Washability Characteristics British Columbia Coals: by Maria E. Holuszko

Province of British Columbia MINERAL RESOURCES DIVISION
Ministry of Energy, Mines Geological Survey Branch

and Petroleum Resources
Hon. Anne Edwards, Minister
WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA COALS
By Maria E. Holuszko, P. Eng.
PAPER 1994-2
ABSTRACT
This paper summarizes the washability study con- Degree of washing and washability number were found
ducted under the Coal Quality project. The aim of the study to be very useful tools in the study of coal seams as rock
was to investigate and interpret washability characteristics units. Washability number defines the boundary between
of British Columbia coals, in order to provide a geological free (removable) mineral matter and mineral matter associ-
basis of washability and to gain practical information which
will be useful in the processing and utilization of these coals. ated with coal (fixed), and at the same time gives an idea of
Washability characteristics of many coal seams from vari- the optimal conditions for separation. It is reasonable to as-
ous British Columbia coalfields were examined. sume that this number represents the effect of the deposi-
The classical washability parameters were used to com- tional conditions on the association of coal with mineral
pare washability characteristics of different seams: yield of matter. Above all, it characterizes inherent properties of a
clean coal and the amount of near-gravity material close to coal, and provides a single numerical measure of the vari-
the density of separation for desired clean coal product. ation in washability characteristics.
Comparisons were made between seams from different
coalfields, geological formations and lithotypes within the Suggestions of possible applications of the washability
same coal seam. Unconventional washability parameters, number to improve various technical procedures (blending,
such as degree of washing and washability number, were sampling) and coal preparation technologies are also in-
also calculated and compared. cluded in this paper.
7-
British Columbia
iv Geological Survey Branch

Ministry of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii FIGURES
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 1. The relationship between seam composition.
Acknowledgments ................. 2 lithotypes. microlithotypes and macerals . . . ... 3
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL IN RELATION 2. Type of mineral association and its possible effect on
TO COAL CLEANING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 the washability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Coal Characteristics at the Seam Level . . . . . . 3 3. Washability characteristics: ash versus clean coal
Physical Properties of Lithotypes . . . . . . . . . 4 yield curve for different size fractions for two coal
Macerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 seams from British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Mineral Matter and its Influence on Physical
Characteristics of Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 . Example of classical washability curves for a British
Washability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Columbia coal seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Construction of Washability Curves . . . . . . 10
5. Graphical representation of washability number . . 12
Yield of Clean Coal and Quality of Rejects . . 11
Predicting the Ease of Washing . . . . . . . . . 11 6 . The effect of size reduction on increase in yield of
Degree of Washing and Washability Number . 11 clean coal and washability number . . . . . . . . . 12
SOURCES OF DATA AND SAMPLES 7 . Location of coalfields in British Columbia . . . . . 17
FOR THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
8. Stratigraphic relationships and relative coal seam
Bulk Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
positions in the Peace River coalfield . . . . . . . . 18
Samples for Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Sampling Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9. Stratigraphic positions of the seams in southeast
Sink and Float Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 British Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
GEOLOGICAL SETTINGS 10.Yield of clean coal for seams from: (a) Mist Mountain;
OF THE STUDIED AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 (b) Gates Formations; (c) Gething Formation; (d)
Peace River Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Wapiti Formation; (e) Comox Formation; (f) Klappan
East Kootenay Coalfields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 coalfield; (g) Merritt coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Memtt Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Klappan Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11. Variations in the ease of washing for seams in the
Comox Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Mist Mountain Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
12.Variations in the ease of washing for Gates Formation
WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF BRITISH
COLUMBIA COALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 21 seams seams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Washability of Coal Seams from Different 13.Correlation between washability numbers and amount
Geological Formations . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 of near-gravity material for 10% ash clean coal . . 3 1
Mist Mountain Formation . . . . . . . . . . .21
Gates Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 TABLES
Gething Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1. The correlation between Australian and ICCP
Wapiti Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 lithotype classification . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 4
Comox Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Memtt Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 2 . Types of mineral matter in coal and their amenability
Klappan Coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 to physical separation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Washability of Lithotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3. Example of sink-and-float data from southeast B.C.
Washability of Lithotypes from Greenhills coal seam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
and Quintette . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
4 . Industrial classification of "ease of washing" . . . 11
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............ 31
5 . Washability data for seams from different geological
TECHNOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS OF WASHABILITY formations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
NUMBER AND ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS . . . . . . 33
6 . Washability Number and associated parameters for
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 seams from different geological formations . . . . 24
7 . Washability data for Mist Mountain Formation seams;
southern part of the coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Paper 1994-4 v
8. Washability data for Mist Mountain Formation seams; 3. Quintette coal preparation plant . . . . . . . . . .. 5
northern part of the coalfield . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Examples of macerals from southeast British
9. Washability number, degree-of-washing and other Columbia coal seams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
associated parameters for selected lithotypes from 5. Examples of mineral matter from British Columbia
Greenhills and Quintette seams . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 coals ......................... 8
PLATES 6. Line Creek seams - coal bearing strata exposed in the

1. Fording mine operation - view to the west ...... 1 highwall . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 20
7. Sampling lithotypes at Quintette . . . . . . . . . . 27
2. Elkview operation, formerly Balmer mine - coal
loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. Sampling lithotypes at Greenhills . . . . . . . . . 3 1
vi Geological Survey Branch

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Page
...
ABSTRACT .......................................................................LU Data Sources ......................................................
29
Grid Construction.............................................. 29
INTRODUCTION .............................................................3 Modelling and Analysis .................................... 31
Background and Current Status ................................ 3 Resource Calculations ...................................... 32
Location and Physiography........................................ 3 Mining Methods and Logistics ................................33
Previous Work ............................................................3
Objectives of the Study...............................................7 PARCEL 82 .MOUNT TAYLOR ............................... 35
Regional Geological Setting ...................................... 9 Structure .................................................................. 35
Structure ...............................................................
9 Stratigraphy................................................................35
Stratigraphy ........................................................10 Coal Quality ............................................................... 36
Fernie Formation (Jurassic) .....................10 Washability........................... A
Kootenay Group (Upper Jurassic to Other Analyses............................................... 36
Lower Cretaceous) ..............10 Rank Distributions ............................................ 36
Blairmore Group (Lower Cretaceous) ...10 Predicted Quality .............................................. 37
Alberta Group (Upper Cretaceous) ........11 Deposit Model ........................................................... 37
Coal Petrography ............................................... 11 Objectives ........................................................... 37
Rank .............................................................
11 Grid Specifications ............................................ 37
..
