetitive lands, prospecting permits will be issued
for a two year period in accordance with the existing regulations.
4. Lease Term
Leases will be issued for an indeterminate period of time, as long
as there exists diligent development and continuous operation.
Diligent development means that the coal mining unit (CMU), of
which this lease is a part, must be producing coal in commercial
quantity by the end of the 15th year from the effective date of
the lease.
The Department is considering adopting a variation of the federal
definitions for commercial quantity and continuous operation. In
that case, commercial quantity would be defined as an amount of
production equal to 1~ of the CMU reserves, and continuous opera-
tion would mean the production of coal equal to 1$ of the CMU
reserves. The average amount would be computed on a three year
basis (the year in question and the two proceeding years).
The requirement of production of coal in commercial quanti ties
from a lease may be suspended:
a) If operation of the mine is delayed or interrupted because of
force majeure, (i.e., strikes, climatic conditions, administrative
delays, litigation or other unavoidable or unforeseeable
circumstance not within the control of the lessee); or
b) For up to 5 years, the lessee may make payments in place of
production in an amount determined by the Commissioner, if the
449
Commissioner finds that the public interest would be served by a
suspension of the condition.
5. Royalty
Royalty shall be not less than five percent of gross value at mine
mouth.
6. Royalty Adjustment
The royalty payment is subject to adjustment at intervals of no
more than 20 years from the start of coal production. The speci-
fic period for adjustment, as determined by the Commissioner,
shall be provided for in the lease.
7. Rental
Each coal lease shall provide for a reasonable escalated rental.
Although the Department has not decided on the specific sum,
rental will be higher than the minimum contained in the statute.
(25 cents/ A for the first year, 50 cents/ A for years 2 through 5,
and then not less than $1.00/ A.) The rental payment for each year
shall be credited against the royalty due the state as it accrues
for that year once production has begun.
B. Rental Adjustment
Each coal lease shall provide that the annual rental payment is
subject to adjustment at intervals of no more than 20 years. The
amount will be determined in the lease.
9. Work Commitments
In a coal lease, the Commissioner may include terms imposing a
minimum work commitment on the lessee. These terms may include
penalty provisions, to take affect if the lessee fails to comply
with the work commitment requirements.
10. Termination
If the lessee fails to comply with prov1s1ons of the lease, or of
the statutes and regulations in force at the effective date of
lease, and the failure continues for 90 days after the lessee is
served with written notice, the Commissioner may suspend activity
on the lease until compliance is achieved, or may terminate the
lease.
11. Conversion to Lease
A coal prospecting permittee is entitled to a coal lease upon
showing, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, that the land
covered by the permit contains coal in commercial quantities, and
submits a satisfactory mining plan.
450
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The term "commercial quantity" is defined as a combination of
quality and quantity sufficient to induce a prudent person, under
present and reasonably anticipated conditions, to invest effort
and capital towards the development and operation of a producing
mine. Evidence of commercial quantity may include:
a) Qualitative data supported by proximate and ultimate analyses
of the coal beds on which the reserve calculations are based.
b) Data regarding the thickness and continuity of the coal beds
on which the reserve determinations are based.
c) Reserve calculations indicating degree of accuracy as, for
example, "measured," "indicated" and "inferred" of U.S. Geological
Survey/U.S. Bureau of Mines definition.
d) Estimation of market value of the coal.
The term "satisfactory mining plan" is a conceptual outline of the
mining methods contemplated for us, and the feasibility of the
envisioned operation. It may include:
i) A sketch map on topographic base showing location of portals,
pits, facilities, haulage way, transportation routes, slurry
lines and other significant features both within and outside of
the permit area.
ii) Estimation of the recovery factor anticipated.
iii) Estimation of mining costs on a per ton basis.
iv) Description of post mining and reclamation plans.
Conclusion
Coal development in Alaska is almost at a standstill because of
numerous issues facing the three major landowners--the Native
Corporations, the State of Alaska and the Federal Government.
The State of Alaska is attempting to resolve its problems so that
the approximately 20 percent of known coal reserves that are
located on state land can be explored and developed. Hopefully,
the state and industry can work together to create simple, consis-
tent and predictable regulations and policies, which will encour-
age the development of the state's coal resources.
~51
Luncheon Speech -October 22
Honorable Terry Miller
Lt. Governor of Alaska
Thank you very much J.P. for the generous introduction. I'm
delighted to be back in Fairbanks to have an opportunity to, first
of all, officially greet those who are new to the state, or have
invested here but reside elsewhere. Welcome to Alaska, we're glad
to see you here. I'm glad the weather has put on a great face for
us, and for those of you who live here, hello again. Before
making some extemporaneous remarks, I would like to introduce very
briefly some important people from the audience, because whether
or not what I'm about to say ever comes about will depend for a
large part on their actions.
First, very quickly a few key members of the Alaska legislature
who are in the audience. The reason I'm doing that quickly is
because during the rest of the conference you'll have an opportun-
ity to meet and talk with them.
I'd like to first introduce Representative Sally Smith from Fair-
bank~ A former colleague that I served with during my years in
the State Senate, Mr. Brad Bradley of Anchorage. Another Fair-
banks product, Representative Bob Bettisworth. A member of the
State Senate, also from the Fairbanks area, Senator Don Bennett.
We've also got several key candidates for the state legislature,
many of whom I'm sure will be, after a week and a half from now,
members of the legislature elect. There are too many to intro-
duce. If you're running for the legislature would you stand up?
I contemplated what I was going to say today, and, of course, the
great temptation is always to talk about the great potential for
coal development in Alaska. But upon reflection, I decided we
really don't need to tell you what you already know and you prob-
ably know a lot better than I do. Let me say that as I understand
it, of the several hundred years supply of coal which is available
in the United States, at present levels of energy consumption,
approximately one half of it resides within the borders of Alaska.
I think that's a staggering statistic which should be remembered
not only here, but throughout the United States.
Other than to just say that, I would like to talk a bit more
broadly about Alaska. Where we are, and what we can be. The
Statehood Commission was authorized by a narrow vote in the last
election to assess all kinds of things. I called them to a meet-
ing in a building not too far from here to assess exactly what
they ought to do. It seems to me that one of the appropriate
things the commission can do is to sit back, because they have the
452
----
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
luxury of so doing. They're not involved in the hurly-burly of
everyday politics. They can assess where we are, or how far we've
come and where we have to go. Maybe use that as a vehicle to
communicate to the people of the United States what Alaska is.
We talk about these vexing problems and federal, state issues.
I'll not go into them, because I don't want to put a pall over the
conference, other than to say that much of what you're discussing
today will depend on the success of our federal-state relations.
It seems to me that Alaska is really--and I know you've heard
this, every generation says it--really at the crossroads. We're
at the thresnold. Several things are happening in Alaska.
First of all, we're on the verge of some kind of settlement, and I
fervently hope it's a good settlement, of the Alaska Lands Claim
in Congress. As a result of that, for the first time in the
history of this state, in the history of the territory, state
residents, either through Alaska Regional Native Corporations, or
through land held by the State of Alaska, will own substantial
tracts of Alaska's land. Obviously, the people who control Alas-
ka's land will control Alaska.
The second thing that's happening, and all of you are no doubt
aware of it, is Alaska's sudden so-called oil largesse, where
we're talking about receiving over the next several fiscal years
several billion dollars each year. So we have indigenous capital
for the first time. I submit to you, with those two tools, land
and capital, we are going to change Alaska, and I hope we're going
to change it for the better.
That's one of the things maybe the commission meeting over there
can talk about. What is Alaska to the rest of the United States,
and indeed to the world? It seems to me that with the new tools
that we now have, which will be controlled by Alaskans, we can
step forward and offer Alaska's manifold bounty to the people of
the United States.
It will come as no surprise to you that over the last several
years the standard of living in the United States has declined,
and is continuing to decline. The American economic pie is get-
ting smaller, and I defy anybody, anywhere, including in this
room, to challenge that.
It seems to me that the people of Alaska, with tne1r resources,
their manifold bounty, can contribute to the bucking up of the
American economy, to raising the standard of living. Not only we
can, we have a permanent obligation to do that. When you hear
national economists saying we've got to lower expectations and
tighten our belt, I submit to you, that's a little bit like the
dentist when he's in there and he says, "This may be a little
sensitive". Usually, it will hurt like blazes. That's what's
going to happen in this country. I think we need to aggressively
go to the American people and tell them what we've got for them,
and why we need them.
453
We need to tell them that as part of this natural bounty, for
example, we've got splendid scenery; wilderness values that ought
to be preserved in perpetuity for the American people.
454
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal task-force policies of the State of Alaska
for coal development
Richard Eakins
Director, Division of Economic En'terprise, Juneau
The purpose of my remarks is to inform the symposium on the role
and function the Alaska State ·~ Task-Force" has in developing
Alaska's coal resources.
Earlier this month, Governor Hammond reasserted his policy for
using petroleum resource revenues for expanding and diversifying
other sectors of Alaska's economy. The Governor said, in a Chica-
go address, "Alaska's basic challenge in the years ahead is to
convert the state's nonrenewable oil wealth into a viable, contin-
uing economic base which will contribute to both the state's and
the nation's well-being".
For the past two years, it has been a major policy tenet to direct
hydrocarbon wealth into the building-up of other economic sectors
of the economy. The two prime examples to date are the program
for locating a bottomfish industry in Alaska; and the Delta Barley
Project, a program to develop a major agriculture industry in the
state.
The Department of Commerce and Economic Development has taken the
Governor's economic policy directive and used it to structure a
long range economic development assistance program for diversi-
fying the state's economy.
This program is predicated upon some basic assumptions:
First, Alaska's economic growth for the next two-to-three decades
will occur due to resource extraction.
Second, future growth will also occur through the development of
the state's power and energy resources.
Third, resource development and energy power development in them-
selves will not provide the economic diversification and viable
economic base addressed in the Governor's policy. For this to
occur, a modern, technical industrial base, using a combination of
resources and power energy, needs to be established in Alaska.
This industrial base could take the raw resource material and use
local power sources for processing and manufacturing, thus adding
value to the resource material prior to its export out of Alaska.
Fourth, the State of Alaska will continue to have a powerful
influence and direction upon the economy for the foreseeable
future. The influence and direction will come through fiscal
455
policy measures, such as annual budget expenditures, public works
and infrastructure construction.
The administration's economic development program presently cen-
ters on fisheries, agriculture, tourism, international trade and
reverse investment, coal development and petrochemicals. In the
long-range it is considering minerals development as an important
plank in the state's future economy.
The increasing importance that Alaska coal is to have on the world
energy market was recognized by the Department of Commerce and
Economic Development several years ago. The development stage of
Alaska Coal was perceived by the Department to have advanced to
where tidewater coal production would undoubtedly occur in the
mid-1980's. The administration agreed with this analysis and the
Governor designated coal development as a priority program. The
concern was for state agencies to become prepared for the signifi-
cant impact that coal development would have upon the state, both
economically and environmentally. Direction came from the Gover-
nor that the state begin serious preparation for coal development
activities. As a result, an Interagency Coal Task Force was
formed in June 1978, with the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development designated to chair the task force.
The purpose and objectives of the Coal Task Force were:
First, to organize a cooperative effort between state and local
agencies.
Second, to prepare and make policy and program recommendations to
the administration.
Third, to interface and cooperate with the private industry sec-
tor.
Fourth, to anticipate, prepare and bring the public sector program
requirments for coal development to the stage of private industry
development and keep pace with them.
The coal task force has met periodically over the past two years
to carry out its assigned function. To date, activities of the
task force have included:
1. Preparing an inventory, by agency, of each and all questions
and problems that need to be addressed for new coal development to
occur.
2. Preparing a program, by agency, to cover those problem areas
of a general nature and for those problems identified for specific
developments, such as the Beluga field.
3. Addressing the need for a tidewater bulk loading facility.
Lr56
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Preparing policy formation on the state's role for providing
infrastructure support.
5. Entering into a support and cooperative effort with the Cook
Inlet Native Corporation and Placer Amex Corporation, and their
Methanol Feasibility Study funded by the Department of Energy.
6. Communicating with other private developers and buyers inter-
ested in coal.
1. Contracting with the Battelle Northwest Laboratories to ana-
lyze and prepare base data on the market situation for exporting
Beluga coal through the Governor's Division of Policy and Plan-
ning.
The Department of Commerce and Economic Development has for sev-
eral years been working with private enterprise to encourage the
opening of new coal mines, and the industrial development that
would accompany it.
The prospect of new coal development in Alaska has presented some
difficult problems which have delayed and retarded that develop-
ment. To begin with, Alaska coal reserves near tidewater have
several unknowns that have caused potential users to look else-
where first. Since the coal is located in an undeveloped wilder-
ness location, costs associated with development and delivery
price are estimated and not production proven. Users tend to
disclaim statements of price competitiveness, given Alaska's repu-
tation for high costs. The coal is in an undeveloped state, three
to four years away from production stage. Users tend to look to
operating coal fields first.
The estimated infrastructure costs associated with opening a new
mine would require a minimum of six million tons annual produc-
tion. It has been difficult to find one user, or to put together
a package of users having a need for that amount of coal.
The world energy situation and Middle East political conditions
have certainly worked to Alaska's favor. A surprising problem has
been the lack of information or knowledge about Alaska's coal
among what would be considered very sophisticated industries and
countries. These are industries having world-wide operations and
markets but no knowledge or awareness of Alaskan coal. At times
their information bordered on the ludicrous. So there has been a
problem of educating the world about Alaska.
Despite the above problems, the Department of Commerce and Econom-
ic Development's policy has been a belief that coal will generate
a very important economic contribution to Alaska's economy and
expanding industry. It is believed that the formulative stage of
an expanding coal industry would occur in the decade of the
eighties and, therefore, fit into the Administration's program for
economic diversification.
457
The Department composed a scenario of what were believed to be
development alternatives within competitive economic conditions.
These development alternatives were grouped under three general
usages of coal:
1. Coal exported in lump form for steam coal.
2. Coal converted into electrical power for industrial users in
proximity to the mine area.
3. Coal converted into processed or manufactured fuels for ex-
port.
The Department has made extensive marketing efforts and contacts
with every utility company on the West Coast regarding the first
use, steam coal. Given the world interest in coal, the Department
has also determined power requirements and the policy for coal
importation for Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Germany and Denmark. A
promotion effort for Alaska coal has been made to government and
industry officials in each of those nations. The success of that
effort is obvious when you count up the numer of trade teams and
industry contracts from these different countries that are occur-
ring in Alaska each month.
We believe the second use, power for industry, is the key to
providing an industrial base in the State of Alaska. It would
appear from some studies that electrical power generated from
Alaska coal will be cost competitive with new power in the Lower-
48 produced from fossil fuels. If other Alaskan cost disadvan-
tages can be overcome, Alaska power available on long-term con-
tracts may appear attraqtive to industry for future plant site
location. A combination of resource materials and power will be a
powerful incentive to offer industry in the coming decades. Dis-
cussion is being held with aluminum processors, iron ore reduction
and steel companies and magnesium processors.
The Cook Inlet area contains every important energy source needed
to establish an industrial base. There is coal, gas, oil and the
potential for hydropower. With our added resource wealth, it
should be possible to establish a specialized industrial base in
that area.
The third possibility for using Alaska coal is conversion into
synthetic fuels. The Department has kept informed with develop-
ments in this field and has been in contact with industry leaders.
The state has given direct support to the Beluga Methanol Feasi-
bility Study and views this project as making an important contri-
bution to Alaska coal development. We believe methanol fuels will
make real economic sense if the federal government ever forms a
realistic future energy development program.
The Department has followed with interest the industry exploration
study on Coal Oil Mixture (com). While there appeared to be
458
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
strong interest in this fuel in earlier stages, the inability to
use North Slope oil has posed a problem.
While there are many problems for coal development, nevertheless
the opportunities are unlimited. It is our belief that coal has
an important role to play in Alaska's development, and a long-
range economic contribution to make to the state's economy.
f•.
459
Environmental constraints to coal development
Dave Sturdevant
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Juneau
This paper presents a summary of the major environmental regula-
tory programs which may serve as constraints to coal development.
Eacn of these regulatory programs is clearly mandated by state and
federal legislation to protect the quality of environmental re-
sources which have been degraded by past development activities.
These programs may nonetheless be perceived as constraints because
compliance with them entails substantial commitment of time, money
and effort by industry.
The development of coal resources comprises a sequence of activi-
ties beginning with mining and continuing through processing,
convers1on, transportation and combustion to final waste disposal,
including secondary aspects such as community and industrial de-
velopment. The chain may be as short as a small mine serving a
local power plant, or it may span all of these activities over two
continents. As for the impacts, some are local and temporary and
some are global--among the most serious environmental concerns
faced on tne planet. Now that world scale coal development is on
the horizon for Alaska, our focus must expand to include these
greater concerns.
The State of Alaska has begun to develop a surface m1n1ng regula-
tory program, pursuant to federal statute. The surface mining
program, whether under state or federal administration, is a
comprehensive program for environmental control of surface mining
and reclamation. The nature of the program which will evolve in
this state is uncertain, depending on litigation, the Office of
Surface Mining and the Congress. However, the major aspects of
the surface mining program can be identified.
Any operator is required to obtain a permit for surface mining,
issued in accordance with the regulatory program. The permitting
process covers three phases of activity--environmental assessment,
mining and reclamation.
An environmental assessment must be detailed in the permit appli-
cation. Topics which must be addressed include: geology, ground
water hydrology, surface water quantity and quality, climate,
vegetation, soils and land use. The requirement to include fish
and wildlife resources has been remanded by the courts to the
Office of Surface Mining for revision.
The mining phase is controlled by the performance standards con-
tained in the Act and in the federal regulations. These standards
460
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
provide detailed procedures for nearly every aspect of m1n1ng
activity, including the following primary items: stream diver-
sion, seaiment control, acid forming and toxic forming spoil,
ground water protection, surface and ground water monitoring,
stream buffer zones, effluent limitations, coal utilization, spoil
disposal, coal processing wastes, air resources, fish and wildlife
protection, road design and construction and the removal, storage
and redistribution of topsoil.
The reclamation phase must also be detailed in the permit applica-
tion. Reclamation must restore the land to a condition capable of
supporting uses existing prior to mining, or to "higher or better"
uses, and must comply with the performance standards of the mining
phase. The reclamation plan must describe: capacity for alterna-
tive land uses, how the proposed land use is to be achieved, earth
moving, revegetation, handling of acid forming and toxic forming
materials, compliance with the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act,
protect1on of water quality, sedimentation ponds and impoundments,
waste banks, stream diversions, disposal of excess spoil and
transportation facilities.
Air quality regulation creates perhaps the tallest and broadest
hurdles that must be crossed in the development and use of coal
resources. The presence of this regulation indicates tne severity
of air quality degradation that can be associated with coal devel-
opment.
There are three main programs which govern air emissions, pursuant
to the Clean Air Act. First, the "National Ambient Air Quality
Standards" program establishes the maximum pollutant concentra-
tions which can legally exist in the outdoor air. No source of
air pollutants may cause those standards to be violated.
Second, the "New Source Performance Standards" program regulates
actual pollutant emissions from stationary sources. These stand-
ards are set based on the emission levels which can be achieved
through the best control technology available. Standards have
been developed specifically for coal preparation plants and coal
power plants. It is this program, well-known to many Alaskans,
which requires the scrubbing of at least 70 per cent of the sulfur
dioxide from power plant emissions, despite the extremely low
sulfur content of most Alaskan coals. The additional cost of this
scrubbing equipment may be unnecessary to protect air quality in
Alaska.
Third, the "Prevention of Significant Deterioration" program sets
substantially more stringent ambient air quality standards than
the above in most regions of the U.S., and requires a detailed
impact analysis for permit issuance. The purpose of the program
is to maintain air quality where it is currently better than the
national ambient standards.
This program probably is commonly perceived as the greatest con-
straint upon many kinds of development because the impact analysis
461
requires, at considerable cost, field monitoring and modelling of
emissions impacts over a period of one to two years, and because
there can be no significant impact in certain national protected
areas. In Alaska, these areas are four--Mt. McKinley National
Park, Tuxedni National Wildlife Refuge in lower Cook Inlet, Bering
Sea National Wildlife Refuge and Simeonof National Wildlife Re-
fuge, south of the Alaska Peninsula.
Coal mining has long been associated with water pollution caused
by massive earth moving, alteration of surface and ground water
flows and exposure of acid forming and toxic materials. Proces-
Slng, conversion and combustion facilities may also affect water
quality through wastewater or thermal discharges. The huge water
quality problems of the past, however, are now controlled through
a variety of regulatory programs. Alaska's low sulfur coals
probably eliminate major acid drainage problems.
The federal surface mining program requires collection and treat-
ment of ail on site water according to standards which have been
mutually adopted with the federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The program also requires earth moving operations to be
stabilized against erosion and leaching.
All waters discharged must receive a permit from the Environmental
Protection Agency, which imposes pollutant limitations. The state
has a double role in discharges--it must certify that a discharge
receiving a permit complies with state laws and regulations, and
it aaopts the federal permit as a state permit.
The state also maintains "Alaska Water Quality Standards", which
specify allowable poilution limits in receiving waters.
Thus, there are three levels of control of water pollution from
surface mining--control of the mining process, control of dis-
charges and control of receiving water quality.
A wastewater discharge from any other phase of coal development
also requires the federal discharge permit and state certifica-
tion, if the dishcarge will reach a navigable water. This permit
may require six months to a year for issuance.
A final authority respecting water quality, which may apply to
many aspects of coal development is the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers' jurisdiction over construction affecting navigable waters,
including wetlands. As with wastewater discharge, the state must
certify that an activity to be permitted will comply with state
water quality laws and regulations before a permit can be issued.
The Corps permit may be issued in three months in ordinary cases
and six months or more in complex cases.
Solid wastes produced by surface mining are controlled by the
surface mining program and do not require separate regulatory
action. Their control is most important in terms of water quality
protection.
462
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The cleaning of coal and its combustion produce considerable solid
wastes, which are controlled through permits issued by the state.
The regulatory burden should not be great, so long as suitable
disposal sites can be found. There is the potential, however, for
toxic materials to be present in coal ash.
The "Alaska Coastal Management Program" may serve to constrain
coastal development, although it can equally serve to identify
areas where development may be promoted. The heart of the program
is a set of environmental guidelines and standards which require
protection of key features of coastal ecosystems. In the organ-
ized borough, the coastal program is applied through planning
programs adopted by municipalities, and in the unorganized borough
it is applied by the state based on the guidelines and standards.
Fish and wildlife concerns may be addressed by a number of regula-
tory programs. The federal surface mining program contained a
section, now remanded by the Courts, requiring a study of fish and
wildlife and a plan to minimize adverse impacts. The Alaska
Coastal Management Program requires maintenance of fish and wild-
life haoitat. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game issues
permits for any disturbance of anadromous fish streams. The
"Endangered Species Act" requires protection of identified endan-
gered species. The '~ish and Wildlife Coordination Act" requires
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Regulations of the Corps of
Engineers also require consideration of fish and wildlife values
and compliance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
Protection of historic and archaeological resources is required
both by the "National Historic Preservation Act" and by the
"Alaska Historic Preservation Act". Major projects on state and
federal lands generally require agency clearance before commenc-
ing.
Finally, the "environmental impact statement" must be mentioned.
Where federal resources are involved, an environmental impact
statement may be required, and the period of preparation may be
measured in years rather than months.
In conclusion, while environmental regulation may serve as a
constraint upon development, each regulatory program clearly has a
beneficial public purpose. The complexity and extent of regula-
tory programs reflect the complexity of the interaction between
humanity and environment, and the extent to which past actions
have degraded the quality of environmental resources. It is our
obligation to attempt sensible and equitable application of those
programs.
463
Coal proQram of the Alaska Division of Geological and
Geophysical Surveys
Gilbert R. Eakins and Cleland N. Conwell
Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys
The Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS)
has a mandate by law (Alaska Statute 41.08.010) "to determine the
potential for production of metals, mineral and fuels". Coal
qualifies as the most abundant fuel in Alaska and is widely dis-
tributed tnroughout the state.
Other responsibilities of the Survey, by both law and regulation,
include coal conservation (AAC-46-) and the examination of mine
foremen for competency is required by federal law. State regula-
tion formerly provided for safety inspections, but these have been
taken over by the U.S. Department of Labor. The total result of
changes in laws at the state and federal levels leaves the Alaska
Division of Geological Survey with a primary responsibility to
assess Alaskan coal resources.
During the territorial years and early years of statehood, the
U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey work centered
on the development of coal as a fuel for the Alaska railroad, and
later for the military establishment. The principal development
areas were in the Matanuska Valley and near Healy. However, an
assessment of the resource continued on a broader scale, including
drilling in the north slope, at Susitna and in the Kenai fields.
From available literature and other sources, the U.S. Geological
Survey published a coal resource map of Alaska in 1967, whicn
illustrated the extent of coal fields in Alaska.
Alaska DGGS research during the last several years has added to
the literature and knowledge of coal in the state, and in 1977 the
division published an updated energy resource map. Other projects
by the state, sometimes in cooperation with the U.S. Geological
Survey or the University of Alaska, have been to explore individ-
ual coal fields in greater detail, including the Herendeen, Chig-
nik, Cape Lisburne and Healy fields.
The State Geological Survey presently is initiating a long-range
program to help determine the coal resources of Alaska. The goal
is to eventually compile a coal atlas on each of the coal fields,
which will include a set of maps and all available information on
the coal: extent of known coal bearing units, depths and thick-
ness of coal beds, coal analyses, land status, reserves, geology
and environments of deposition. This would be the ideal product
but its progress will depend upon funding and the amount of infor-
mation that can be obtained from industry and federal agencies
engaged in coal investigations. A major effort will be made to
464
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
correlate the latest geological information with the best avail-
able coal data, and to fill gaps by field exploration.
The results of this program will be used by the state in resource
and energy inventories, proper management of state lands, coal
leasing and prospecting permi ting, and by industry and Alaska's
Native corporations for feasibility studies. Laboratory work on
coal and sediments will be largely performed by P.D. Rae's Mineral
Industry Research Laboratory at the University.
During the past summer, the Alaska DGGS was engaged in two coal
projects: one in the general area of the Susitna lowlands and one
at the old Chicago Creek coal mine on the Seward Peninsula.
The Susitna lowlands have been a prime area for the leasing of
state lands. The reasons are the relatively thick seams (up to 50
feet) suitable for strip mining, and the close proximity to tide-
water where shipping facilities could be constructed. This year,
field work concentrated on the Susitna lowland region near known
important coal reserves and many pending state coal prospecting
permits. Currently geologic and land status maps are being com-
piled for the region. Two short field trips were made to acquaint
the investigators with projects being conducted by industry in the
Capps-Beluga area and to study the geology. A final report is due
July 1, 1981.
The second major project is an assessment of the old Chicago Creek
coal field on the Seward Peninsula. Coal was mined in the area
intermittently from about 1904 to 1937. The total production is
unknown, but old reports indicate over 100,000 tons were hauled
overland to Candle. Coal could be an excellent substitute for the
very expensive oil used in Alaskan villages for space heating and
for power generation. A preliminary field survey and literature
research have been completed by the State Survey. The next phase
will be contract drilling and trenching to determine the reserves,
quality and mineabili ty of the coal. The final phase will be a
feasibility study for developing a mine (open pit or underground)
in this area. This should be completed by the summer of 1981.
Because of the growing need for additional energy sources and the
present high cost of petroleum products, the State Survey believes
coal research and coal development should have high priori ties.
Indications are that the state will expand its efforts in this
field.
465
Potential impacts of coal development
on fish and wildlife in Alaska
Elizabeth B. Speer
National Wildlife Federation, Anchorage
Introduction
Coal mining, whether in West Virginia, Montana, or Alaska, is a
subject surrounded by controversy. Environmentalists and the
industry have long engaged in heated debates over various aspects
of coal mining, and in recent decades the volleys leveled by both
sides have escalated considerably in virulence. The controversy
is likely to continue as the U.S. tries to meet its ever increas-
ing demands for energy through the exploitation of coal. To some
extent, such conflicts are inevitable. We need the coal. We also
need a healthy environment. The extent to which we can avoid
conflicts over these two requirements depends upon our ability and
willingness to address environmental problems before they get out
of hand.
A question some of you may be asking yourselves is, need we be
concerned about fish and wildlife? With Alaska's vast cornucopia
of pristine habitat, with the relatively small land area that is
currently being disrupted by coal mining, and given the relative
success of past reclamation efforts, is there really anything to
worry about?
At the present state of development, the answer is probably no,
there is not immediate cause for serious concern. Development in
Alaska in the past has been relatively localized, and disruption
has not been widespread. However, with large scale coal explora-
tion on the horizon, we must begin to assess and evaluate the
possible effects this development will have on our fish and wild-
life resources. It is my aim here to briefly outline some of the
potential problems and impacts associated with surface coal
extraction.
Coal development impacts on fish and wildlife can result from
water quality degradation, air pollution, and disturbance of the
land. Impacts can be directly related to mining operations them-
selves, or can result from the development and maintenance of
community support facilities associated with the mining.
L:66
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Water Quality
1) Erosion. Erosion can have severe impacts on aquatic organisms
through resulting sedimentation of water courses. Sources of
erosion include: areas exposed by excavation; spoil piles; impro-
perly contoured or revegetated backfills; areas that have under-
gone slumping, subsidence, or landsliding as a result of the
degradation of ice rich permafrost; general construction activi-
ties; and improper road building and maintenance. Erosion may
also result from the construction of housing, airports, and other
support facilities.
Besides obvious siltat1on of rivers that are normally clear,
erosion can cause excessive siltation above and beyond normal
sediment loads in glacial streams, rivers, and lakes. Siltation
from mining activities may also occur during biologically impor-
tant periods when natural siltat1on is at a minimum. It is impor-
tant to remember that aquatic organisms have adapted themselves
over centuries to natural silt cycles in glacial waters. The
timing or quantity of additional sediment loads resulting from
mining activities may upset the delicate interrelationships be-
tween these physical and biological factors that have evolved
together over long periods of time.