Composition ................................................11 Data Sources ...................................................... 37
Predicted Quality ....................................... 11 Grid Construction ............................................. 38
Computer Modelling Technique ............................. 14 Modelling and Analysis..................................... 38
Gridded-surface Technique ..............................14 Resource Calculation .......................................39
Grid-surface Design ........................................ 15 Mining Method and Logistics ..................................40
Gridded-surface Construction ......................... 15
Model Format and Analysis .............................15 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................. 41
Acknowledgments ..................................................... 41
PARCEL 73....................................................................... 17
Structure .....................................................................17 REFERENCES ................................................................ 43
Stratigraphy of the Lookout Thrust Sheet .............17
Coal Quality ............................................................... 18 APPENDIX 1................................................................... 45
Adit Samples ...................................................... 18 Program Manual ....................................................... 45
Rank Distribution ............................................19 Introduction ........................................................ 45
Predicted Coal Quality...................................... 20 Grid Survey (G-SURV) ........................................... 45
Deposit Model ...........................................................20 Operation ............................................................ 45
Objectives ...........................................................20 Example .............................................................. 45
Grid Specifications ............................................ 20 Program Output ................................................. 45
Data Sources ...................................................... 20 Grid Plotter (G-PLOT) ............................................ 45
Grid Construction.............................................. 21 Operation ............................................................ 45
Example .............................................................. 45
Modelling ............................................................ 22
Analysis ...............................................................22 Grid Edit (G-EDIT) .........................................46
Resource Calculations ......................................23 Operation ............................................................ 46
Mining Method and Logistics .................................. 23 Example .............................................................. 46
Grid Calculator (G-CALC) ..................................... 46
PARCEL 82 .FLATHEAD RIDGE .............................25 Operation ............................................................46
Structure .....................................................................25 Example .............................................................. 46
Stratigraphy................................................................ 25 Trim Grid ........................................................... 47
Coal Quality ...............................................................26 Grid-standard Function .................................... 47
Washability.......................................................... 26 Example .............................................................. 47
Steel Mill Tests ................................................... 26 Grid-to-grid Function........................................ 47
Rank Distribution .............................................. 27 Example .............................................................. 47
Predicted Coal Quality...................................... 28 Digital Model Description ....................................... 47
Deposit Model ...........................................................29
Objectives ........................................................... 29 APPENDIX 2 ...................................................................49
Grid Specifications ............................................ 29 Diskette Use .............................................................. 49
Paper 1989-4
Page Page
FIGURES 25. Plot of poles to bedding on Flathead Ridge in
Parcel 82 (Wulff projection)..................................... 29
.
1 Location of the East Kootenay coalfields.................4
26. (a) Down-plunge projection profile of B-seam
2. Coal tenure map of Crowsnest coalfield .................5 data and selected outcrop orientation data; (b)
3. Topography of Parcel 73. Dominion Coal Block. B-seam structural contour grid; (c) Residual
with outline of model grid superimposed.................6 grid; (d) Final B-seam position grid ........................30
4. Topography of Flathead Ridge in Parcel 82. 27. Areal distribution of seams used in the digital
Dominion Coal Block .................................................
7 deposit model .............................................................31
5. Topography of Mount Taylor in Parcel 82. .

28 Distribution of waste-to-coal ratios over
Dominion Coal Block .................................................8 Flathead Ridge in Parcel 82 .....................................32
6. Former coal licences in Parcel 73..............................

9 29. Stratigraphic section from Mount Taylor. Parcel
82 with coal rank values ............................................ 35
.
7 Former coal licences in Parcel 82..............................9
30. Isometric diagram of the surface topography of
8. Generalized geology of the Crowsnest coalfield Mount Taylor in Parcel 82. selected coal seam
(modified after Price. 1%2) .......................................9 traces and reflectance values ....................................37
9. Distribution of coal rank in Crowsnest 31. Plots of poles to bedding on Mount Taylor
coalfield .......................................................................
11 (Wulff projection) ...................................................... 38
10. Predicted volatile matter for Crowsnest 32. Distribution of waste-to-coal ratios over Mount
coalfield ....................................................................... 12 Taylor in Parcel 82 .....................................................39
11. Predicted FSI for Crowsnest coalfield ....................12
TABLES
12. Predicted dilatation for Crowsnest coals ................12
1. Characteristics of Coking Coal Groups ..................14
13 Predicted fluidity for Crowsnest coals ....................13
2. Summary of Test Results on Parcel 73
14. Predicted ASTM coke stability for Crowsnest Adit Samples .............................................................. 17
coals.............................................................................13
3. List of Grids in the Parcel 73 Model .......................21
15. Predicted coking coal groups for Crowsnest
coals ............................................................................. 13 4. Potential Coal Resources in Parcel 73.................... 23
16. Positions of coking coal groups listed in Table 1 5. Individual and Cumulative Waste-Coal Ratios.
relative to reflectance and inert contents ...............14 Parcel 73 .....................................................................23
17. Geology of Parcel 73 .................................................18 6. Combined Results of Float-Sink Tests of
B-Seam Flathead Ridge ............................................26
18. Generalized measured stratigraphic section
from Parcel 73 with coal rank values ......................19 7. Summary of Clean B-Seam Test Results at
Japanese Steel Mills .................................................. 27
Parcel 73 with coal seams and reflectance 8. Summary of Clean A-Seam Test Results at
values displayed.............................. Japanese Steel Mills ..................................................
27
20. Plots of poles to bedding in Parcel 73 (Wulff 9. List of Grids in the Flathead Ridge Model
projection) with associated eigenvectors and Parcel 82 .....................................................................
31
eigenvalues..................................................................
21 10. Reserves and Resources. Flathead Ridge.
21. Distribution of waste-to-coal ratios over Parcel Parcel 82 .....................................................................
32
73..................................................................................
22 11. Mount Taylor U2-Seam Washability .......................36
22. Geology of Parcel 82 (modified after Olleren- 12. Mount Taylor M-Seam Quality ................................ 36
shaw. 1981b) ...............................................
(in pocket)
13. Mount Taylor U2-Seam Quality ..............................36
23. Generalized measured stratigraphic section
from Flathead Ridge in Parcel 82............................
26 14. List of Grids in the Mount Taylor Model
Parcel 82 .....................................................................
38
Flathead Ridge in Parcel 82 .....................................28 15. Potential Coal Resources Mount Taylor .
Parcel 82 ....................................................................
39
2 British Columbia Geological Survey Branch

Ministrv o f E n e r ~ vMines
. and Petroleum Resources
Paper 1994-4 vii

INTRODUCTION
Washability is an important factor in the economic ration". Following preparation, coal can be used as a fuel, a
evaluation of a coal seam. It provides practical information reducing agent in metallurgical processes, or as feed to con-
on those characteristics of coal that affect recovery, benefi- version processes (liquefaction or gasification).
ciation and final use. In general, washability analyses are Most cleaning processes rely on the physical differ-
carriedont to determine how muchcoal, of what quality, can ences between coal particles and associated minerals (min-
be produced from a given coal seam. erals form the ash during combustion of coal). Parameters
The evaluation of the economic viability of any coal derived from washability tests, such as yield of clean coal
seam requires consideration of factors related to geological at preselected ash levels, yield of rejects and their quality,
conditions for mining, and parameters related to the seam and amount of near-gravity material, indicate the ease or
characteristics. Amongst seam characteristics, the most im- difficulty in washing of a particular seam.
portant the yield and the quality of coal which can be pro- Mineral matter content is practically the only charac-
duced. The price of coal, as compared to other mineral teristic of the coal that can be controlled during coal prepa-
commodities, is relatively low, therefore thecosts of mining, ration. The coal quality requirements may be different,
processing and transportation to market are critical factors however, for various coal utilization purposes. Depending
in the economics of the project, and must be offset by the on the rank of coal, the allowable amount of ashin a thermal
quality of mined coal. coal prodnct may vary from as much as 30% for use in a
Coal is an organic sedimentary rock made up of organic minesite power station, to 10 to 15% for export to other
matter (macerals) and inorganic components (minerals as- markets. For coals used to produce coke, ash content may
sociated with coal). The quality of coal is assessed according be required to he as low as 5% when used by Canadian steel
to its type, rank and grade. Rank and type are related to the companies and generally in the range of 9 to 10% for west-
quality of organic matter composing the coal, whereas grade em Canadian metallurgical coals exported to Japanese and
refers to the quality of coal in terms of size and mineral Korean steel mills. Plate 1 shows mining operation at Ford-
matter content (ash). ing.