Siltation can have a severe impact on fish. The eggs of salmon,
grayling, and other fish depend upon dissolved oxygen supplied by
water flowing through and over streambed gravel. When silt over-
lays the streambed, the availability of dissolved oxygen is re-
duced dramatically. Salmon and grayling eggs are extremely sensi-
tive to this smothering effect, and are often among the first fish
to disappear from even slightly silted streams.
Siltation can also affect a variety of other aquatic organisms.
Insects and other invertebrates, on which fish depend for food,
can suffer severe population reductions as a result of siltat1on.
As excess sediments reduce the amount of light available for plant
photosynthesis, aquatic vegetation may suffer. The vi tal func-
tions of adjacent or downstream wetlands--which are important
spawning and nursery areas for fish, and provide essential habitat
for a variety of other animals--may also be impaired.
Erosion can be controlled to a large extent by proper engineering
techinques and prompt revegetation. Erosion control should be
planned for and implemented before it becomes a serious problem.
2) Chemical contamination. Salts, trace elements, dissolved
organics, and acid forming substances can leach from spoil mater-
ials, coal piles, and exposed surfaces in the mine. These sub-
stances originate from the shales, siltstones, and other overbur-
den materials that are associated with coal formations, as well
as the coal itself. If the mine intercepts the flow of surface or
subsurface water, the threat of water quality degradation becomes
467
more severe. Contamination may continue long after the mine is
closed, due to the excessive vertical permeability of spoil back-
fills.
Human sewage and waste associated with the mine and suport commun-
ities can also create water quality problems. Coal fired power
generation facilities yield fly ash, desulfurization sludge, and
bottom ash, which, along with coal storage dumps, can leach trace
elements, salts, and acid forming materials into surface and
ground water.
High concentrations of trace elements, including heavy metals, are
known to be toxic to fish, wildlife, and humans. Trace elements
associated with coal that are particularly toxic to aquatic organ-
isms include mercury, cadmium, beryllium, cobalt, copper, arsenic
and antimony. The information presented by Dr. Mitchell in an
earlier paper indicates that some of these elements may not pose
significant problems in the areas tested.
Reductions in water pit can increase the toxicity of various
compounds, and affect the availability of nutrients. Alaska has
been blessed with predominantly low sulfur coal, and acid genera-
tion snould not be a serious problem in most areas of the state.
The presence of excess quanti ties of salts may sufficiently de-
grade surface and ground water to the point where they are no
longer able to support certair1 species of aquatic organisms. But
again, preliminary data presented in an earlier lecture indicated
that this may not be a problem in many areas of Alaska. The
effects of large amounts of dissolved organic hydrocarbons are not
well understood, and more research is needed before impacts on
fish and wildlife can be assessed.
When considering water quality impacts, or any other environmental
degradation, it is important to keep in mind that any damage
sustained by lower members of the aquatic food chain will have
repercussions at higher trophic levels, interfering with normal
food supplies. Thus, the disappearance of even the most "minor"
species, such as insects or other invertebrates, must not be
viewed lightly. It is also important to remember that bioaccumu-
latlon of toxic materials may cause problems in animals further up
the food chain. Visible damage or decimation of populations
resulting from food chain disruption or bioaccumulation may occur
only at advanced stages of degradation. Visual inspection,
therefore, is generally not a reliable indicator of environmental
damage.
Air Quality
Particulate emissions in the form of coal dust generated in mining
and crushing can be a problem, especially in winter. Emissions
from crushing operations can be controlled through the use of
468
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
various types of particulate pollution control equipment, but dust
associated with excavation may be more difficult to control. Road
dust can also be generated in considerable quantities during the
summer months, but is fairly easily minimized by watering or pav-
ing. Chemical pollutants generated by coal fired power plants,
heating plants, and vehicles in many cases have had a greater
impact on air quality than activities directly associated with
mining.
The extent to which birds, mammals, and other wildlife species are
directly affected by air pollution is not well understood. The
most significant impact may be the effects of air pollution vege-
tation. Plant communities subjected to continued long term air
pollutant loading may or may not suffer observable damage. How-
ever, long-term exposure may alter the structure and composition
of plant communities by selecting against those species that are
less able to tolerate emissions. The ability of communi ties to
withstand the stress imposed by air pollution depends on the
amount, type, and duration of exposure; the response of individual
species; and the particular environmental factors at work at the
site, such as the buffering capacity of the soil. Any alterations
in vegetative communities can be expected to affect wildlife
species that depend on such communi ties to carry out their life
functions.
Land Disruption
Large scale coal development will create obvious disruptions of
large areas of land, and result in temporary--and in some cases
permanent--loss of habitat. Habitat loss will also result from
the construction of housing, roads, airports, etc., associated
with the development of support facilities and communities. Mi-
gration routes of animals such as moose, caribou, and migratory
waterbirds may also be disrupted by mining and associated develop-
ment. It is essential that reclamation and habitat restoration
efforts be initiated as soon as possible after mining is com-
pleted, so as to relieve the population pressures on adjacent
lands caused by the dispersion of wildlife away from the mining
area. If revegetation is not performed promptly, wildlife popula-
tions may suffer declines.
Changes in the species composition of, or the growth form of plant
communities that result from mining activities or reclamation
efforts can be expected to cause a shift in the composition,
distribution, and density of wildlife species. This may be desir-
able or undesirable, depending on the species affected. Strictly
topographical changes wrought by mining, backfilling, or subsi-
dence of degraded ice rich permafrost should not be a major prob-
lem, unless improper engineering results in erosion or landslid-
ing.
469
Interception and/or alteration of surface drainage and ground
water flow patterns by mining activities will have obvious effects
on fish and other aquatic organisms. In addition, changes wrought
in surface patterns can also affect the density and distribution
of terrestrial wildlife. The avoidance of surface streams and
rivers can circumvent problems that may arise from disrupting
surface water drainage patterns, but ground water flow disruption
caused by mining may be a more difficult problem to solve. Wheth-
er or not the latter will seriously disrupt wildlife distribution
and density depends on the availability of water in the region
being mined, the extent to which density and distribution have
been determined by ground fed surface water supplies, and the
degree to which changes in water table levels affect the availa-
bility of surface water.
Coal extraction may create problems in areas where frozen soil or
ice has perched the water table and led to the establishment of
wetlands communities. If permafrost is degraded in such areas as
a result of mining, the functional perch will be removed, and the
water table will drop. Wetlands vegetation may be replaced by
plants adapted to drier conditions, changing the nature of the
habitat and resulting in a shift in animal populations. Moose,
waterbirds and other wetland species may be affected, especially
in areas where patches of permafrost have created isolated pockets
of wetlands on which these animals rely for food, cover, or breed-
ing areas.
Associated with land disturbance is disruption caused by human
activity. An increase in human population will tend to spread
human disturbance over large areas. Hunting and fishing will
directly affect fish and wildlife, and those species that are
sensitive to human activities will disperse out of the area,
putting pressure on adjacent ecosystems and possibly resulting in
population declines.
Conclusions
Coal m1n1ng in Alaska can have essential adverse impacts on fish
and wildlife. While it is not possible to prevent all damage and
disruption to fish and wildlife populations, impacts can be mini-
mized through the use of available pollution control technologies,
adherence to state and federal mining and environmental standards,
and prompt reclamation. Environmental protection, in many in-
stances, may not be easy or cheap but the stakes are high. We
cannot afford to ignore them.
470
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Selected References
Burman, J.B., comp. 1978, The impact of increased coal consump-
tion in the Pacific northwest: Battelle Pacific Northwest Lab-
oratories, Richland, Washington.
Doyle, W.S., 1976, Strip mining of coal: Environmental solu-
tions: Pollution Technology Review No. 27, Noyes Data Corp.,
Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Grim, E.C. and Hill, R.D., 1974, Environmental protection in
surface mining of coal: EPA 670/2-74-093, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Schmidt, R.A., 1979, Coal in America: McGraw Hill, New York.
Wright, R.A., ed. 1978, The reclamation of disturbed arid lands:
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Coal development: What is and what should be the
role of state and local government
Frederick H. Boness
Preston. Thorgrlmson. Ellis & Holman. Anchorage
Since a number of participants in this conference have already
discussed in some detail specific aspects of government involve-
ment in coal development, I have decided to discuss government's
role in a broader, more policy oriented way. First, I would like
to discuss briefly the various government activities which make up
a total state policy. After that, I would like to offer a few
suggestions for making changes in what I perceive that policy to
be.
Let us begin by asking what are the different roles the state has
in coal development? First, there is the regulatory responsibili-
ty. This is applicable to all coal development whether it occurs
on state or private lands. The principal regulatory responsibili-
ty is environmental protection, but there also are regulatory
responsibilities concerning health and safety and even labor mat-
ters. The state's regulatory responsibilities are, to some de-
gree, overshadowed by federal regulatory activities of the same
nature. As others at this conference have indicated, the working
out of the respective state and federal responsibilities is some-
thing which is not yet fully resolved.
A second area of state involvement concerns the actions of the
state as an owner of coal. Essentially, there are two aspects of
state activity in this area. The first is the making available of
developable coal lands. The decisions in this area, at least in
theory, are guided by overall state resource development and
economic growth policy. In practice, I believe the policy for
making coal lands available has been amphorous. I do not, how-
ever, mean this as a serious criticism, as I do not believe the
unavailability of state land has imposed a constraint upon coal
development.
The second aspect of state activity related to state ownership
involves the terms upon which state owned coal land is made avail-
able for development. In particular, the term of the lease, the
rental and royalty provisions, and development requirements all
determine whether a particular development is feasible. Lease
terms are also a factor in judging whether the state, as seller of
a non-renewable resource, is receiving its "fair share".
The third role of the state in coal development is its taxation
policy. At the present time, direct state taxation of coal devel-
opment is limited to a mining license tax of 7% of net revenues
over $100,000.00, and state income taxes applicable to all busi-
472
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nesses in Alaska. Coal operators may also be required to pay a
property tax if their operations are located in an area where the
local government imposes such a tax. There is not, however, a
severance tax or statewide property tax similar to the taxes
imposed upon oil and gas operators.
The fourth and final area of state involvement which I want to
identify is what I shall call infrastructure support. This might
take the form either of direct state appropriations for the provi-
sion of various support facilities such as docks, roads or rail-
roads, or it might include more indirect methods such as favorable
financing arrangements and tax credits or tax holidays for certain
types of facilities.
How these different elements are combined, either conciously and
deliberately, or by chance, constitutes a state "policy" on coal.
Approached in this manner we can ask, "What is the state's policy
on coal development?"
Critics of our state government, I expect, would be quick to
answer that there is no state policy, or perhaps that the state
policy is to inhibit development by imposing onerous and unneces-
sary environmental regulations. Such answers would, in my opin-
ion, contain an element of truth, but they are far too simplistic
to be meaningful.
First, I suggest that prospective developers must recognize that
within the executive branch, no single agency or department has
responsibility for, or control over, all of the aspects of state
involvement discussed above. One department has responsibility
for leasing, several others have responsibility for environmental
protection and yet another is charged with helping to promote
development.
The executive branch has responded to this situation by creating
task forces and interagency working groups, and by locating cen-
tral coordinating and planning responsibilities in the Governor's
office. These efforts have been sincere and instructive, and many
of the individuals who have been involved in such efforts are here
and have reported on them. However, speaking candidly, I believe
we must also acknowledge that such efforts, at least to date, have
not been successful in defining a consistent, rational policy
towards coal development. Nor do I believe these efforts will
succeed even if undertaken with renewed dedication. I say this
because I believe development of a consistent policy--at least a
policy which supports coal development--can only come about after
a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such develop-
ment and adoption of a legislative program.
Some efforts toward this end have been made by the legislature
recently, but I believe these discussions were too narrowly fo-
cused--looking principally only to state lease terms--and lacking
in broad public participation.
473
I would now like to turn briefly to a suggestion for a state
policy on coal. I begin this discussion by stating my belief that
among the many different development opportunities available to
Alaska, I believe coal deyelopment should rank very high. I take
this position for several reasons.
I believe world demand for coal will be very good over the next 20
to 50 years and that those companies (and states) which start
development today will be in the best position to meet future
demand increases. Additionally, coal development will do a far
better job of diversifying the Alaskan economy than will develop-
ment projects based upon refining or processing Alaska's oil and
gas resources. Furthermore, coal development, at least in compar-
ison with other forms of development being promoted, is relatively
labor intensive and should therefore provide good employment op-
portunities. Finally, coal development may benefit many Alaskans
directly by providing aleternati ve energy sources. From all of
these reasons I believe the state should adopt a policy of encour-
aging coal development.
Having said that, let me say I do not wish to join ranks with
those who argue that environmental regulations are the culprit
holding up coal development. I believe waging a battle against
environmental regulation is unwise and fruitless. There are many
in Alaska who support coal development, but only if such develop-
ment includes thorough protection of the environment.
In my opinion, constant complaints and disputes over environmental
regulations create serious doubts about whether the industry is
really concerned about the environment. I suggest the proper
approach to environmental regulation is to accept the fact that
society can choose any level of environmental protection it wish-
es. But since such protection is for the good of society as a
whole, then it seems to me logical that society should participate
in the cost of that protection.
Perhaps the most significant concern state officials have ad-
dressed themselves to in the past is the defining of a state
policy for the leasing of state owned coal, which would ensure
that the state receives a "fair share" from its non-renewable
resource. While I support the objective, I believe much of the
effort has been too narrowly focused.
I suggest the state should not treat coal as a resource from which
it expects a significant direct financial return, at least ini-
tially. My comment in this regard can be put into perspective by
considering a few numbers. In 1977 Alaska produced about 665,000
tons of coal. If the state received $1.00/ton royalty-which it
did not--the contribution to the state treasury would barely be
noticeable. Even if we assure that a project is undertaken which
results in production of 5 to 6 million tons/year (which is the
size project some have said is necessary to be viable), again
royal ties, even at $1.00/ton, are barely more than a drop in the
bucket.
474
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Even if these numbers are doubled or tripled, we are still not
talking about significant revenues by Alaska's present standards.
I suggest the state could afford to forego these revenues in the
next 10 or 15 years in order to secure the benefits derived from
creation of employment opportunities, economic diversification and
the making available of alternative energy sources in Alaska.
Furthermore, with more creative taxing and leasing terms, I be-
lieve the state could recover even these foregone revenues.
I suggest the state's role should be to work to establish the
industry through short-term assistance or incentive, if necessary.
Such incentives should be regarded as an investment which will be
returned at a later date. There are many mechanisms by which this
could be done. For example, a leasing policy which required
substantial royalty participation (20-30%), but after the devel-
oper has recovered capital is one way. Another would be a tax
moratorium of 10 or 15 years, after which time significant taxes
might be assessed. As I suggested above, I think even subsidies
for environmental protection can be justified.
Such a state policy, I believe, is desirable because the risk of a
serious mistake and resulting loss of the public wealth and re-
sources is low. I say this because I do not believe coal develop-
ers will ever find themselves in the enviable position where
market scarcities for coal create very large returns to producers.
However, even if I'm wrong about this, the alternative leasing and
taxation policies available to the state will enable the state to
receive its "fair share" of any unanticipated windfalls. On the
other hand, coal has a good long-range outlook and the dollars the
state foregoes initially should be returned over the long run. At
the same time coal development might provide midterm benefits in
the areas of employment and low-cost energy.