In order to be a saleable commodity, a coal must be Size distribution and sink-and-float data are the basic
prepared into a clean, graded and consistent product suitable information required to evaluate cleaning alternatives and
foritsintendedmarket.Thisisaccomplishedby "coalprepa- ancillary operations. It is important to ensure that correct
Plate 1. Fording mine operation -view to the West
Paper 1994-4 I
I-
British Columbia
information is used in the designing of a coal preparation Branch of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Re-
plant and that the inherent characteristics of coal are taken sources, who contributed their moral support and coopera-
into consideration. For example, the partition curves derived tion to the Washability Project and preparation of this paper.
from washability data serve to predict efficiency in the per-
Special thanks are due to Dave Grieve for his valuable
formance of various types of coal cleaning equipment
(Leonard, 1979; Butcher, 1985; Laskowski and Walters, discussions and guidance throughout the duration of the pro-
1987). ject and in preparing this paper. Ward Kilby is acknow-
From the environmental point of view, extraction of any ledged for his help in the first stage of the project and for
mineral is a process leading to the disturbance of the natural providing computer programs used in the study.
environment and production of waste material, as a result of Many thanks are given to the geology staff at all the
both mining and processing. Coal preparation produces re- province's coal mines for their cooperation, especially the
ject material, in the form of rock and middlings, which is staff of Greenhills, Line Creek, Quintette and Quinsam for
accumulated as waste. The characteristics of waste material
their assistance in the sampling programs. Valuable discus-
can easily be predicted from the washability parameters.
This information can be useful in decision making about sions with many geologists and engineers during the scien-
possible utilization of waste products during the environ- tific exchange meetings in Tumbler Ridge and Sparwood
mental impact assessment. during the summer of 1992 are greatly appreciated.
Mike Fournier provided technical assistance in prepa-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ration of graphs and sketches. Linda Hitchen and Anna
I wish to express my gratitude to all colleagues in the Peakman typed many pages of washability data tables. Their
Coal Unit and support staff from the Geological Survey help is also very much valued.
2 Geological Survey Branch

7
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL

IN RELATION TO COAL CLEANING
COAL CHARACTERISTICS AT THE from different plant communities with distinct sets of bio-
SEAM LEVEL logical characteristics and geochemical conditions. The in-
dividual ecosystems control the formation of various
Many physical characteristics of coal are directly re- mixtures of macerals and minerals, which subsequently
lated to the coal rank and type, as well as the minerals asso- form layers of coal types within the coal seam, referred to
ciated with it. These can be considered at various levels of as lithotypes. The relationship between seam composition,
coal composition. For example, each coal seam represents
a geological entity comparable to an orebody, which is char- lithotypes, microlithotypes and macerals is illustrated in
acterized by a number of physical characteristics, such as Figure 1.
thickness, continuity, density and lithological composition; Coal, therefore, is a stratified rock composed of litho-
and by properties resulting from its composition, for exam- types, and each lithotype is a mixture of macerals and min-
ple, strength, hardness, abrasiveness and friability. These erals. The lithotype layers in a seam may be only a few
may be different, however, for a broken lump of mined coal centimetres or up to a few metres thick. They also may vary
and the same piece of coal in-place in the seam. in thickness laterally, which contributes to changes in seam
Coal is formed from plant material accumulated during composition over distance. On a microscopic scale, mix-
peat formation. Peat is deposited in swamps and marshes tures of macerals and minerals are defined as microlitho-
Clarain
, (Banded Bright
Banded Coal)
Durain
(Banded Dull
to Dull)
Fusain
(Fibrous)
Figure 1. The relationship between seam composition, lithotypes, microlithotypes and macerals.
Paper 1994-4
types (<50 Rm), and, conversely, microlithotypes form TABLE l
bands of lithotypes on the macroscopic scale. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN AUSCKALIAN AND lCCP
LITHOTYPE CLASSIFICATIONS
The physical characteristics of coal are dependent on
lithotype composition, whereas composition of lithotypes is
strongly dependent on the maceral composition as well as
the association of macerals with different proportions of
~~~~ ~
nffrr Scopes (1919) Clnrrificnlion Description

mineral matter (Diessel, 1965). Depending on the level at Virrain B a h t coal Subvitreous to vitreous lustre, or
conchoidal fracture, < l o % dull.
which we consider coal, its physical characteristics may -
Banded btiaht coal B r i ~ h tcoal with same thin dull bands.
vary. At a seam level, for example, the physical properties 10.40 %dull
Ciarain Banded coal Bright and dull coal bandrin equal
of coal are determined not only by rank and type of coal, but p r o p o n i o ~40-60 %dull.
also by physical properties developed in the seam as a result Banded dull coal Dull coal with some thin brieht bandr.
of geological conditions, for example, overburden pressure, 10.40% b a h t .
Durain Dull coal Malt iurtr., uneven fracture,
faulting, folding and shearing. These may result in develop- < l o % briqhl
ment of cleats, fractures which will subsequently influence Furain fibrow coal Satin lurtrr, friable.
the strength, friability and hardness of all or part of a coal
seam. Many British Columbia coals are very friable, due to
folding and faulting. At this level, the properties of coal af-
fect its mining and the resulting composition of material regarded as a mixture of bright and dull components and
delivered to the coal processing plant. defined according to the proportions of these basic ingredi-
ents in the layer (Diessel, 1986). The correlation between
The physical characteristics of coal, viewed from the the two lithotype classifications is given in Table 1.
lithotype (macroscopic) and maceral (microscopic) levels,
are covered in the next two sections. As the ~n-of-minecoal is delivered to the preparation
plant, depending on its top size, it usually represents coal at
the lithotype level. Plate 2 illustrates loading operations at
PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF Elkview mine, formerly Balmer. At this level, the physical
LITHOTYPES properties of coal lumps are strongly dependent on the li-
Lithotypes are defined as macroscopically recogniz- thotype composition. It has been shown that many physical
able bands of coal, based on variations in appearance. The properties of coal, related to cleaning, can be predicted from
Stopes ICCP system (International Commission for Coal lithotype characteristics. It is known, for example, that dif-
Petrology, (ICCP Handbook, 1963) defines four distinct li- ferent lithotypes are characterized by different density,
thotypes, while in the system developed in Australia recog- strength, hardness, grindability and abrasiveness (Falcon
nizes six lithotypes. In the Australian approach coal is and Falcon, 1987; Hower, 1988; Hower and Lineberry,
Plate 2. Elkview operation, formerly Balmer mine -coal loading.

lY88; Hower et al., 1Yx1; Hslecn ( I Y l o ) In nower er ar., L O W - V O I ~ I I I ~coals
may reacn oum, our usuarry >u ro 3 x 0
J
1987, 1990). The relationship between lithotypes and their of the material is below 0.50 millimetre (28 mesh). In part,
-
variation in erindabilitv index (HGI) bas also been estab-
lished1 (Hower, 1988; ~ o w e et r b1, 1987; Hower and Line-
the highercontent of finesinBritishColumbiametallurgical
coals is related to the rank of coal; medium-volatile coals
berry, 1988). Differences up to 40 units in grindability index are characterized by the lowest hardness and highest friabil-
have been observed between lithotypes. Dull lithotypes, ity. Medium-volatile and low-volatile coals in the Rocky
with rI dominance of trimaceral microlithotypes, especially Mountain region of the province have been subjected to se-
those rich in liptinite, are more resistant to breakage and vere geological disturbance, and this has resulted in exten-
grinding than those rich in vitrinite and inertinite. Many of sive shearing of coal strata throughout the region. The
these properties have been shown to have profound effect strongly sheared coals tend to be very friable and produce
on the:processing and handling of coal.
. .. . .. . . . . . .. .