I suggest it is not sound public policy to argue that coal devel-
opment will necessarily and automatically happen when its time has
come, and state encouragement before that time will result in
revenue losses to the state. There are legitimate public objec-
tives other than maximizing state re~enues, which will not be
achieved by a strictly passive policy. Furthermore, I believe
Alaska's overall economic policy should itself reflect a diversi-
fied portfolio. If Alaska always pursues only the most risk free
economic develoment policies possible, then Alaska must expect
only the smallest returns. Coal development, I believe, creates
only a relatively small risk of loss should an aggressive policy
turn out to be unnecessary, yet offers a reasonably good overall
long-term return. Ihat, I think, is the kind of investment we all
like to have.
475
Panel Discussion
Moderator: William R. Wood
Mayor. City of Fairbanks and
President Emeritus. Unlv. of Alaska
I know that time at this session is of the essence. There are
some people who have a plane to catch, it's been a long day and
this, I believe, is the final session. I'm going to move it along
as promptly as possible, so that we can have some time for discus-
sion and then be sure that we get Mr. Eakins and Mr. Mueller out
of town today. Nothing personal, just a good thing to get them
back to Juneau.
If you would look at the line-up, all the names and numbers are
listed therein, I don't think there's much need of my repeating
the information that you find there. I'm going to call upon these
gentlemen in order. They have approximately five minutes each to
enlighten us, with pearls of wisdom and stimulating commentary,
looking toward the future of production. Then we are going to
turn it over to you, the audience, to ask them searching ques-
tions.
We start with none other than the Dean of the School of Mineral
Industry at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Earl Beistline,
who was a part of the land grant for that institution.
476
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal research needs
Earl H. Beistline
Dean, School of Mineral Industry, Unlv. of Alaska, Fairbanks
Critical developments in the nation's and world's energy supply
has focused interest on the increased use of coal, both to con-
serve oil and gas as well as to use these materials as a source to
manufacture more valuable products such as petrochemicals. The
vast resources of Alaskan coal offers the opportunity to supply
additional energy resources on a state, national and international
basis, which will be beneficial to the State's economy (including
more jobs for Alaskans), have a favorable influence on the na-
tion's balance of trade, and will be of value to the society
receiving Alaska's exported coal.
For the better utilization of Alaskan coal, numerous questions
must be answered and problems solved such as those pertaining to
coal resources, characteristics of coal, mining techniques for
coal in arctic, subarctic and temperate areas, upgrading of coal
for various uses, use of coal byproducts, and appropriate coal
transportation methods and facilities.
Coal research in the School of Mineral Industry, University of
Alaska, Fairbanks, has been underway since 1963, and was greatly
enhanced by a grant of money given by Joe Usibelli to establish
the Usibelli Memorial Coal Laboratory in 1964, in memory of his
father, Emil, who mined in the Healy coal field for many years and
unfortunately lost his life in a mine accident.
Since then, funds, grants and contributions have been received
from varius agencies and industries, including the u.s. Bureau of
Mines, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Energy's Office
of Surface Mining, Canadian Superior Exploration Company, Alaska
State Legislature and the Usibelli Coal Mine. There has also been
excellent cooperation from other individuals and companies inter-
ested in Alaska's mining industry. Through this assistance, a
limited but continuous viable coal research program has been, and
is, underway. Projects completed and underway are listed in the
handout that has been previously distributed.
Public Law 95-87, 95th Congress, authorized funding for creation
of 13 University Research Centers in various parts of the nation.
Unfortunately, even though a number of universities, including the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks, submitted detailed proposals for
such a Laboratory, funding for establishing the Coal Laboratories
was not approved by the Congress. The State Legislature, in
anticipation of federal approval, provided a sum of $150,000 to be
used specifically as a matching portion for research projects in
477
1979-80, but this amount was returned when the Federal portion was
not forthcoming.
This year the Legislature provided $150,000 for coal research,
which has allowed the Laboratory to increase its research efforts
directed toward obtaining more information about Alaska coal, and
hence, ultimately contribute to the development and utilization of
this excellent resource.
In discussions with Dr. Rao and his associates, coal research that
is needed includes the following topics:
1. Basic studies on: a) Organic chemistry of coal macerals from
various coal fields of varying geological times, b) Inorganic
chemistry of coals, and the affinity of major oxides and trace
elements to the organic material, c) Reflectance rank and petro-
logy of all significant seams in Alaska and d) Mineral matter in
coal -quantitative analysis of minerals associated with coal.
2. Studies related to the formation of coal: depositional and
postdepositional environments for various coal fields.
3. Bench scale study of liquefaction behavior of all significant
coal seams of Alaska, and correlation extraction yields with
petrology, rank and nature of mineral matter, etc.
4. Mining of coal in the Arctic: to have an experimental under-
ground mine at Wainwright, Ataksuk or similar locations.
5. Dry beneficiation systems sui table for year round operation
of coal preparation plants.
6. Palynology and paleobotany of Alaskan coals.
1. For immediate application--design of ship loading facilities
and cost of transportation of Alaskan coals--an engineering study.
8. Beneficiation of Alaskan coal to make low ash -low sulfur
products.
9. Make pelletized low ash -low sulfur -devolatilized coal for
use by home owners to offset high energy costs.
10. A plan to mine remaining coal resources of the Wishbone Hill.
11. A mine plan for recovering multiple small seams in Kenai
Peninsula.
12. Development of a fluidized bed coal furnace for small busi-
ness or home use.
13. Economics of methanol production from Alaskan coals.
14. Applications of slurry transportation for remote coal fields.
478
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
15. Blending of various Alaskan coals for coke making.
16. Rehabilitation of mined land.
17. Drying of coal for dbmestic use and export.
18. Utilization of coal and oil for complimentary use.
Other speakers on the panel will discuss various facets of coal
development and hopefully the foregoing list will be expanded by
ideas that may come forth from their presentations, as well as
from members of the audience. In this way, working together, we
can further enhance Alaska Coal Research for the benefit of indus-
try, the state, the nation and the world.
479
Transportation and market analysis for Alaska coal
Jack Robertson
U.S. Department of Energy. Seattle
Our department, working through the Seattle office, recently com-
pleted a draft study of transportation and market analysis of
Alaska coal. We essentially updated a lot of past studies to
bring them up to 1980 dollars, and 1980 technology. There were
some eight findings, nine conclusions and six recommendations, but
because of time I'm just going to talk about one aspect. That is:
there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between the desire to
market Alaska coal and the need for rapid construction of addi-
tional electric generation capacity in the Pacific Northwest.
There is also a need to reduce consumption of foreign crude oil,
and to continue to protect the environment.
The forecast shows that in the Pacific Northwest during the decade
of the 80s the shortage of electrical energy will run about 2,000
to 3,000 megawatts. There is no way that this can be made up,
short of some rather short range moves, such as stronger conserva-
tion programs. Or, for example, by the installation of combustion
turbines and wind turbines, and the importation of electrical
energy from outside the region, which would be very expensive.
What I want to concentrate on is the combustion turbine aspect.
Because it appears to me, and it appears to us in the office, that
Alaska coal converted to methanol, which can be carried down to
the Pacific Northwest in tankers and put in conventional pipelines
to combustion turbine sites, looks like a good solution. We do
not know enough about the economics of it, yet, but the study
which Placer Amex is working on is going to give us more informa-
tion on that. I point out that in the urban areas, which are the
greatest load centers, there is no way that we can put a major
burning fuel facility in unless it is clean burning, and methanol
is a clean burning fuel. Also, in those urban areas you can
locate combustion turbines, and the utility companies like to
locate the generating facilities next to the load centers simply
for reliability reasons.
So that's the message we want to leave with you today. We think
that it will turn out to be a viable alternative and that it will
be price competitive. It appears to be so now, based on some pre-
liminary work, at least based on imported petroleum. We think
it's the technology and the concept that needs to be discussed.
Thank you.
480
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal for power generation
Robert Hufman
General Manager, Golden Valley Electric Association
I appreciate the opportunity to submit our views regarding utili-
zation of Alaskan coal resurces for the generation of electrical
energy.
Coal is a most attractive fuel cost wise when compared to the oil
alternative in interior Alaska. However, it carries with it
extremely heavy environmental constraints, resulting in long lead
times of 8 to 10 years for completion of conventional coal fired
facilit1es and excessive associated costs. Today an estimated 33~
of the project's total cost is expended to comply with numerous
environmental regulations. Without a drastic change in the com-
plexion of the United States Congress and a corresponding change
in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administration, it is
my opinion that costly constraints will become even more excessive
in the near future.
EPA has yet to formally issue its regulations covering disposal of
fly ash classed as a special category hazardous substance. Doug
Costle, EPA's administrator, has publicly stated his intentions to
act promptly regarding regulations to abate the so-called "acid
rain" problem. This in spite of the fact that a short time ago
EPA testified at a House Committee hearing that 3 to 5 years of
research would be required before a judgment could be made as to
whether new air quality regulations would be required to control
acid rain. In EPA's opinion older existing utility coal fired
facilities are major contributors to the acid rain problem.
Therer ore Mr. Costle may shortly impose retrofit abatement re-
quirements on existing facilities amounting to millions upon mil-
lions of dollars, ultimately to be absorbed by utility customers.
As a matter of interest, acid rain is caused by gases in the
atmosphere that form acids when they dissolve in water. Such
gases include carbon dioxide which is naturally present in the
atmosphere, as well as pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen dioxide produced by combustion. When rain falls on areas
where the soil lacks minerals to neutralize the acid, lakes may
become too acidic to support life.
EPA's proposed visibility regulations are due to be promulgated
soon. A portion of their proposed visibility regulations are
based on concern for emission drift into a class 1 area from an
outside source such as a power plant. However, they say that
while protection of vistas "within the boundaries of a class 1
area is clearly required, vistas outside the class 1 area must
also be protected if they can be viewed from the class 1 area".
481
EPA does note that Congress apparently failed to protect urban and
other vistas not integral to the viewing experience, therefore,
criteria must be shaped to determine which out-of-area vistas
should be protected for a viewer standing, say, on a mountaintop
and gazing beyond the class 1 area.
Mt. McKinley Park is a class 1 area and the mountain provides
quite an expansive view from 20,3000 feet. EPA's current view is
that manmade visibility impairment is any visually perceptile
change in visibility from that which would have existed under
rtatural conditions. I hasten to add at this point, it is not
impossible to build a conventional coal fired plant today. It is
simply an extremely expensive, frustrating and seemingly never-
ending experience.
However, I believe a viable future for coal utilization by utili-
ties will be realized during the late 1980's. Such a future will
come about as a result of improved burning technologies such as
pressurized fluidized bed combustion. That process shows great
promise. We note the recent announcement of our country's first
commercial scale coal gasification plant in Mercer County, North
Dakota. The $1.4 billion dollar plant will process 14,000 tons of
coal into approximately 125 million cubic feet of gas every day.
This is the energy equivalent of 20,000 barrels of fuel oil a day.
The South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation uses the LURGI
process to gassify coal yielding substitute natural gas, sulfur,
pneonols and ammonia. The gas is further refined by a Fischer-
Tropsch process followed by an exclusive synthol process producing
gasoline, diesel, jet fuels, alcohol and ketones. Advanced tech-
nology in this field has made South Africa over 75S energy inde-
pendent. This was attained in spite of the fact that the country
has no domestic oil or natural gas. The United States, West
Germany and Japan recently signed agreements to fund a 1.4 billion
dollar project in West Virginia, to convert coal into synthetic
liquid fuels sui table for refining to make gasoline and heating
oil or boiler fuel.
In anticipat1on of new future availability of coal derived fuels,
major manufacturers such as General Electric Company are offering
gas turbines capable of easy, expeditious conversion to as many as
seven different coal derived fuel categories, thereby offering
maximum flexibility in the planning process.
So there is a bright future for coal and Alaska has an abundance
or this valuable resource. We should actively support prompt
commercial development of advanced coal technologies and vigorous-
ly resist the promulgation of unduly restrictive regulations, and
those that would obstruct development of these promising technolo-
gies.
Thank you.
482
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Past and future coal mining in Alaska
Cole McFarland
Vice President Operations, Placer Amex, Inc., San Francisco
As mentioned in earlier papers, Alaska is positioned to make a
meaningful contribution to this national policy of increased coal
utilization.
The widespread nature of Alaska's coal resource resulted in early
use of coal for heating and cooking by Natives and early settlers,
where stream erosion or tidal action provided natural and easy
access. Early mining efforts were undertaken in various such
locations in the state, with most significant operations on the
Kenai Peninsula by Russian engineers and West Coast entrepreneurs.
The first significant and continuous coal mining operations were
begun when the U.S. Government constructed the Alaska Railroad.
Development of Matanuska coal to provide a West Coast supply for
the U.S. Navy as well as the Alaskan Railroad, and development of
the Nenana Field to supply fuel for Fairbanks were the main objec-
tives.
A single 10,000 ton shipment of Chickaloon coal moved in a navy
collier in 1922 was the first and last navy shipment. However,
the Jonesville operations in tne south and the Suntrana and later
Usibelli operations in the north served the railbelt domestic and
commercial needs well. The military installations in both areas
constructed power plants to conform to respective coal character-
istics of tne two regions.
Conversion of the Alaska Railroad to diesel in the 1950s and
subsequent conversion of the Anchorage utility and military in-
stallations to natural gas in 1967 resulted in the shutdown of
major Matanuska coal operations. The OPEC crunch in 1973-74 and
subsequent rapid escalation of oil prices have once again placed
the energy spotlight on coal.
A broad world concensus concludes that world oil supplies will
peak and begin to decline before the turn of the century. While
removal of artificial price constraints and reopening of lands to
modern exploration techniques will extend petroleum reserves, the
world community must begin the transition to alternate fuels. In
addition to increased conservation, a number of promising methods
ot electrical energy production, such as fusion and solar power,
are on the horizon. However, the principal alternatives to meet-
ing the projected oil shortfall by the year 2000 are nuclear
energy and coal. Greatly expanded world production, transport and
use of coal will be a cornerstone in the transition from fossil
fuels to more advanced energy systems.
483
The United States, with its high level of energy consumption must,
for reasons of national security and economic well-being, move
aggressively to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. The con-
gress is considering additional steps that will expedite expansion
of the nation's coal production for conventional central power
generation, production of coal sourced synthetic fuels and coal
export to western bloc nations. While there may be some modera-
tion to what many of us consider excessive regulatory constraints,
a major expansion in coal utilization will still be governed by
stringent environmental safeguards. As mentioned earlier, Alaska
is positioned to make a meaningful contribution to this national
policy of increased coal utilization. Coal will play as important
a part in meeting the nation's future energy needs as oil does
today (and natural gas soon will).
Large subbituminous reserves within the Nenana coal field on the
railroad, and the Beluga field located near navigable Cook Inlet
tidewaters, are well situated to be used for bulk export and
chemical conversion to liquid products. Economic evaluation on a
cost-per-delivered-Btu will determine whether or not a dry-
ing/moisture stabilization step is warranted for bulk coal ship-
ments. The most likely approach to chemical coal conversion is
coal gasification and synthesis to the alcohol fuel methanol by
commercially proven processes; with pipeline transport to coastal
harbors and shipment by conventional oil tankers to market.
Studies are now underway to determine the environmental, technical
and economic feasibility of both of these approaches to marketing
Alaskan coal.
Looking to the future, I agree with Lt. Governor Miller that new
oil discoveries will be made. The existing and planned pipeline
systems to move North Slope petroleum products to coastal sites
and Lower 48 markets can be used in the future when, oil and gas
production decline, to transport coal liquids produced from cen-
tral Alaska and the huge Arctic coal resource. Interim test mines
to supply local native villages with fuel for heating and electric
generation will serve to develop acceptable mine and reclamation
methods in the Arctic environment. New methods, such as in situ
gasification of methanol/coal slurries, may be feasible by that
time. Coal conversion plants in the Nenana and Beluga fields will
have demonstrated the environmental impacts to be expected.
In Alaska, as in the rest of the world, the coal mining and
processing base constructed for transitional energy production
will be available to supply world needs for transport fuels, and
hydrocarbons for manufacturing of chemicals and foodstuffs well
into the 21st century.
484
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Environmental constraints
Ernest Mueller
Commissioner, Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Juneau
Environmental Constraints
Thank you. I'm not going to take the time to duplicate what Dave
Sterdevant and Elizabeth Speer said in the earlier session. I
think they covered the environmental issues. I'm sure many of you
who are not associated with the regulatory process were somewhat
amazed at Dave's admittedly cursory, but nevertheless extremely
complex rundown on the steps that are necessary to go to for coal
development. I think Bob Hurman's comments are well taken also.
I think it will be helpful, however, to explain a little bit about
what our role is in the development of an industry in Alaska,
particularly, coal development. Our agency, working under federal
and state law, has set ambient standards for pollutants in the
air. In terms of coal, that's primarily sulfur oxides and articu-
late matter, and maybe other types of heavy metals or other pollu-
tants that might show up. Those standards are transmitted in some
cases into emission standards. Not only do we regulate how much
of a particular pollutant can be in the air but also, how much a
particular industry, a particular process may dispose of into the
air, depending upon the process or industry involved.
In Alaska, of course, as I mentioned, sulfur oxides are not only a
pollutant that comes from the coal burning industry, but also from
pulp mills and other industries. We also are heavily involved in
the process that Mr. Hufman mentioned--the development of national
policies--primarily by the Environmental Protection Agency but
also by the Congress, who passed Clean Air Act amendments, for
example. They established some of the constraints that this
industry has to work under in terms of the kind of sulfur removal
processes that are required. We spend a substantial amount of our
time lobbying the Congress, testifying before committees and work-
ing directly with EPA, to try to make national regulations flexi-
ble enough to allow for Alaska's unique conditions.
I'm sure everybody's heard of Alaska's unique conditions thousands
of times, but when you're talking about the Ohio Valley versus the
Tanana Valley there's a substantial difference in the kind of
airshed we're working in. We need to make the regulations on the
federal side flexible enough to address the needs of Alaska. EPA,
on the other hand, tries to make them apply nationally in as rigid
a format as they can. So we're constantly battling with them on
those ends. We spent many months in Washington during the devel-
485
opment of the Clean Air Act. I think we did make some changes,
particularly in terms of the prevention of significant deteriora-
tion regulations. At one point in time, we were faced with a mix
of the D-2 bill versus the Clean Air Act amendments as originally
drafted, in which Alaska would have been virtually impossible to
develop because of the overlap of the wilderness areas and the
restrictions on development near wilderness areas. These were
problems that Mr. Hufman mentioned on visibility, as well as the
fact that these are so-called mandatory Class I air pollution
areas. We managed to develop a lot of flexibility in that, so
that none of the eventual D-2 areas will be fixed in that kind of
sequence. They have a lot more flexibility in the Clean Air Act
in that case.
One of the things that we have been doing in the last few years is
working directly with project sponsors of major projects, such as
the Alpetco project, in determining what the environmental issues
are and how they can best be addressed. We generally work as we
did in the Alpetco process, within the framework of the EIS pro-
gram (Environmental Impact Statement), and under the state's Per-
mit Simplification Bill that passed the legislature several years
ago. We can provide a service through each of our regional of-
fices to work directly with the developer, to identify which per-
mits he needs for a particular project and to expedite those
through the state and federal system. We find that service work-
ing quite well, and this last month we opened our third Permit
Information Center in Fairbanks. We have one in Juneau and
Anchorage as well.
In summary, we look at our job as not only setting environmental
standards, but also as working directly with industry and the
public in developing ways and means by which those standards will
be met, and ways in which Alaska industry and future Alaska indus-
try can meet those standards. Our object is to try to develop as
flexible and as adaptable a program as possible, so that industry
has room to work and so the needs of Alaska's environment and the
public health of the people are met as well.
Thank you.
436
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Coal for central home heating in Fairbanks
Bob Sundberg
Councilman, City of Fairbanks
The use of coal as the primary fuel, for both electrical genera-
tion and district heating, is not a new concept in Fairbanks.
Research done by Mr. Keith Sworts, Superintendent of the Fairbanks
Municipal Utilities Power Plant, reveals that district heating was
successfully being used in Fairbanks during the early 1930's.
The Northern Commercial Company built and operated this district
steam heating system. The thermal energy was supplied from a
power plant owned by the Northern Commercial Company, located at
Second Avenue and Turner Street. Concrete utilidors were built in
what was then most of the downtown area, (Cushman to Lacey on 2nd
and First to Ninth on Cushman) and steam lines were placed in
these utilidors. A report prepared in 1979 states in part "The
steam lines that have been in service for over 40 years in these
utilidors are still in good shape".
An agreement was made on October 31, 1949, whereas the City of
Fairbanks would purchase from the Northern Commercial Company the
electric, water and district steam systems. On July 30, 1950, the
sale was completed, and the City has owned and operated these
utilities to this day.
Important milestones, since acquiring the system, were the build-
ing of a new coal fired power plant at the end of State Street on
the south bank of the Chena River, and the installation of 3,500
feet of steam line from the new plant to the existing district
steam heating system. On December 15, 1951, the Northern Commer-
cial Company built power plant was shut down. The City has con-
tinued since that time to provide electricity and steam to its
citizens from the State Street power plant. Over the years other
major improvements have been made, but these improvements have
centered on increased electrical production. The District Steam
Heating System, which had 183 customers in 1960, has 140 today.
In response to an invitation from the Hammond Administration,
about one year ago, the Fairbanks City Council submitted a capital
projects "wish list", which the Council called "Programs for
Progress". Governor Hammond indicated that the projects his ad-
ministration would look favorably on were those that did not
represent high operating and maintenance costs that would have to
be borne by the taxpayers.
Two of the projects chosen by the City Council to be included in
"Programs for Progress" addressed the priority of conserving ener-
487
gy and reducing consumer costs through improvements to public
works and utilities.
The first project, estimated to cost $2 1/2 million, is titled
'~irst Avenue Reconstruction and Steam Facility Replacement and
Upgrading". The second, titled "District Heating Demonstration",
is estimated to cost $2 million.
Through the good efforts of our representatives in Juneau, both of
these programs were funded at the requested levels; because the
First Avenue Reconstruction does not represent a new concept of
district heating in Fairbanks, my comments will focus on the
District Heating Project. Certain assumptions have been made by
the City Council, which may or may not prove valid as work pro-
gresses on the District Heating Program. They are in part:
1. That coal will be the most economical fuel in the Fairbanks
area for the foreseeable future.
2. That hot water, rather than steam, is the better thermal
medium because it is cheaper, permits higher cogeneration effi-
ciencies and greater geographic reac~
3. Air quality will improve as small, inefficient, uncontrolled
heating plants are replaced.
4. Fairbanks will become more competitive by retaining and ex-
panding its tax base and employment base.
5. District heating will help stabilize heating costs and may
reduce heating costs as much as 50$ compared to heating with oil.
6. Hot water district heating systems require less maintenance
than steam systems.
1. Annual operating and maintenance costs will be covered by user
fees.
There may well be other important considerations, but the examples
cited, if proven correct, make this a very attractive venture.
Since the requested funding was approved for the District Heating
Project, the city requested proposals from interested persons and
firms to act as consultant for the planning and engineering of the
project. Twenty-eight proposals were received. After committee
review and selected organization presentations to the City Coun-
cil, ACRES American Incorporated was chosen as Managing Consult-
ant. Stefano & Associates, Inc., and Stutzmann Engineering and
Associates, Inc., were chosen as Associate Consultants.
ACRES American Incorporated, a Maryland based firm and a recog-
nized international consulting organization, has undertaken plan-
ning, engineering and project management in many diversified
fields. Because district hot water systems are not common in the
488
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i !I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
United States, ACRES had brought to this project the firm of Brunn
and Sorenson, a Danish firm, who are members of the Danish Board
of District Heating. Brunn and Sorenson are recognized in Europe
as leading experts in district hot water heating systems.
Stefano and Associates, Inc., is an Alaskan firm with recognized
expertise in the power generation field.
Stutzmann and Associates, a Fairbanks firm, are experts in soil
conditions and right-of-ways.
The scope of work has been determined for the pilot or demonstra-
tion district heating project. Work will be done in phases, the
first of which is an engineering report. The objective of this
phase is to prepare a report which considers the technical and
economical feasibility of developing a district heating system to
supply heat to all areas of the city and certain facilities out-
side the city limits.
That area outside of the city limits specifically addresses the
feasibility of feeding hot water to the airport from the universi-
ty and city heating systems. Phase I is scheduled to be completed
on December 31, 1980.
Phase II is the "pilot district _l'!~ating system preliminary de-
sign". Identified tasks in this phase are:
1. Pilot system site selections.
A. At a work session of the City Council on Monday, October
20, 1980, site selection was made.
2. Preliminary design of district heat source.
A. Scheduled September 10, 1980 -November 15, 1980.
3. Preliminary design of the heat distribution system.
A. Scheduled October 1, 1980-November 15, 1980.
4. Preliminary design of pilot user hookup.
A. Scheduled October 15, 1980 -November 30, 1980.
5. Prepare technical specifications and select bidder for long
lead hardwear.
A. Scheduled November 1, 1980 -November 30, 1980.
6. Prepare construction specifications.
A. Scheduled November 15, 1980 -December 15, 1980.
489
1. Preliminary cost estimate -pilot district heating system.
A. Scheduled December 2, 1980 -December 31, 1980.
Phase III -Pilot district heating system final design and con-
struction supervision, scheduled for 1981. The pilot system to be
operable and supplying heat to about 80 residences by the fall of
1981.
In a letter dated April 29, 1980, to Dr. John Sawhill, Deputy
Secretary, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., from Robert C.
Embry, Jr., Assistant Secretary, same organization, Embry states
in part, "From a National Energy Policy perspective, district
heating is a way, and perhaps the only practical way, of convert-
ing the heating system of vast numbers of urban based buildings to
coal without severe environmental and social disruptions".
Embry further states, "modern district heating is widely used in
Europe, the Soviet Union and recently Japan. As yet, there is no
major urban hot water district heating system in this country".
I am sure that the reference to "major urban" meant cities much
larger than Fairbanks, but I feel that our direction is proper and
Fairbanks has an opportunity to be a leader in this country in
modern hot water district heating. Because of the large amount of
capital necessary to install a city-wide system, we will continue
to look to our representatives in Juneau for this needed capital.
Of the many worthwhile projects proposed and funded by the last
legislature, none, in my opinion, have the potential of the last-
ing benefits that district heating offers. We can and we must
provide hot water district heating to all possible users. It is
truly a program for progress.
490
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Current and future mining activities
at Usibelli coal mine
Joseph Usibelli
President. Uslbelll Coal Mine. Healy. Alaska
Well, I agree with Cole, let's not look at the past. As far as
I'm concerned this is the past, so let's look at the future. A
little bit on our philosophy as a company and how we view the
immediate and maybe not too immediate future.
We feel we have a maximum philosophical limit of our production of
about 4 million short tons a year. Philosophical, based on a
number of factors, number one being a unique position in the
market that we are currently, at least, the sole source of coal in
the interior of Alaska. Because of that, we have to extend our
reserves beyond what a normal mining company might consider for a
time period. Most mines are designed around a 40 year life, so
that brings us to about 4 million tons a year. Also, having
visited a lot of mines in this country, it appears to me that
mines in our position, doing our type of mining, reach a point of
inefficiency at about 4 million tons a year. For a very small
closely held company such as we are, you get above that point and
bureaucracy starts growing. I know how much we hate to deal with
bureaucracies. We sure would hate to become one. So 4 million
looks about our maximum.
Now obviously we can't produce that 4 million currently. But
amazingly, with our present equipment and with equipment which we
are already committed to construct in the next year, we will have
a capacity of somewhere around 2 million tons a year--roughly
three times our current production. So obviously we're looking
for markets and we're not alone. One third of the coal capacity
of this country is unused at this point. Many mines are sitting
idle. Most mines operate at much less than capacity.
We think that that two million tons is going to be used, and we
think it's going to be used very shortly. Otherwise we wouldn't
have made commi ttments to expand our capabilities. There is a
strong possibility it will be used within the immediate vicinity
of interior Alaska, with possible small growth in existing facili-
ties, and some possible short-term major facilities going in.
It's interesting to me that all the speakers talk about export
coal and they all seem to say Beluga is the only way to go. I
don't believe that for a minute. I think we're going to beat you
guys into production by ten years.
We have a few advantages on this that they don't have. We have
the infrastructure. That is a major structure for them. Ours is
there. We're on a railroad which is now under very aggressive
491
management that wants very, very badly to get some unit trains so
that they can make some money. That's money for all of us because
it's our railroad, and anytime they turn a profit that means the
cost of service into Fairbanks can be reduced and we like that.
Now we think that's a possibility. We are dealing with a number
of companies for export of coal.
We don't think it's going to have to be dried, contrary to some of
the things you hear. We don't think it's going to be gone to
methanol. We know how to dry coal. You throw it in the furnace,
light it and it dries every time. It's all a matter of economics.
Whatever is the cheapest to get Btu's into a furnace so that you
can get electricity out the end is what it's all about.
Another advantage is that we don't need to go to six or seven
million tons a year to start a mine. As a matter of fact, if
you'd like to buy a couple hundred pounds tomorrow, bring a basket
with you, we'll be glad to sell it to you. We can produce at any
level over and above what we currently are, so that means we can
get into a market on a trial basis. Nobody's having to take our
guesses on what our costs are going to be. We know what our costs
are. The railroad says they know what their costs are, so we have
a pretty good idea of what we can land coal for in any Far Eastern
country.
One of the advantages we see for ourselves is the very aggressive
and positive attitude of the governments of the Far Eastern na-
tions. Some of it has been forced upon them, because they're a
lot more vulnerable in their energy situation than this country
is. We have some alternates. We have a lot of good alternates.
Number one, we waste more energy than they do, so we have more
capability of cutting back on our usage and we've done a lot of
that. An amazing amount.
They are vulnerable because their energy is imported, and they
have all taken the stance that they will increase their use of
coal for power generation. They have no alternative and that's
what they're going to do and they're very aggressive about it.
They're building new power plants, converting old power plants and
they are going to be buying a lot of coal. They would very much
like to be in business with a U.S. coal source because they look
on our government as being a stable government. (I don't neces-
sarily agree with them sometimes, but nevertheless that's the way
they see it.) So that gives us an advantage.