Coal cleanlng usually Involves Dreamng, crusnmg,slz-
very high amounts of fines during mining, handling and
processing.
ing, gravity separation and flotation. Different properties of In gravity separation, differences in density play acriti-
coal are ex~loitedin each of these operations. Strength, cal role. The density of lithotypes varies quite significantly,
hardnes with the bright lithotypes (vitrain) having the lowest density,
ters in b and the dull, mineral matter-rich lithotypes (durain) the
highest. It has been shown that during gravity separation
ally clezmed in separate washing circuits. Depending on the
there is segregation of lithotypes into various density frac-
lithological composition of the seam, coal particles segre-
tions, and finally into various clean coal products (McCabe,
gated into various size fractions may be dissimilar.
. . .- . . .. . ..
In a finely strahtled coal seam, llthotype composluons
1942; Falcon and Falcon, 1987).
of different size fractions may be very similar. However, for Most cleaning processes are based on specific gravity
a seam with thicker layers of various lithotypes, segregation differences and are most effective for coal coarser than 0.50
during sizing may be more apparent. As a result, durain-rich millimetres in size. The most commonly used are: heavy
(dnll) coal will usually comprise a coarser size fraction, media vessels (treating coal in the size range of 6 to 100
while clarain and vitrain will be concentrated in the finer millimetres); jigs (5 to 50 mm or 0 to 8 mm) and heavy
sizes (Laskowski, 1948; Mackowsky and Hoffman, 1960). media cyclones (0.6 to 6 mm). Due to the fact that coarse
Depending on its petrographic composition, it is also possi- fractions in most British Columbia coals are more difficult
ble for a coal seam to generate a fine size fraction (0.0-0.15 to clean than coarse fractions elsewhere, less accurate wash-
mm) enriched in fusain (McCabe, 1942). In the tectonically ing devices, such as jigs, are not very suitable to clean these
sheared coal seams of southeastern British Columbia, for coals (only one preparation plant in British Columbia uses
example, the dnll durain-rich coals are relatively unsheared a Baum jig in its operation). While it may be possible to
compared to clarain and vitrain-rich coals. As a result, obtain a 10% ash coal product from Carboniferous coals
coarse coal fractions are usually enriched in durain while from the eastern United States or Europe using ajig washer,
fine coal is composedmainly of vitrain (Bustin et al., 1983). western Canadian coals require more accurate heavy media
The typical top size of coal treated in preparation plants processes to achieve an equivalent coal product. Fine coal
in British Columbia is 50 millimetres, with a few excep- is usually treated in circuits using a combination of water-
tions. Due to the friable nature of western Canadian coals, only cyclones and froth flotation. Plate 3 shows the Quin-
the amount of fines in metallurgical (medium-volatile to tette coal preparation plant.
Plate 3. Quintette coal preparation plant.
Paper 1994-4 5
Britis
:reek
inite;
with

The flotation responses of lithotypes have also been As-mined (run-of-mine) coal usually contains not only com-
studied, confirming various behaviours during flotation. ponents of the coal seam, but also mineral matter from the
These was found to be due to'varying degrees of hydropho- inclusion of roof or floor rock, as well as the discrete rock
bicity of lithotypes (Horsley and Smith, 1951; Sun, 1954; bands within the seam. As a result, a large amount of coal
Klassen, 1966; Holuszko, 1991). and rock is already sufficiently liberated to enable irnmedi-
One can assume that, at any level of coal preparation, ate separation even before it enters the coal cleaning circuits.
segregation of coal lithotypes will be accomplished. Differ- Type and mode of mineral matter in coal are particu-
ent lithotypes will be distributed into various fractions and larly important to washability. The amount of inorganic mat-
they will define technological properties and final use of the ter associated with macerals has a direct influence on the
coal products. density of composite coal particles, while the type of min-
erals, and their association with coal macerals, has an impact
MACERALS on the ease of gravity separation.
Macerals are the basic organic components of coal. Minerals deposited in cleats and fissures are relatively
They occur in association with each other and various pro- easy to remove by means of crushing and washing opera-
portions of mineral matter, and these associations are re- tions. Liberation of this type of mineral matter is straight-
ferred to as microlithotypes on a microscopic scale, and forward and results in good separation between coal and
lithotypes on a macroscopic scale. Except for the ultrafine shale particles, with very small amounts of "middlings".
sizes, microlithotypes and macerals are not handled during Minerals which occur either as finely disseminated mineral
coal preparation. Examples of some coal macerals from particles, or as larger species intergrown with coal macerals,
British Columbia coals are illustrated by Plate 4. are more difficult to separate and larger amounts of mid-
dlings are produced.
Macerals are known to have different chemical compo-
sitions and physical properties. For example, they vary in In western Canadian coals, pyrite occurs predomi-
density with rank, and the coal macerals have different den- nantly in the latter form, whereas clays are found in both
sities at any particular rank. Any separation which relies on forms. Plate 5 shows examples of mineral matter association
differences in density will therefore influence distribution with macerals found in British Columbia coal seams. Figure
of macerals in various products. It has been demonstrated 2 shows the type of mineral association and its possible ef-
that more consistent maceral partitioning is usually exhib- fect on the washability. Table 2 presents types of mineral
ited in the cleaning of fine fractions than coarse fractions. phases in coal and their amenability to physical separation.
The concentration of a certain maceral in a particular Coals containing fine-grained syngenetic minerals will
stream of a coal preparation plant is considered to be a func- produce relatively equal amounts of light clean coal, mid-
tion of its physical properties (Hower et al., 1986; Hower dlings and high-density rejects, when subjected to gravity
and Wild, 1991; Bustin, 1982; Falcon and Falcon, 1983). separation. In this case liberation of mineral matter can only
Methods of optimizing the ratio of specific macerals during be achieved by fine grinding. However, liberation of mineral
selective size reduction have been developed, for example, matter is not always desirable. For example, the presence of
the Longway-Burstlein method. Using this method, selec- liberated clays in the fines, especially bentonite clays, can
tive maceral concentration into certain size fractions was render the cleaning process almost impossible. These clays
accomplished by using combinations of cleaning operations
designed to produce the optimum coking coal (Bustin et al., syngenetic minerals epigenetic minerals
1983).
MINERAL MATTER AND ITS

INFLUENCE ON PHYSICAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL
There are three different levels at which minerals can
be associated with coal. The first is at the ply and lithotype
level; mineral matter occurs as deposits in cracks and cleats
in coal, or as discrete bands of rock. The second level of
association is observed at the maceral level; mineral matter
may be present as stringers or disseminated mineral parti-
cles within different macerals, or as open-space fillings in
the maceral structure. The third level represents inorganic
elements chemically bonded to the coal molecular structure.
During the process of mining, the structure of a seam is

destroyed, and, depending on the severity of the mining and
handling methods, this results in various levels of mineral Figure 2. Type of mineral association and its possible effect on
and organic matter interrelation in coal particles. This is usu- the washability.
ally referred to as degree of liberation of coal from minerals.