All in all, I think we're going to be in the export market. I
think we're going to be in shortly. I think we're going to see a
growing industry using coal in the interior. If everybody would
believe me when I talk about how we could back out of some of the
oil we're using now, and sell it--quit burning it up here and use
coal instead--then we could be up to our 4 million tons pretty
quickly.
492
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion
Moderator: William R. Wood
Mayor, City of Fairbanks and President Emeritus, Unlv. of Alaska
~ ~: I wonder if all of you would join me in a round of
applause for Dr. P.D. Rao for bringing together so knowledgeable a
panel as this. Let's give him a round of applause.
This panel has been very forthright in presenting the coal re-
search needs of Alaska: the state policies for coal development;
the environmental constraints; the transportation and market anal-
ysis for Alaska coals, which was particularly informative, I
think, for all of us. The coal for power generation; coal for
central home heating in Fairbanks and the future mining activities
at Usibelli Coal Mine. I don't think I've left out anything, and
I don't believe our speakers left out very much either.
We're now open for questions and any of you that has a question,
there's a mike and you can address anyone of the panel specifical-
ly or the whole panel in general. Who would like to ask a ques-
tion? •••
I was afraid there was a lawn mower effect here. All the rough
spots have been trimmed off.
Charlie ~: Somebody should break it loose. I have two ques-
tions which I think are related and I think each one has been
partially answered. One is, what is being done to improve consum-
er acceptance of coal, instead of the much more convenient and
cleaner fuels people are presently using. Maybe the district home
heating concept is part of that answer, I'm not sure.
The second question is, what about value added in Alaska, or what
we call in state processing? In other words, something more than
simply mined coal coming out of the ground and going directly out
of the state without the extra value that Alaska could get from
more process1ng. Perhaps the methanol that was mentioned may be a
partial answer to that question. I think the two questions are
related, and I'd be very much interested in hearing any comments •
.Ill:&. .YlQQQ.: Thank you Mr. Parr. Who would like to tackle that one?
I think he answered part of it himself. That in one case district
heating is a partial answer and the other is the methanol project,
is a partial answer, but I think his questions merit further
comment. Mr. Usibelli.
Joseph Usibelli: Actually, a couple of things are being done to
increase acceptance. The district project is an excellent one for
493
a concentrated area like Fairbanks. But I think we're getting
other things. Number one, coal is becoming more attractive just
because of price. I've observed over the years-the old philoso-
pher speaking here--that when it comes to any situation of change,
the person or the group that reacts the most quickly is the indi-
vidual. There are a number of reasons for that. It's kind of an
inertia effect, and we see that now. I'm not kidding when I say
we get people coming in buying a couple hundred pounds of coal or
a pickup load or a ten ton truckload. We've seen a lot of that in
the last year; it's a function of price. The price of oil is just
too high. So that's happening.
Secondarily, after a long period with no development work being
done at all, in home coal burning technology there now has been
some done. First, there are some new units out that kind of give
you the advantage of both. They're either combination units where
you can use coal or select oil, or select electricity if you don't
happen to want to fuss around with coal.
Another concept is some fairly free standing units that handle
everything themselves. Actually, you pour the coal into a bin
somewhere and it actually puts the ashes in your trash can for
you. You really don't have to mess around with it too much. That
takes a lot of the fuss and bother out of it.
The second question, the processing. I think that maybe people
don't realize that the mining of coal is a very labor intensive
industry. We did a very rough calculation that if the oil that
were coming out of this state were coming out in equivalent Btu's
in coal there would be 80,000 coal miners working in the mine at
our rates of labor, which are pretty efficient.
~ HQQg: Mr. McFarland, you wanted to have a shot at these
questions.
~ McFarland: Just briefly, I think Joe covered the domestic.
Tnere's quite a bit going on. There are a few more exotic things
sucn as pelletizing, and some processes that might give you a
little cleaner burning fuel, but generally it's a matter of price
when you're trying to heat your home. I think it will gravitate
towards modern stokers. You have to get a hold of the ash,
though, Joe, to spread on the driveway.
But as far as methanol goes I think we're strictly looking at very
highly populated centers that have a distinct air pollution prob-
lem, and they're in need of a clean burning fuel and are going to
pay the premium for it. I don't see that necessarily being the
case here.
~ ~: Any otner quest1ons, please?
~ Weeks, Alaska Railroad: First, I'd like to add a little bit
on what Joe has said as far as use in the home. We are now
hauling coal from Joe's mine at Healy into the Matanuska Valley.
494
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
People down there that don't have the natural gas available in
Anchorage are faced with either high electric energy costs from
Matanuska Electric or the high cost of diesel fuel. They found
that coal is the way to go down there.
Second, I'd like to ask a question of our two state government
officials up there. What is your reaction to the comment that was
maae earlier about having the state pay part of the cost of the
environmental constraints that are put on the development of the
coal mines?
~ HQQg: Who wants to address that?
Ernest Mueller: I guess what you're suggesting is that the state
should provide some kind of economic incentive, either as a direct
grant or low interest loan or something like that to offset some
of tne costs of meeting environmental standards. As a practical
matter, the state has provided through the Alaska Industrial
Development Authority some low interest loans for meeting environ-
mental standards, particularly at the two pulp mills in Alaska.
Dick can correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm not sure what the
reception would be to meeting environmental standards with a grant
program. Well Dick, do you have anything to add to that?
Richard Eakins: I think Fred has a good point and I think we need
to look at it very seriously. The question is, how are we going
to use the oil royalty revenues to increase the other sectors of
the economy? Adding value on to the product, as Mr. Parr sug-
gested, is one way. Another option is to stick it in financial
institutions and make more money. Then what do you do with that
money?
In my personal, humble op1nion, a good way to use a portion of
that money would be infrastructure support and transportation. As
Mr. Hufman pointed out, if one of the heavy costs of that is going
to be environmental, it's in the public interest to use a portion
of tnose mon.Les.
The policy that our department has espoused is that we can have a
viable growing economy and industry and we can have the best
environmental industry in the world, because we can afford to pay
for it. If that's what the public wants, it seems to me we are in
a very enviable position. We can have that and we can afford to
pay for it. Then let's pay for it.
DLLHQQd: It occurs to me that the bottom line, regardless of
which approach is followed to offset the costs of the environment-
al protection, the same people pay for it--the consumers. Because
the government has no money, and neither do companies except as
it's derived from consumers. Our tax payers, if you want to call
them that. Therefore, I'm always astonished that the zeal to
regulate is not tempered by the consideration of the ultimate
payer. Another question?
495
Sandra Stringer: I have a question of our first speaker, Earl
Beistline. Earl, you mention that Public Law 9587, which would
have set up 13 regional coal research labs throughout the country,
fell through. The state legislature appropriated matching funds,
but the federal government failed to come through. At the conclu-
sion of your statement, you jestingly commented that you were
looKing for some sort of a state grant. Are you looking for the
state to back an entire coal research lab here in Fairbanks? If
so, do you have the personnel at present to staff such a facility?
~ Beistline: Sandra, first of all, the coal laboratory situa-
tion looks as though it's dead, but there's always a chance that
it can be revised. Now, we had the matching money up to $150,000.
We had another program under the same public law, where we were
able to match with our people that are here. This is for the
Mineral Institute that we do have. For that we get federal money
coming in to supplement the state money. Now then, the last
legislature provided $150,000 without any string for coal re-
search, and that is what we have now. This allows us then to move
aheaa to expand our program and to acquire additional individuals.
In other words, part of our problem is to have funding to bring
people in so you have a good solid core. As we go down the road,
once we have this core we can acquire money not only from the
state but from the federal government--from various agencies--for
research proposals, private industry and that type of thing.
Sandra Stringer: I guess, specifically, my question is exactly
what is it that you want out of the next legislature?
~ Beistline: Well, Sandra, it boils down, I think, to one word.
We feel that we could use additional money for coal research
because of the importance of the program. It isn't just an idle
statement such as we we were bantering back and forth here. But
it is a program that we fully justify, in our opinion, for addi-
tional resources for coal research. The listing that we showed on
the screen will give an idea of some of the areas where research
is needed. Now in this conference there have been many ideas
thrown out by a number of individuals for areas where research is
needed. Realize also that a university can do only a certain
amount of work in these fields, and that a lot of research is
going to be done by other, more sophisticated units in the states
and that type of thing.
Yesterday, in the luncheon speech given by Dean Leonard, he
pointed out the importance of research, and gave several examples
of that. One pertained to the iron mining in Minnesota. The
University of Minnesota had done a great deal of research on the
iron mineral known as taconite. In the meantime the conventional
iron ore had been pretty well depleted, and it appeared that the
mining industry as far as iron was concerned was on its way out.
But the basic research that had been done on the taconites and
other type of iron ore was such that industry could continue major
mining in the state.
496
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It's that type of thing that we feel is so important. There is so
much not known about Alaskan coal. I don't mean only the charac-
teristics, but the utilization and this infrastructure that is
needed.
DrL~: We have the combination of the University of Alaska and
the Alaska Energy Center now being formed, as the result of legis-
lative action last session. Both of them are here in Fairbanks,
and I think we've opened up tremendous opportunity for investment
of risk capital, and a major contribution to the well-being of the
nation as a whole. Other questions, please?
BilQ Koponen: I have a question, I think for Bob Hufman. I'm not
sure that I understood quite your whole point, but I believe you
were essentially saying that you were not recommending the in-
creased use of coal for power generation at this time. I was
wondering what sort of policy changes or economic incentives that
would be within the scope of the legislature to provide, that
would make it perhaps more feasible.
Robert Hufman: Well, I'm sorry if I was misunderstood. I cer-
tainly would recommend the optimum utilization of coal for the
generation of electricity at this time to displace as much oil as
we can, Nilo. It's simply a question of economics when we look to
conventional coal fired plants today. I explained some of the
constraints, or rather the existing constraints were outlined by
the gentleman from DEC. I added an additional list of constraints
that are in the offing coming from EPA, indicating that the situa-
tion as I see it, when it comes to burning raw coal, isn't going
to get better, it's going to get worse unless, again as I see it,
the complexion of Congress and the EPA administration changes.
Our position right now is to maximize the utilization of the
existing coal fired facilities in interior Alaska that are inter-
connected through Golden Valley's transmission system, primarily
the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System. The University of Alas-
ka will have a new unit on a 7,500, hopefully sometime early this
winter. I believe that you know, because it's been made public
numerous times, that we've been attempting to purchase excess
energy from both military plants--Eielson and Wainwright--and it's
going to taKe an Act of Congress. We're halfway there, past the
congress. I talked to Congressman Young's office today. He
indicated that it looks like it's pretty well greased on the House
side, and hopefully when they reconvene following the election it
will be in the forefront, as far as legislation is concerned. We
have negotiated contracts with MUS; we negotiated a new contract
with the University, all designed to allow us to back off the
existing oil fired generation, and replace it with coal fired.
Once that legislation passes we intend to go back to Clear AFB,
and that facility probably has more excess power spinning around
the clock than the other two military plants combined. So, armed
with that legislation this is what we plan to do.
497
As far as assistance from the legislature is concerned, outside
of an outright subsidy such as suggested here, with the state
picking up a portion of the cost of the environmental constraints
and regulations for new facilities, that would be the only relief,
as I see it, with one exception. It was brought up earlier today
that legislation was introduced at the last session to make it
more costly to utilize coal by increasing the severance tax and
the assessments on the leases. Now as far as I'm concerned,
that's counter productive; raising the cost of coal, while at the
same time saying you should burn coal to displace oil. We're
doing that to replenish a treasury in a state that's already
overflowing. I don't think the state needs that money. It's
going to be directly passed through to the customers. Joe
Usibelli certainly isn't going to eat that tax. He's going to
pass it through, and I would if I was Joe. So it means that the
people that are in fact utilizing coal are going to be paying
more. Now it would be different in my mind if we were exporting
the majority, say, of the coal production in the state. Then in
my estimation at that point in time I would be willing to pay a
little bit more, because it would be worthwhile. But to impose
that tax at this point in time on the customers that are in fact
utilizing coal to me is ridiculous, because the state doesn't need
the money.
D..r.._ H.Q.Q.g: Thank you, Bob. Underscoring once more concerns for
the consumer. Let me raise one other concern, which comes to me
ev~ry week from leaaers in the villages, where the cost of fuel
now is so exorbitant that they're having to cut down on their
usage ot oil. They're reverting to cutting down the trees for the
necessary heat for their homes and their businesses. Frankly, the
very environment that they're wishing to preserve to stabilize
their way of life is being destroyed, simply because they have to
resort to cutting the wood, cutting down their forests, their
timber, since they can no longer afford the cost of fuel. We've
not talked about that very much in this conference. But it's a
very real problem in Alaska, and I'm confident that the legisla-
tur·e this year is going to address it.
~ Usibelli: Bill, could I comment just a little bit further on
what Bob said. I don't know if you caught it, but when Laura
Hardy gave her talk she was talking about the change in the regu-
lations, and it came out to no less than 5$ royalty on the coal.
Now this I find a little frightening. Not because of the 5$
number, which I think is too high, but because that was addressed
in the legislature last session at 5$ and was defeated. It never
even maae it out of committee. But now coming out of the Dept. of
National Resources, through what I consider a back door approach,
they are now going to just change it by a regulatory change at no
less than 5$, bypassing the legislative process. I think that is
basically wrong. I don't see it as a revenue measure, because if
you're talking about an addi tiona! dollar a ton, which is about
what it comes out to, you're only talking about maybe $700,000 a
year into the treasury. As was stated earlier that's nothing.
We're wasting that much every day in most departments in the old
498
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
state system. So I don't see it as a revenue measure. Or even if
you're talking ten million tons a year coming out of this state
it's not a revenue measure. The question then becomes, what is it
and why is it? I don't really have the answer to that.
~~: Thank you, Joe. Mr. Karella?
Aru1Y Karella: Joe just raised one question. I was about to say
that after two days, my head's overflowing. All the questions I
have are answered one way or the other if I wait long enough. On
the severance tax, we do not need it. Industry does not need it
to get off the ground even for export. Because I believe that we
have to get into a competitive position, and I'm not at all sure
that we are. Adding $1.00 per ton is going to reduce our competi-
tive edge. That quest1on arose since I stepped up here. Thanks a
lot for a good program.
DrL ~: Thank you, Andy. The question was asked, I believe, by
Sandra, to what can the legislature do that would be helpful in
getting the utilization of our coal resource. I think it's been
mentioned by two or three ~eakers. The basic thing is the infra-
structure, the transportation system, the loading facilities and
the docking facilities if it's for export. Certainly the trans-
portation system. If we're trying to address how you get help out
to the villages, you've got a major transportation problem. Fuel
now is something like $5.00 a gallon in some of the villages in
this state. $5.00 a gallon. It's less than $1.00 in Fairbanks
and about $1.00 in Anchorage. There's a difference. Transporta-
tion is the reason for the difference. Yes, sir, your question.