Paper 1994-4
Plate5. Examples of mineralmatterfrom British Columhiacoals: A- framhoidal pyrite inBowron coal; B - pyrite with siderite in Bowron
coal; C -irregular euhedral pyrite in Quinsam coal: D - dendritic pyrite from Bowron: E - carbonate minerals from Bullmoose coal: F -
s e G - quartz (black) in ~ullmo&ecoal; H - clays in Bullmoose coal.
quartz with clays in ~ u l l m o ~ coal;

TABLE 2
TYPES OF MINERAL MATTER IN COAL AND THEIR
AMENABILITY TO PHYSICAL SEPARATION
Type Origin Examples Physical Separation

Strongly chemically From coal-formmg organic tissue material Organic sulphur, No.
bonded elements nitrogen
Absorbed and weakly Ash-forming components in pure water, Various salts Very limited
bonded groups absorbed on the coal surface
Mineral matter
a. Epiclastic Mineral washed or blown into the sea during Clays, quartz Paflly separable by physical methods.
coal formation
b. Syngenet~c Incorporated into coal from the very earliest Pyrite, siderite, some Intimately intergrown with coal maeerals.
peat-accumulation stage clay minerals
c. Epigenetic Stage subsequent to syngenetic; migration Carbonates, pyrite, Vein = type mineralization; epigenetic minerals
of the mmeral-forming solutions through coal kaolinite concentrated along cleats, preferentially exposed
fractures during breakage; separable by physical methods.
After Cook (1981).
when mixed with water form a gel-like suspension, which usually along the bedding planes. The way in which coal
is difficult to settle, and in many cases tends to cover coal separates from ash-forming minerals depends on the type
surfaces, impairing cleaning processes.
Coarser syngenetic minerals are easier to remove. Bet-
ter washing characteristics are mainly due to a greater de-
gree of liberation of coarse minerals.
WASHABILITY
Washability of a given coal is estimated from a set of
washability curves. These are constructed from sink-and-
float analysis of a representative coal sample, carried out
under ideal conditions, and characterized by ash content and
yield at each density of separation. As the specific gravity
of coal is closely related to its mineral matter content in raw
,
0 10 20 30 40
Cumulatve Ash %
coal (expressed as ash), gravity separation will divide coal
into ranges of different impurity content. The washability
curves provide the best possible prediction of theoretical
results for gravity-based coal preparation processes.
In order to investigate the washability characteristics of
raw coal it is necessary to determine the amount and distri-
bution of the mineral matter, expressed as ash, in a repre-
sentative sample. Due to the fact that sample is composed
of coal material varying in size, and, at the same time, each
size fraction has a different composition (mineral matter as
well as petrographic), it is necessary to examine certain size
ranges for washability characteristics separately. Figure 3 10 A I
presents varying washability characteristics (as predicted 0 1

0 10 20 30 40
from the ash versus clean coal yield curve) for different size Cumulatve Ash %
fractions for two British Columbia coal seams.
The washability determined for any coal seam is very Figure 3. Washability charactertistics: ash versus clean coal yield
much dependent on the top size of its representative sample. curve for different size fractions for two coal seams from British
Liberation of coal from mineral matter is usually achieved Columbia. For those coals size fraction 1 = 50-19 mm, 2 = 19-6.3
mm, 3=6.3-0.6mm,4=0.6-0.3mmand5 =0.3-0.15mm.
by reducing the size of coal by breaking or crushing. During
breakage coal particles separate from epigentic minerals,
Paper 1994-4 9
and mode of occurrence of the minerals as well as the type
Specifc Grav~ty
of coal.
2.2 2.0 18 16 14
As discussed in the previous chapter, the easiest to sepa-
rate are the epigenetic minerals, while epiclastic and syn-
genetic minerals are more difficult to remove by physical
separation (Cook, 1981; Falcon and Falcon, 1983). Epige-
netic minerals are easily liberated when the size is reduced
and this results in an increase in the yield of clean coal.
Epiclastic and syngenetic minerals (clays, quartz, pyrite,
siderite) are not usually liberated during the coarse coal
crushing.
Depending on the size of coal particles or the severity
of the reduction process (crushing or grinding), a part of the
mineral matter will be impossible to separate from coal.
From a practical point of view, the terms "extraneous" and
"inherent" mineral matter are usually used to distinguish be-
tween ash-forming mineral matter which is separable by
physical methods, and that which is not. Extraneous mineral
matter invariably refers to epigenetic minerals, whereas the 0 20 40 60 80 100
term "inherent" may be applied to syngenetic or epiclastic % Ash Content
minerals. What the so-called "inherent" mineral matter ac-
tually represents is questionable. It does reflect, however,
the amount of mineral matter intergrown with the coal in a Figure 4. Example of classical washability curves for a British
Columbia coal seam. A- primary curve, B - clean coal curve, C -
particular size fraction. Recent research shows that even cumulative sink curve, D - density distribution curve, E - near-
mineral matter as fine as 1 micron in size can be separated
if liberated by fine crushing and grinding. In this context,
+
gravity material within 0.1 s.g.
inherent mineral matter represents only inorganic elements
the washability characteristics of various size ranges within
which are confined to the coal molecular structure and
the coal sample.
which can only be removed by chemical treatment.
At the top size of each size fraction of a coal sample
there is a ratio of inherent to extraneous mineral matter con- CONSTRUCTION OF WASHABILITY CURVES
tent which characterizes the sample in terms of the ability
to clean the particles within the given size range. There is In coal preparation, results of coal cleaning are ex-
also a critical top size below which further reduction leads pressed as yield of concentrate, which is the clean coal, to-
to deterioration in the quality of the coarse fractions in the gether with the grade expressed as ash content. Points
sample. Coarser fractions are enriched in composite parti- defined by yield and ash content at each step of density sepa-
cles (coal intergrown with mineral matter) and these are ration in sink-and-float tests are used to construct washabil-
more difficult to clean. Reducing the top size below the criti- ity curves. An example of sink-and-float data is presented
cal level deteriorates the quality of coarse fractions, while in Table 3 and the resulting washability curves are illustrated
cleaner coal particles are concentrated in fine fractions. This in Figure 4.
may not be desirable from the cleaning point of view: coarse The primary curve (A) is obtained by plotting incre-
fractions will have to be cleaned with more accurate devices mental ash content at each separation density versus incre-
while circuits treating fine coal will be overloaded. mental yield on the cumulative yield scale. The clean coal
In practice, coal preparation treats raw coal according curve (B) is obtained by plotting cumulative ash content at
to size. For thermal coal, only two circuits may be employed any given density versus cumulative yield. The cumulative
(coarse and fine), whereas three or four are commonly used sink curve (C) predicts ash content of the sinks at any yield
for metallurgical coal. In this respect it is important to know of clean coal. The cumulative density distribution is plotted
TABLE 3
EXAMPLE OF SINK-AND-FLOAT DATA FROM A
SOUTHEAST B.C. COAL SEAM, SIZE >0.15 mm
Specific Direct % Weight of Cum. Weight Cum. Floats Sink Weight Cum. Sinks * 0.1 S.G. Distribution
Gravity Weight % Ash % Ash of Total of Ash % Weight % Ash % of Ash % Weight % Ash % S.G. Weight
-1 30 14.96 1.90 0.28 0.28 14.96 1.90 17 36 85.04 20.41
1.30-1.35 20.51 5 65 1 16 1.44 35.47 3.32 16.20 64 53 25.10 1.40 62.15
1.35-1.40 20 86 10.08 2.10 3.54 56 33 5.82 14.10 43.67 32.29
1.40-1.50 20.78 16.20 3.37 6.91 77.11 8.62 10.73 22.89 46.88 1.50 27.43
1.50-1.60 6.65 25.94 1.73 8.64 83.76 10 00 9.00 16.24 55.42 1.60 10.39
1.60-1.80 6.23 37.31 2.32 10.96 89.99 11.87 6.68 10.01 66.73 1.70 6.23
+1.80 10.01 66.70 6 68 17 64 100 00 17.37

7-
as density versus yield (D). The near-gravity material curve TABLE 4

(E) indicates the amount of material within M . l specific "EASE OF WASHING" CLASSIFICATION ACCORDING
gravity of separation and is derived from plotting density of TO THE AMOUNT OF NEAR-GRAVITY MATERIAL
separation versus the amount of material within the speci- WITHIN f - 0 . 1 O F DENSITY O F SEPARATION FOR
fied range of densities (Leonard, 1979; Laskowski and Wal- DESIRED PRODUCT
ters, 1987).
Amount of near gravity wt %
YIELD OF CLEAN COAL AND QUALITY OF
REJECTS (+0.1 s.g. range) Degree of Difficulty
Theoretical yield of clean coal is predicted from the simple separation
clean coal curve as described above. For example, if the moderatel difficult
clean coal product has to meet market requirements of 10% diffiYcult
15-20 vejhifficult
ash, then the yield of this product is obtained from the clean 20-25 exceedmgl d~fficult
coal curve. The higher the yield at the lowest ash content, Over 25 formiiable
the better the quality of the coal for a given seam. Cumula-
tive ash% versus cumulative yield% are usually plotted after Leonard (1979)
separately for coarse and fine fractions and then combined
to plot the total curves if necessary. However, sink-and- be accurate for washing by more efficient separators, oper-
float-derived washability data cannot be used to predict fine ating within much narrower ranges (e.g., M.05 specific
coal flotation yields, as these two processes are based on gravity). It is extremely important to determine the amount
different principles. of near-gravity material at the cut points for the required
The quality of rejects is measured by ash content. The quality of clean coal. Depending on the amount of near-
ash content of rejects can also be used as a measure of the +
gravity material within the 0.1 specific gravity range, a
efficiency of the coal cleaning processes. In a case where coal sample may be classified into one of six different cate-
the ash content of rejects is not sufficiently higher than ash gories: simple, moderate, difficult, very difficult, exceed-
of the feed sample, combustibles will be lost into the discard. ingly difficult and formidable (Leonard, 1979). Table 4
Either the process of separation is not efficient, or liberation presents values of near-gravity material and their assign-
of coal from mineral matter is not adequate. In the latter ments to different categories. This parameter, however, ap-
case, crushing or grinding will be required to liberate inter- pears to have mainly technological implications rather than
locked coal particles. being related to the inherent properties of coal.
PREDICTING THE EASE OF WASHING DEGREE OF WASHING AND WASHABILITY

The "ease of washing" generally describes the way in NUMBER
which a given coal seam responds to gravity separation. The Washability takes into account a number of parameters
difference in density between clean coal particles and min- such as ash, yield of clean coal and amount of rejects, and
eral matter when liberated is sufficient to achieve complete amount of near-gravity material. The ease or difficulty in
separation. The difficulty in washing is encountered with washing is usually related to the yield of clean coal at a
particles of composite nature. Given a density for coal be- particular ash level, and the amount of near-gravity material
tween 1.2 and 1.4, and of mineral matter between 2.3 and at the density of separation for a specified coal product, as
5.0, composite particles will generally have a density be- discussed above. Additionally, all of these parameters are
tween 1.4 and 2.3. These particles will contribute to the dif- coal dependent and not reliable when comparing coals of
ficulty of cleaning by gravity methods. different origin. As discussed by some authors (Sarkar and
From the washability curves, the shape of the primary Das, 1974; Sanders and Brooks, 1986; Holuszko and
curve and yield of clean coal curve can indicate whether coal Grieve, 1991) it is useful to have washability parameters
is easy or difficult to clean. A comparison of the yields of which include most of the washability variables and reflect
clean coal at selected ash levels, and the quality of their inherent properties of coal. For that purpose, Sarkar and Das
sinks, can also be used to estimate the ease of washing. A (1974) introduced the "degree of washing" and, resulting
relatively low ash content of the sinks, at low separation from it, the "washability number", as additional measures.
densities, indicates the presence of middlings material, but The degree of washing (N) was defined and calculated
it is not a quantitive measure of the ease of washing. according to the expression:
The amount of material in the range k0.1 of the density N = w a
of separation is considered to be a more quantitive measure a
for comparing relative "ease of washing" between different where: a = the ash content of the raw coal (feed)
coal samples. The near-gravity material curve (E) is shown b = the ash content of the clean coal at a given
in the upper right comer in Figure 4. The fO.l specific grav- density of separation
ity range approach assumes that all material within this w = the yield of clean coal at a given density of
range contributes to difficulties in washing. This range was separation
chosen to measure the difficulty of obtaining the theoretical For a given coal sample, depending on the rank, type
results when cleaning with jigs. This assumption may not and mineral matter associated with the coal, there is always
- - - - -
Paper 1994-4 I1
r-
British Columbia
a density of separation which maximizes the yield of the

cleanest product possible. The optimum degree of washing
(Nopt) is then obtained by plotting degree-of-washing values
(N) versus the density of separation, and finding the maxi-
mum value.
The ash content of the clean coal at the optimum degree
of washing has specific significance in characterizing a
0 5 10 15
Spec llc gravlty Ash % o f Clean Coal
130 150 170 1 80
100
-
150mm 19mm
wn-o?mm crushed
.- ,- -
W n S 6 Wn=81
.
- 80
- 60 7
- 20
0
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40
Ash (%I Degree of washmg
(DW)
Ash % o f Clean Coal

150mm 150mm 19mm
attrtnea
run of mine crushed
- ..-..
Wn=66 Wn=69 Wn=88
Degree of washlng
IDW
Ash % o f Clean Coal

Figure 5. Graphical representation of washability number: Coal 150mm 19mm
A with washability number Wn = 28, difficult to wash charac- run-olm~ne cru?hed
-- --
teristics; Coal B with washability Wn=236, easy to wash charac- Wn=56 Wn=59
teristics. I - primary curve, I1 - clean coal curve, I11 - sink curve,
IV - density distribution curve, V - degree of washing curve.
given coal sample. It is advisable to express the washability

number as the ratio of the degree of washing to the clean-
coal ash at the optimum level (Sarkar and Das, 1974; Sarkar
et al., 1977; Sanders and Brooks, 1986). The washability
number can be expressed as follows:
Wn = 10(Nopt)
(bopt
where: bop, = ash content at Nopt. J
0 5 10 15 20
The degree of washing and washability number take Ash % of Clean Coal
into account the ash content of the raw coal, yield and ash 75 rnrn 19 rnm
+ -crushed
run-of-rn~ne -&-.
of clean coal at each density of separation, and ash of clean
coal at the optimum of washing. These two parameters de- Wn=72 Wn=62
scribe characteristics that pertain to inherent properties of Figure 6. The effect of size reduction on increase in yield of clean
coal. The graphical representation of degree of washing for coal and washability number in four different coals from the Gates
two coals of significant difference in ease of washing is pre- Formation of northeast British Columbia.
sented in Figure 5.