11m Sheppard: I'm with the railbelt school district, and our main
office is in Healy, next to Joe Usibelli, so coal and transporta-
tion is not too big a problem for us. I've heard a lot about
production and marketing Alaskan coal, but I've only heard a few
proposals for in state utilization of this resource on a small
scale. Dean Leonard, from the University of West Virginia, at the
Tuesday luncheon talked about the West Virginia coal miners using
fuel oil to heat their houses, and everyone's desire to see the
coal burned in someone else's backyard, preferably miles away. It
is obvious to me that local utilization of this resource in our
homes, businesses and public buildings is both financially and
environmentally possible. At present the Railbelt School District
is building a prototype electric-to-coal conversion project at
Healy. We are using federal and state matching funds under a
Dept. of Energy grant. Our payback period estimates are very
good. We have had some technical and financial problems, but by
this time next year we hope to have a model system on line operat-
ing at 20S of our previous fuel expenditures. If Alaska wants to
sell its coal resources, first it must be sold to itself. The
Railbelt School District is sold and we request your continued
support.
499
DLL ~: Thank you very much. We're going to take one more
question and then we're going to close it with some remarks from
Earl Beistline.
Senator ~ Bradley: This question is probably for Joe. Would
it expedite the development, utilization and sale of our coal
resource if we gave a tax credit for each ton of coal? I think
Joe would probably like that.
Joe Usibelli: Boy, I like that concept. I don't really know
about the economics of that. It would probably do more psycholo-
gically to focus people's attention on it, because there are a lot
of people that are very worried about their bill, but it never
really occurs to them to think about coal as one of the solutions.
As I said earlier, you get into this inertia effect and there are
a lot of individuals that are doing that way and it's now starting
to ripple into bigger things, such as the Healy project. Now
that's kind of a natural. there, because we kind of live cheek by
jaw with those folks. But another one that was very interesting
to me is that the McKinley Park is also thinking about going to a
coal fired central system. That just tickles me no end, but we're
seeing it all over. I think maybe the economics are there, just
in existing systems. I tend to get away from a lot of these
subsidies and things. I think the best thing the government could
do is just get off our back.
Dr. ~ Let me turn it over to Earl, now. But just one reflec-
tion, that nowhere in this conference did I hear mention of an
energy source which was much used in my boyhood days on the farm
in the Midwest--buffalo chips--Earl, would you •••
500
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Congressman Nick J. Rahall
Thank you and good evening.
I cannot express enough my delight in returning to our nation's
largest state and to the land of the midnight sun.
Last year I had the pleasure, as a member of the Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, to
tour this scenic state, along with my good friend and your fine
congressman, Don Young.
During that visit I was also honored in being named to the Order
of the Alaska Walrus, a distinction I duly note to visitors to my
Washington D.D. office when pointing out the certificate.
I have never experienced a more beautiful place on earth than this
great state, and am sure I never will. I was thrilled by the
majestic grandeur and vast wilderness, and was warmed by the
people I met.
Already, this visit has been just as good as the first, and I
thank the University of Alaska and the Dean of the School of
Mineral Industry, Earl Beistline, for providing me the opportunity
to come back.
I am pleased to be here, and am honored to join all of you in a
discussion of what we call in West Virginia, "King Coal".
It is hard for someone from the lower 48 to grasp the size of
Alaska. More than twice as large at Texas, the state spans four
different time zones.
Most of Alaska still belongs to nature; it remains the home of
caribou and perhaps an occasional Eskimo hunter.
One thing my previous visit proved to me is that development and
growth have not harmed this state and will not harm this state as
many have said. The caribou roam along the pipeline, as I have
seen from the air, and nature and technology seem to have reached
an equilibrium.
What Alaska has experienced in the way of environmental protest to
future growth and development, my own State of West Virginia has
experienced and still is to this day.
501
There are a great many individuals in this wonderful land of ours
who believe that the earth must remain chaste and smog free.
Legislat1on and regulation has been advanced, with little or no
regard to the harmful effects. To these individuals, whose think-
ing I believe is totally unrealistic, I say, "Consider the conse-
quences of America's future. Freedom and energy independence on
one hand, or domination and control by oil exporting nations".
A country that is dependent on other nations for its energy is not
the master of its own destiny.
The majority of Americans generally believe that when one discus-
ses the mineral resources of Alaska, they are only referring to
oil. The North Slope has of course provided a boost to our supply
of domestic oil, but we are rapidly realizing that oil alone will
not fulfill America's future energy appetite. Such a realization
turns us to coal as the answer, and I am sure many Alaskans are
beginning to ask the same question that is asked each day by West
Virginians, "Why not coal?"
Alaska has vast coal resources, particularly near Anchorage, in
the Copper River area, and in the National Petroleum Reserve, I am
told.
I would like to relate some facts about coal that carry true for
Alaska as well as the entire United States. Facts that give
further credence to the question, "Why not coal?"
Of all the energy potential available to this country, coal com-
prises nearly 82 percent, the largest of any one reserve. With
one third of the world's entire coal supply beneath our own soil,
America is not energy poor, it is energy rich.
Coal costs less than half the price of imported oil as a fuel for
producing electricity. Consider just how large the price
differential has become. A typical American utility spends rough-
ly $35 for a ton of coal delivered and another $25 to meet exist-
ing air and water pollution standards, a total cost of $60. The
equivalent amount of crude oil would cost $165.
Coal is not imported. It does not weaken the dollar. It is not a
drain on our balance of payments.
Coal can now be burned cleanly, contrary to some environmental
claims. At the present time modern technology is advancing new
methods to allow for the greater utilization of coal in a clean
and efficient manner. Coal washing, wet and dry scrubbers, pre-
cipitators and a fluidized bed combustion process being developed
at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., will enable indus-
trial and utility users of coal to reduce sulfer emissions and
meet current E.P.A. standards.
Most important of all: coal is available now. The industry has a
current surplus of over 100 million tons. This alone, if uti-
502
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lized, could replace the equivalent of 12 percent of our current
oil imports.
Ten days ago I attended a meeting of the West Virginia Coal Com-
mission in my state's capital city, Charleston. The commission
was founded and is chaired by West Virginia's Governor, Jay Rocke-
feller, who also headed up President Carter's Commission on Coal.
Attending the session also were Governor Hugh Carey of New York,
and Governor Ed King of Massachusetts. Both of these men repre-
sent large northeast industrial states that rely heavily on
imported oil for industry and the creation of electricity.
They stressed their desire to burn coal, to replace oil with coal,
and to develop coal in synthetic fuels. As Governor Carey so
aptly put it, "Coal is this nation's freedom fuel".
Throughout the discussions, there was a great deal of emphasis on
legislation presently pending in the Congress that would force
around 80 utility plants to convert from oil to coal to produce
electricity. This legislation would be a major boost to regions
of the the country that mine coal with a lower heat content. Such
regions include northern West Virginia and southwestern Pennsyl-
vania.
In my own congressional district located in soutnern West Virgin-
ia, the coal is of a lower sulfer content, and most used to
produce coke for the making of steel.
Alaska's coal is of the subbituminous nature. This array of coal
provides special problems in its use, for the cheaper grades are
less likely to be moved from their source to markets elsewhere.
This fact brings me to another aspect of the West Virginia Coal
Commission's meeting last week, which included a presentation by
former ass1stant Energy Secretary John Sawhill who, following the
meeting in Charleston, returned to Washington, D.C. to take up the
reins of the new Synthetic Fuels Corporation. Dr. Sawhill was
appointed by President Carter to head this massive technological
undertaking that equals--if not exceeds--the space program, and
that may be the light at the end of the tunnel for coal--especial-
ly Alaskan coal.
In 1975, a similar conference to this one was held here at the
University, and at that time, the hope was expressed that new
technology would be developed and in turn benefit Alaska as a
potential coal supplier. The Syn-fuels effort just may be that
hope.
The creation of the sythetic fuels industry has achieved wide
bipartisan support and substantial momentum in the past year.
That momentum is continuing, I am happy to say, and there is no
doubt that coal will be a major beneficiary.
503
So far this year, we have seen the start up of two coal liquefac-
tion pilot plants, and contracts have also been signed for two
solvent refined coal demonstration plants. Another effort is
about to get underway for a coal gasification facility.
Now I don't need to tell you that so far none of these plants are
located in Alaska, and being fully aware of the transportation
problems producers here face, I indeed see the need to have one of
these facilities located here in this state. I can only say that
these initial steps are only the tip of the iceberg in this field,
and Alaska should be considered in the future.
The Syn-fuels Corporation has already issued solicitat1ons for $5
billion in loan guarantees and purchase commitments for the actual
construction of commercial scale facilities.
Over the next four years, $20 billion will be made available in
financial incentive, and ultimately $88 billion will be expended.
The corporation should be viewed as an investment bank whose
purpose is to serve as a catalyst for the new syn-fuels industry.
It is evident that we cannot wait for traditional market forces
alone to provide the incentives for this effort. That luxury was
removed by our continuing vulnerability to oil supply disruptions,
and by the high cost of oil imports.
The synthetic fuels corporation will also play a major role in
research and development measures to allow private industry and
utilities to produce and use coal more efficiently and more clean-
ly. The expenditure in this regard will be $1 billion.
The success of these research and development efforts will give
coal consumers and the public greater confidence in coal's ability
to meet future energy needs in economical and environmentally
acceptable ways.
With this thought in mind, it is the hope of all of us who are
supporters of coal to see the use of coal in utility facilities
increase nationwide and right here in Alaska. Already I am told
that the Golden Valley Electric Co-op burns coal at one of its'
power plants. In time hopefully, such use will spread to other
regions of the state.
The syn-fuels program is off the ground, but the coal conversion
bill still faces a tough fight in Congress.
I am optimistic that next year, if not this year, will mark the
passage of this legislation, because we can wait no longer to move
in this direction--indeed our nation's security may be on the
line.
From the topic of utilization, I would like to move now to a
discussion of coal production. Unlike the Appalachian region of
the lower 48, Alaska's coal comes from surface mining. We of
504
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
course are seeing surface m1n1ng now compr1s1ng about 51 percent
of the total production of coal, but in southern West Virginia,
deep mining is still predominant.
Just as your state is embroiled in the fight for its land, my
state has long battled the anti surface mining groups. When I was
elected to Congress in 1976, my first major legislative activity
was to be a member of the House-Senate Conference Committee that
worked out the final version of the Surface Mining and Reclamation
Act of 1977.
I was pleased with the careful balance this legislation set, but
in time grew extremely disappointed with the way the Office of
Surface Mining interpreted Congress' intent and wrote highly re-
strictive regulations.
After a number of oversight hearings, held by the Interior and
Insular Affairs Committee, it became evident that changes either
had to be made in the regulations or in the law. So far, it has
been difficult on both counts to bring about change.
Late last year I advanced a proposal that would amend the surface
mining law, to allow the states to set their own program into
operation. while still working within the federal guidelines set
up by the original law.
I am sorry to say that these endeavors have hit upon a very strong
roadblock, in the form of Interior Committee Chairman, Congressman
Morris Udall of Arizona.
The Senate has passed this amendment, but Mr. Udall has blocked
any movement of it in the House, or for that matter in a House-
Senate Conference Committee.
I do not need to tell you that this opposition is just another in
the long, well organized environmental attempts to block the ex-
panded use of coal. For too long, coal has had a dirty reputation
as an energy source that kills miners and pollutes the air. This
effort has been hard to fight, but we can see some progress from
time to time, as even the ~ ~ Times editorialized in May of
this year, "It now seems clear that all of us had better take
another look at coal. Coal may be good for the world and espe-
cially good for America ••• In effect, the United States could
become the Saudia Arabia of coal".
Alaska's economic stability is very similar to that of West
Virginia's. Your history is one of the boom-bust cycle. We have
the same experience. As one form of energy is pushed, jobs are
created, money is made and the economy booms. But when the demand
is gone, the bottom falls out.
Unemployment is widespread throughout the Appalachian coal fields.
Alaska has one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.
505
If coal again comes to the forefront we all stand to gain, and
will gain over the long-term.
My optimism is not tainted in any way, shape or form. I am
bullish on coal, just as I am bullish on this country. I want to
see America strong just as each and every one of you do. I can
see that the only way for this to come about is for the United
States to become reliant on its own energy resources, not someone
elses.
Alaska and West Virginia can form a bond, a strong bond--east and
west--north and south--for the greater production and utilization
of coal.
We can do it, but we have to work for it. I have no intention of
giving up, and I know your congressman, Don Young, is in this
fight also. With all of you joining this effort, we will win, for
the betterment of Alaska, for the betterment of West Virginia, and
for the betterment of America.
Thank you.
506
I,
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
----------
Usibelli Coal Mine, Poker Flat pit area.
Participants at Luncheon.
---------
Mr. Usibelli explaining maintenance schedule on
Dragline bucket.
Luncheon speaker, Lt. Governor Terry Miller,
seated are Raymond Lasmanis (left) and J.P.
Tangen (right).
-
List of Participants
Frank Abegg
Fairbanks Municipal Utilities
P.O. Box 2215
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Ronald Affolter
U.S.G.S.
P.O. Box 25046, MS 972
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Merle W. Akers
The Alaska Railroad
Pouch 7-2111
Anchorage, AK 99510
Jerry Allison
Charter Resources
2525 "C" St., Suite 508
Anchorage, AK 99501
C.L. Almquist
U.S.G.S.
800 "A" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Jim Barker
Bureau of Mines
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Richard F. Barnes
Alaska Interstate Co.
P.O. Box 4-2004
Anchorage, AK 99509
Richard D. Bass
BHW Coal Group
Dallas, Texas
Kenneth P. Beech
Nerco, Inc.
111 s.w. Columbia St., Suite Boo
Portland, OR 97201
Earl H. Beistline
School of Mineral Industry
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
508
Don Bennett
P .0. Box 280 1
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Robert Bettisworth
665 10th Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Kurt Bittlingmaier
Crews, Macinnes & Hoffman
4111 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, AK 99503
Donald P. Blasko
U.S. Bureau of Mines
2222 E. Northern Lts. Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99504
John W. Blumer
Mobil Oil Corporation
6911 S. Niagara Ct.
Englewood, CO 8o112
Charles Boddy
Usibelli Coal Mine
Pouch 1
Usibelli, AK 99787
Frederick H. Boness
Prestin, Thorgrimson,
Ellis & Holman
420 "L" St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Carl E. Borash
AK Dist. Corps of Eng.
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
Everett 0. Bracken
Dept. of Commerce and
Economic Development
Pouch EE
Juneau, AK 99811
Senator Brad Bradley
Alaska State Senate
P.O. Drawer 8-Q
Anchorage, AK 99508
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Michael Brewer
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Susan Brody
House of Rep. Research Agency
Pouch Y -State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99811
Fred Brown
409 "C" Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Pat Burden
Fugro NW Inc.
444 NE Ravenna Blvd.
Seattle, WA
D.R. Butler
Chevron Resources Co.
P.O. Box 3722
San Francisco, CA 94119
James E. Callahan u.s.G.s.
800 "A" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Charles Campbell
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Mary B. Carter
BLM
Anchorage, AK 99501
Leonard Chase
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Alan F. Chleborad
U.S.G.S.
Box 25046
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Stuart H. Clarke, Jr. u.s. Dept. of Energy
1992 Federal Building
Seattle, WA 98174
509
Cleland Conwell
Alaska Div. of Geol. &
Geophysical Surveys
AD 665, P.O. Box 80007
College, AK 99708
Lamar Cotten
Dept. of Community &
Regional Affairs
Juneau, AK 99811
Howard A. Cutler
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Corky Davis
3813 South 176th
Seattle, WA 98188
Jim Deininger
Bureau of Land Management
P.O. Box 1150
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Robert Dempsey
Alaska Interior Resources
427 First Avenue
P .0. Box 2160
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Pedro Denton
Alaska Dept. of Natural
Resources
5000 Nottingham
Anchorage, AK 99503
Steve Denton
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.