It has also been shown that the washability number can This shows that the environmental conditions during
be a very useful tool in the study of coal seams as rock units the formation of these coals may had been significantly dif-
(Sarkar and Das, 1974; Sarkar et al., 1977). According to ferent. The Carboniferous coals of the northern continents
Sarkar, washability number represents the effect of the de- were presumably deposited under quieter swamp condi-
positional conditions on the association of coal with mineral tions, leading to formation of more heterogeneous coal de-
matter. It has been shown by the same authors that washa- posits with less mineral matter incorporated within the
bility numbers are higher for coal seams formed under qui- seam. Gondwana coals are more allochthonous, which leads
escent conditions (autochthonous) as opposed to those to the difficulty in cleaning them.
formed under turbulent conditions (hypautochtonous). It is generally known that the size of coal influences its
Changes in washability number within a single seam were washability characteristics. As discussed earlier, this is re-
used to outline lateral changes in depositional environment lated to the liberation of mineral matter during size reduc-
for some Indian and North American coals. tion. It is expected that a reduction in the top size of a coal
Comparisons of washability numbers from a number of will increase the value of its washability number until the
countries around the world allow conclusions to be drawn critical top size for the coal sample is reached, below which
about the global pattern in washability characteristics there is no increase in clean coal yield. Figure 6 illustrates
(Sarkar and Das, 1974; Sarkar et al., 1977). Carboniferous this effect.
coals of Europe and North America have the highest wash- Reducing the top size of the samples from seams A and
ability numbers, ranging from 96 to 157, with the lowest ash B improves the recovery of clean coal while reduction in
at the optimum degree of washing (between 3 and 6%), size in seam C sample has no positive effect on the yield of
while Mesozoic coals have lower washability numbers clean coal. Crushing to a smaller size does not increase the
(ranging from 25 to 95) with the ash from 4 to 12% at the yield of clean coal from seam D, and, as indicated by the
optimum. The lowest washability numbers are found in washability number, leads to an increase in difficulty in
Gondwana coals of Permian age, with washability numbers washing. This also may imply that washability is more sen-
near 20 and ash at the optimum varying from 8 to 16%, sitive in detecting changes in ease of washing than the curve
indicating their inherent difficulty in washing. for yield of clean coal.
Paper 1994-4 13
7
British Columbia

British Columbia
SOURCES OF DATA AND SAMPLES

FOR THE STUDY
Two types of washability data were used to study wash- the top size of the sample was restricted to the range 50
ability characteristics of coal seams from British Columbia: to 150 millimetres; a lower size limit of 0.5 millimetre
bulk sample data derived from coal industry exploration as- was applied to all samples.
sessment reports filed with the Ministry of Energy, Mines
and Petroleum Resources and data from analysis of samples SAMPLES FOR DETAILED STUDY
collected from selected coal seams. Lithotype samples were collected from producing
The study of the washability number as a parameter in seams in the Mist Mountain Formation (southeast British
the evaluation of sedimentological conditions during depo- Columbia) and Gates Formation (northeast British Colum-
sition required examination of coal seams and coal deposits bia). Samples from selected seams were characterized on
in much greater detail and in a more systematic and com- the basis of their macroscopic appearance and lithotype
prehensive way. This aspect of the study compared the classification.
washability characteristics of various coal deposits in the
context of their host formations. Care was taken to follow a SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
standard procedure in choosing representative coal samples Lithotypes in the seam were identified according to the
and to ensure that the top size of the samples was more or modified Australian classification (Diessel, 1965; Mar-
less uniform. chioni, 1980). As a general rule, a coal band is considered
to be a mixture of bright and dull components, and lithotypes
are defined according to the proportions of these basic in-
BULK SAMPLES gredients. A minimum thickness of 5 centimetres was used
Washability data on bulk samples from across the prov- to delineate lithotypes, following the procedure of Lamber-
ince are available in the form of sink-and-float analysis re- son et al., (1989). Each lithotype band was channel sampled
sults. Analyses on bulk samples are frequently performed separately.
on several size fractions. To obtain washability curves for
the composite sample, the sink-and-float data for different SINK-AND-FLOAT TESTS
size fractions combined and calculated. These calculations Sink-and-float analyses were performed on the coarse
were performed using a computer program written in Basic. size fractions (0.50 to 9.5 mm or 0.5 to 6 mm) prepared from
In-house software was used (Kilby, unpublished) to plot the each lithotype sample, in at least three, and usually in seven,
set of washability curves. gravity fractions: 1.30; 1.35; 1.40; 1.45; 1.50; 1.60 and 1.70
The following selection criteria were applied to bulk grams per cubic centimetre. The ash content was determined
samples: on the float fractions and the cumulative yield and ash val-
only bulk samples representing run-of-mine coal were ues were computed. These were further used to derive de-
used; gree-of-washing values at each density of separation and
washability data on attrited samples were preferred to data washability number (Wn) at the density corresponding to the
on crushed samples; optimum degree of washing (Nopt).
Geological Survey Branch

-
Paper 1994-4 16
c --
Ministryof Enemy, Mines and Petmleurn Resources
GEOLOGICAL SETTINGS
OF THE STUDIED AREAS
Coals in British Columbia range from lignite to anthra- taceous coals in the northwest and Tertiary coals of south-
cite, with most of the present production in the bituminous central British Columbia are within the Intermontane Belt.
rank. Coal production in the province usually exceeds 20 The Foreland Belt includes the mainly Cretaceous coals of
million tonnes per year. More than 90% of coal production the Peace River coalfield, and the Jurassic-Cretaceous coals
is from two major coalfields: Peace River (northeast coal- of the Kootenay coalfields (Grieve, 1992). Locations of coal
field) and East Kootenay (southeast coalfield). These coal deposits in British Columbia are shown in Figure 7.
deposits account for all of the metallurgical coal in the prov- Coal-bearing strata throughout the province were de-
ince, as well as substantial amounts of thermal coal. One posited in both paralic and limnic settings, mainly in deltaic
mine in the Comox coalfield is producing thermal coal. and alluvial plain environments. Tectonism associated with
Coal deposits in British Columbia range from Late Ju- mountain building has resulted in strongly faulted and
rassic to Tertiary in age, and occur in three of the six major folded coal measures in some coalfields.
tectonic belts: the Insular, Intermontane and Foreland
(Rocky Mountain) belts. The Upper Cretaceous Vancouver
Island coals are within the Insular Belt; the Jurassic and Cre-
?\ TUYA RIVER
COALFIELD
KLAPPAN
AND PEACE RIVER
GROUNDHOG (NORTH EAST)
COALFIELDS COALFIELD
Figure 7. Location of coalfields in British Columbia.
Paper 1994-4 17
7 -
British Columbia
PEACE RIVER COALFIELD lithotypes are predominant, in others brighter lithotypes are
the most abundant, but generally banded lithotypes are char-
Coal deposits of the Peace River coalfield underlie the
acteristic of the Gates coals. The dull appearance of some
northern Inner Foothills belt, which extends northwestward
lithotypes is due either to the presence of mineral matter, or
for more than 300 kilometres from the Alberta - British Co-
an abundance of inertodetrinite and mineral matter, particu-
lumbia border east of Prince George (Figure 7). The coal
larly quartz (Kalkreuth et al., 1991) or close proximity to
deposits occur in four different geological formations, but clastic partings. According to Lamberson et al. (1991) dif-
the major coal measures of the region are in the Lower Cre-
ferences in lithotype stratigraphy are due to variations in
taceous Gething Formation and Gates Formation. Strati-
groundwater level as well as differences between wetland
graphic relationships and relative positions of coal seam are
types. These lithotypes represent a continuous range in de-
shown in Figure 8. The Gates Formation contains 70% of
positional environment from forest swamps (dry and wet)
the commercially attractive coal measures (Smith, 1989)
to dry, herbaceous or shrubby marshes.
and accounts for all the current production. Coals of the Ju-
rassic-Cretaceous Minnes Group and the Upper Cretaceous Coal seams in the upper part of the Lower Cretaceous
Wapiti Formation are currently considered economically Gething Formation are in general composed predominantly
unattractive. of bright lithotypes. The reported maceral analysis for these
seams shows that they are rather low (mean 66%) in vitrinite
Structurally, the area is characterized by folding and content and high in inertinite macerals, mainly semifusinite
thrust faulting, resulting in thickening of some of the coal and micrinite. The mineral matter content is exceptionally
seams. The least structural deformation is observed in the low. Carbonate minerals (mostly calcite) occur in cleats and
coal seam in the Wapiti Formation. In terms of coal quality, fill cavities in semifusinite and fusinite; clays occur more
most of the seams in the region are classified as medium- rarely and are associated with massive vitrinite (Cook,
volatile bituminous with excellent coking characteristics 1972).