Pouch 1
Usibelli, AK 99787
Tina Denton
Room 610, Moore Hall
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Anne DeVries
House of Rep. Research
Agency
Pouch Y -State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99811
Lewis Dickinson
Dowl Engineers
4040 "B" Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Bob Disch
Exxon Coal Res. USA, Inc.
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, TX 77001
Gil Eakins
Alaska Dept. of Comm. &
Econ. Dev.
Pouch EE
Juneau, AK 99811
Richard Eakins, Director
Div. of Economic Enterprises
Juneau, AK 99811
Mark P. Earnest
950 Gilmore St., Apt. F
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Paula P. Easley
Resource Development Council
P.O. Box 516
Anchorage, AK 99510
J.E. Eason
U.S.G.S.
800 "A" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
William Edwards
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Robert Elliott
Dept. of Revenue/Research
Pouch S
Juneau, AK 99811
Eugene Erickson
The Robbins Company
7615 S. 212th St.
Kent, WA 98031
Bettye Fahrenkamp
4016 Evergreen
Fairbanks, AK 99701
510
Wayne c. Fields
1353 6th Ave.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Arnout Fontein
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Mary Ellen Fossey
Alaska Interstate Co.
P .0. Box 4-2004
Anchorage, AK 99509
John T. Fox
Exxon Coal Resources
USA, Inc.
P.O. Box 2180
Houston, TX
Val L. Freeman
U.S. Geological Survey
MS 972
Federal Center Box 25046
Denver, CO 80225
John (Jack) Fuller
Alaska House of
Representatives
Pouch V
Juneau, AK 99811
Gerald Gallagher
Arctic Resources, Inc.
420 "L" St., Suite 304
Anchorage, AK 99501
Cynthia A. Gardner
U.S.G.S.
Denver Federal Center
Box 25046
Denver, CO 80225
C.H. Gates
Port of Anchorage
2000 Anchorage Port Road
Anchorage, AK 99501
Wyatt Gilbert
AK Div. of Geological &
Geophysical Surveys
AD 665, P .0. Box 80007
College, AK 99708
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kathleen Goff
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
R.W. Gray
Memphis Light, Gas & Water
P.O. Box 430
Memphis, TN 38810
William S. Green
Dept. of Natural Resources
Div. of Minerals & Energy
Management
703 W. Northern Lights
Anchorage. AK 99503
Howard Grey
Moening-Grey Assoc.
715 "L" St., Suite 8
Anchorage, AK 99501
Kent Grinage
North Slope Borough
P.O. Box 69
Barrow, AK 99723
Dora L. Gropp
R.W. Retherford Assoc.
P.O. Box 6410
Anchorage, AK
Thomas A. Gwynn
Peter Kiewit Son's Co.
733 Kiewit Plaza
Omaha, NB 68131
Robert Hackman
U.S. Dept. of Energy
Seattle, WA
Glenn Hackney
1136 Sunset Dr.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Glenn Hall
No. 2, Dead End Alley
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Peter Hanley
Dames & Moore
800 Cordova St., Suite 101
Anchorage, AK 99501
511
Jerry Harman
East Wind Inc.
Anchorage, AK 99501
J.P. Haskins
Battelle-Northwest
P.O. Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Daniel B. Hawkins
Geology-Geophysical Program
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Bob Heneks
R.W. Retherford & Assoc.
P.O. Box 6410
Anchorage, AK
Charles F. Herbert
4011 Arctic Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Ed Hoch
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Bruce B. Howe
Mobil Oil
P.O. Box 5444TA
Denver, CO 80217
Horst Huettenhain
Bechtal National, Inc.
P.O. Box 3965
San Francisco, CA 94119
Robert Hufman
G.V.E.A.
758 Illinois
Fairbanks, AK 99701
J.W. Jewitt
Chevron Resources Co.
P.O. Box 3722
San Francisco, CA 94119
L.A. Johnson
Arctic Slope Technical
Services
420 "L" Street, Suite 406
Anchorage, AK 99501
Paul Johnston
Seair
Anchorage, AK
F.H. Jones
The Alaska Railroad
Pouch 7-2111
Anchorage, AK 99510
Randall Jones
Arctic Biblio.
Rasmuson Library
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Richard Joy
Fairbanks North Star Borough
P.O. Box 1267
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Harry Kaleak
Eskimos , Inc.
P.O. Box 536
Barrow, AK 99723
Andy Karella
Box 1615
Fairbanks, Ak 99707
Y. Kawagoe
Nissho-Iwai Co., Ltd.
Tokyo, Japan
Edward Kiker
Natural Resources Specialist
Ft. Greely, AK
Chuck Kim
Pioneers Trading Co.
8505 E. 10th Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99504
David J. King
Apt. 7531 NMSH
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Karen King
Apt. 7531, NMSH
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
512
Noel Kirshenbaum
Placer Amex
One California BJ dg.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Frank Klett
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 4-N
Anchorage, AK 99509
Keven K. Kleweno
415B NMSH
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Harold A. Knutson
Kaiser Engineers
Kaiser Center
P.O. Box 23210
Oakland, CA 94623
Chris Lambert
Mineral Engineering
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Raymond Lasmanis
Canadian Superior
P .0. Box 1 01 04
Pacific Center
Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1C6
Joseph W. Leonard
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26505
George T. Lightwood
Talkeetna, AK 99676
Bill Luria
State of Alaska
Pouch AD
Juneau, AK 99811
Don Lyon
P .0. Box 1523
Eagle River, AK 99577
Gary C. Martin
U.S. Geological Survey
BOO irA" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
'1l
\I
II I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kanjiro Matsuura
Marubeni Corp.
Tokyo, Japan
Ed Maxwell
Databrea
Anchorage , AK
Bo McFadden
P.O. Box 80312
College, AK 99707
Cole McFarland
Placer Arnex
One California Bldg.
San Francisco, CA 94111
Rena McFarlane
Mineral Industry Research Lab
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Kirk McGee
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 4-N
Anchorage, AK 99509
Frank Mcllhargey
Kenai Peninsula Borough
P.O. Box 850
Soldotna, AK 99669
J.D. McKendrick
Agricultural Experiment Station
P.O. Box AE
Palmer, AK 99645
Paul A. Metz
Mineral Industry Research Lab.
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Terry Miller
Pouch AA
Juneau, AK 99811
David S. Mitchell
Chevron Resources Co.
San Francisco, CA
513
George Mitchell
University of Alaska
P.O. Box AE
Palmer, AK 99645
William Mitchell
Agricultural Exper. Sta.
Box AE
Palmer, AK 99645
Harry Moening
Northern Technical Services
750 W. 2nd Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Hugh B. Montgomery
U.S. Dept. of the Interior
Brooks Towers
1020 15th St.
Denver, CO 80202
Kyle Morrow
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Ernest Mueller
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
Laurel Murphy
Div. of Minerals &
Energy Management
703 W. Northern Lights
Anchorge, AK 99503
Yasuyuki Nakabayashi
Elec. Power Dev. Co., Ltd.
8-2, Marunouchi, 1 Cherne
Chiyoda-Ku
Tokyo, 100 Japan
Sukenobu Nakayama
Japan Coal Dev. Co.
Tokyo, Japan
Gordon Nelson
UABA, U.S.G.S.
1209 Orco St.
Anchorage, AK 99504
Kenji Ohkoshi
Tokyo Electric Power Co.
Tokyo, Japan
J.L. Onesti
Indiana University
Dept. of Geography
Bloomington, IN 47401
Alv Orheim
Store Norske Spitsbergen
Kulkompani A/S
Norway
DIPL-ING, HANS OSTHOF
KHD HUMBOLDT WEDAC AG
Wiersbergstr.
5000 KOLN 91 (Kalk)
Charles Parr
3198 Chinook Dr.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Anne S. Pasch
Anch. Community College &
U.S.G.S.
7661 Wandering Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99502
Benno Patsch
Placer Amex
One California Bldg.
Suite 2500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Jim Paul
Railbelt School District
Drawer 129
Healy, AK 99743
John E. Paulson
Dowl Engineers
4040 "B" Street
Anchorage, AK 99503
Fred Payton
BLM
Anchorage, AK
John Pender
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
514
Steve Perles
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Rauno Perttu
Bear Creek Mining Co.
Spokane, WA
Thomas J. Pike
Office of Surface Mining
1020 15th St.
Denver, CO 80202
Jerry D. Plunkett
Alaska Energy Center
Box 3809
Butte, MT 59701
Peter Poray
Municipality of Anchorage
Pouch 6-650
Anchorage, AK 99502
Blaine Porter
Municipality of Anchorage
Pouch 6-650
Anchorage, AK 99502
Carl Propes
Chugach Natives, Inc.
903 W. Northern Lgts. Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503
John Pursley
Alaska Energy Center
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Clarissa M. Quinlan
Dept. of Commerce &
Economic Development
7th Floor McKay Bldg.
338 Denali St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Gary Radcliffe
Box 81302
College, AK 99708
Gerald Rafson
Dept. of Transportation
600 University Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Nick J. Rahal!, II
Congressman
West Virginia
John Ramsey
Bass-Hunt-Wilson
1700 Tower Petroleum Bldg.
1907 Elm
Dallas, TX 75201
Richard Randolph
P.O. Box 123
Fairbanks, AK 99707
P.D. Rao
Mineral Industry Research Lab
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
M.D. Regan
Bear Creek Mining Co.
Spokane, WA
W.J. Renauld
Morrison-Knudson Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 320
Anchorage, AK 99510
Al Renfroe
P.O. Box 2658
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Rob Retherford
c.c. Hawley Assoc.
8740 Hartzell
Anchorage, AK
James B. Reynolds
AK Cooperative Fishery
Res. Unit
138 Arctic Health Bldg.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Paul Reynolds
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Wayne D. Reynolds
Corps. of Engineers
P.O. Box 7002
Anchorage, AK 99510
515
Jack Robertson
DOE, 1992 Federal Bldg.
915 Second Ave.
Seattle, WA 98174
W .A. Robertson
Robertson & Associates
3201 11 C11 St., Suite 201
Anchorage, AK 99503
Norman Rockney
Municipal Utilities System
P.O. Box 2215
Fairbanks, AK 99701
H.W. Roehler
U.S. Geological Survey
800 "A" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Steve Rog
Fugro NW, Inc.
444 NW Ravenna Blvd.
Seattle, WA 98115
Brian Rogers
P.O. Box K
College, AK 99708
J.D. Ruby
Bechtel National, Inc.
P .0. Box 39 65
San Francisco, CA 94119
Margie Sagerser
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.
P.O. Drawer 4-N
Anchorage, AK 99509
Robet B. Sanders
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
430 W. Tudor Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99503
Brendan Sandiford
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Bob Santoski
Alaska Interstate Co.
Box 6554
Houston, TX 77005
Tim Scannell
Doyon -drilling
201 First Avenue
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Ross Schaff
Div. of Minerals &
Energy Management
703 W. Northern Lights Blvd.
Ancnorage, AK 99501
Randall S. Schmit
RanSan Engineering
SR 5265-D
Was1lla, AK 99687
Henry R. Schmoll u.s.G.s.
P.O. Box 25046
Denver, CO 80225
W.E. Schoemaker
Coronado Mining Corp.
Anchorage, AK
Michael L. Schroder
Amoco Minerals
Englewood, CO 80112
M.J. Scott
Battelle-Northwest
P.O. Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Navin Sharma
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
G.B. Shearer
U.S.G.S.
800 "A" St.
Anchorage, AK 99501
Jim Shepherd
Railbelt School District
Drawer 129
Healy, AK 99743
Frederick 0. Simon
u.s.G.s.
956 National Center
Reston, VA 22092
516
E.G. Sloan
U.S.G.S.
800 "A" Street
Anchorage, AK 99507
Jane Smith
P.O. Box 81472
Fairbanks, AK 99708
Sally Smith
321 Church St.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
William Hovey Smith
Resource Associates of AK
3230 Airport Way
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Bob Speed
Pouch Y
Juneau, AK 99811
Elizabeth B. Speer
National Wildlife Feder.
835 "0" Street, Suite 204
Anchorage, AK 99501
Darrell E. Spilde
Nerco, Inc.
111 SW Columbia St.
Suite Boo
Portland, OR 97201
Richard D. Spitler
Dept. of Comm. & Reg. Aff.
Pouch B
Juneau, AK 99811
Maxine Stanley
101 12th Street
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Ralph R. Stefano
Stefano & Assoc., Inc.
704 W. Second Ave.
Anchorage, AK 99501
David B. Stone
College of Environmental
Sciences
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
I
II
li
·~
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
:I
I
I
I
II
II
tl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gary Stricker
U.S.G.S.
MS 972
Denver Federal Center
Denver, CO 80225
Dave Sturdevant
Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
Bob Sundberg
100 Tenth St.
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Ward Swift
Battelle-Northwest
P.O. Box 999
Richland, WA 99352
Keith Sworts
Fairbanks Municipal Utilities
P.O. Box 2215
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Peter J. Szabo
.Amoco Minerals
Englewood, CO 80112
J.P. Tangen
Alaska Miners Assoc.
P .0. Box 1211
Juneau, AK 99811
George H. Taylor
TMT Corporation
7006 S. Alton Way, Bldg. A
Englewood, CO 80112
Richard W. Thompson
Southern California Edison Co.
P.O. Box 800
Rosemead, CA 97777
W.H. Thorpe
Canadian Superior Exploration
P.O. Box 10104
Pacific Centre
Vancouver, B.C. V7Y 1C6
517
Robert Tilly
Michael Baker Jr., Co.
P.O. Box 60109
Fairbanks, AK 99706
Don Triplehorn
College of Environmental
Sciences
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Donald L. Turner
Geophysical Institute
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Joseph Usibelli
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.
Pouch 1
Usibelli, AK 99787
Rodney Vogt
Municipal Utilities System
P.O. Box 2215
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
James Wagner
Alaska International
Industries
Anchorage, AK
Bill Waigoman
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Keith Walters
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.
P.O. Box 62
Usibelli, AK 99787
Cyril R. Wanamaker
Sealaska Corp.
One Sealaska Plaza
Juneau, AK 99801
Dan Warrick
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Francis C. Weeks
The Alaska Railroad
Pouch 7-2111
Anchorage, AK 99510
Paula Wellen
Fairbanks North Star
Borough
P.O. Box 1267
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Jeff Weltzin
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
James Wiedeman
Dept. of Transportation
Pouch Z
Juneau, AK 99801
Clyde Williams
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Starkey Wilson
Bass-Hunt-Wilson
1700 Tower Petroleum Bldg.
1907 Elm
Dallas, TX 75201
William Witte
Geophysical Institute
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Ernest N. Wolff
Mineral Industry Research Lab
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
William R. Wood
1207 Coppet
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Lynn A. Yehl u.s.G.s.
Denver Federal Center
Box 25046
Denver, CO 80225
Don Young
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20510
518
Wilma Zellhoeter
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
101 12th Ave., #20
Fairbanks, AK 99701
Thomas R. Zimmer
758A NMSH
University of Alaska
Fairbanks, AK 99701
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I