and low sulphur. The rank of coals in the Gates and Gething
formations is in the range high-volatile A to low-volatile, The coal at the base of the Upper Cretaceous Wapiti
whereas the Wapiti Formation coal is much lower rank, Formation is the only seam in this formation with possible
high-volatile C bituminous. economic potential. However, it contains large amounts of
mineral matter both from the dirt bands (partings) and in-
Lower Cretaceous Gates Formation seams are charac- herent in the coal.
terized by relatively low vitrinite and high inertinite con-
tents with negligible liptinite (Lamberson et al., 1991;
Kalkreuth et al., 1991). The lithotype composition of coal EAST KOOTENAY COALFIELDS
seams is highly variable, reflecting various depositional The economic coal-bearing strata in southeast British
conditions during peat formation. In some seams, banded Columbia (Figure 7) are confined to the Mist Mountain For-
Hullcross Fm.
Gates Frn.
Moosebar Fm.
Gething Fm.
Cadomin Frn.
Minnes Group
Vertical Scale
7 7 7 1
Figure 8. Stratigraphic relationships and relative coal seam positions in the Peace River coalfield.

r-
-
Ministryof Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
mation of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Kootenay Group. Strati- MERRITT COALFIELD

graphic positions of the coal seams at some locations within
The Merritt coalfield is located about 100 kilometres
Mist Mountain Formation are illustrated in Figure 9. Mist
south of Kamloops and occupies an area of 11 by 5 kilome-
Mountain coals are between high and low-volatile bitumi-
tres (Figure 7). The Tertiary coal measures are preserved in
nous in rank (Smith, 1989). Coal beds comprise 8 to 12% of a basin underlain by Triassic volcanics (White, 1947) and
the stratigraphic thickness of the formation (Grieve, 1985). the stratigraphy of the coal measures is very variable due to
Coal seams in the lower part of the formation tend to be lateral variation in rock types, faulting and folding. In some
thicker and more continuous, and in some instances struc- places, five to eight seams occur within 230 metres of strata,
tural deformation has resulted in substantial thickening of while in others six seams are contained in 140 metres of
seams (Grieve, 1985; Smith, 1989). section (White, 1947; Grieve, 1992).
In terms of coal quality, most of the coals produced in Coal rank in the Memtt coalfield ranges from high-
southeast British Columbia are medium-volatile bituminous volatile C bituminous to high-volatile A bituminous (Smith,
in rank, and all of the coal products are low in sulphur. Struc- 1989). Some of the seams have fairly good coking proper-
tural deformation of coals in the Mist Mountain Formation ties, but the majority are more suitable for use as fuel for
has also influenced mining. Faulting and folding have cre- power generation.
ated many problems in terms of correlation of the seams,
The coal is interbedded with shale and sandstone. The
and in many cases discontinuity of the seams has compli- depositional environment ranged from back-bamer lagoons
cated mine planning and development. Line Creek coal- to sand and mud flats parallel to low and moderate energy
bearing strata exposed in the highwall are shown in Plate 6. areas with variable current rates. Petrographic analyses of
The washing characteristics of many coal seams have dete- some Merritt coal seams indicate that these coals are
riorated, as a result of shearing (Bustin, 1982). vitrinite-rich.
Petrographic composition of the Mist Mountain coals
varies from inertinite rich to vitrinite rich, from the base to
the top of the formation (Cameron, 1972; Grieve, 1985). KLAPPAN COALFIELD
This reflects a systematic variation in depositional environ- The Klappan coalfield is located near the north end of
ment, changing from a lower to an upper delta plain up-sec- the Bowser Basin in northwestern British Columbia, about
tion (Cameron, 1972). In terms of lithotype composition, 250 kilometres northeast of Prince Rupert (Figure 7). Coal
this accounts for a brightening-upward (increasing bright measures at Klappan occur mainly in Upper Jurassic strata;
lithotypes) tendency in these coals. up to 25 seams are present in some sections (Grieve, 1992).
ELK FORMATION
Elk Ford~ng Westar Line Westar Byron Hosrner Sage

R~ver Greenh~lls Creek Balrner Creek Wheeler Creek
MORRISSEY FORMATION
Figure 9. Stratigraphic positions of the seams in southeast British Columbia.
Paper 1994-4 19
Plate 6. Line Creek seams -coal- hearing strata exposed in the highwall.
Subsequent folding and thrust faulting have severely de- 0.50 metre in thickness (Matheson, 1990; Kenyon et al.,
formed the coal-bearing strata. 1991). Coal zone 3 isin the Dunsmuir Member and is nearly
Coal seams considered here are from Hobbit-Broatch 35 metres above zone 2. This zone contains seams locally
and Lost-Fox deposits on the Klappan property. The coal is up to 3 metres thick(Smith, 1989). Coal zone4, withathick-
anthracitic in rank and the ash content in raw coal ranges ness of 1 metre, is the uppermost coal bed and occurs only
from 14 to 42%. with an average of 29.5%. The coals are locally. Current Quinsam coal mine production is mainly
moderately hard, with an average grindability index of 54. from seam No.1 (Grieve, 1992).
Coals in the Comox coalfield are predominantly high-
COMOX C O A L m L D volatile AandB bituminous in rank (Smith, 1989). Quinsam
The Comox coalfield is on the east side of Vancouver coal mine produces thermal coal with 13.5% ash and 1.0%
Island (Figure 7). The coals are within the Cumberland and sulphur (Grieve, 1992). These coals are relatively hard (av-
Dunsmuir members of the Comox Formation, which is part erage Hardgrove Grindability Index = 48).
of the Upper Cretaceous Nanaimo Group. Commercially,
Quinsam coals are of semibright to bright composition.
the most attractive coal measures are in the Quinsam basin,
sitc of the Quinsam mine. Four coal zones arc recognized No.] seam is very hard, banded dull to banded bright coal
with inclusions of coaly mudstone and finely disseminated
here (Kenvon era/.. 1991LThc twolowermostzones.(l
\ , . and
~
pyrite (Kenyon et aL, 1991). In places, I-seam coal pro-
2) occur in a succession of siltstones of the Cumberland
Member. The No.1 zone consists of the No.1 seam, with an duced from the open pit does not need to be washed due to
average thickness of 2.3 metres, and a rider seam with a its inherently low ash content. These coals also produce very
thickness of 0.40 metre. In zone 2, coal bands are 0.20 to few fines due to their relative hardness.
20 Geological Sunrey Branch

7---
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resoumes
WASHABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF
BRITISH COLUMBIA COALS
Classical washability parameters were used to compare WASHABILITY OF COAL SEAMS FROM
washability characteristics of different seams: yield of clean DIFFERENT GEOLOGICAL
coal, corresponding yield of rejects, and the amount of near- FORMATIONS
gravity material for a desired clean coal product. For the Washability variations are very common in coal seams
comparison, 10% ash in the clean coal was chosen as the from British Columbia coalfields. The range of variation in
grade of the coal product. The comparisons were done be- yield of clean coal for a number of seams from different
tween different coalfields, geological formations, seams and formations is presented in Figure 10. Figures 10a and lob
lithotypes. show seams from the Mist Mountain and Gates formations;
Figures lOc,d,e,f and g present clean coal data for the re-
Degree of washing and washability numbers were also maining formations and coalfields.
compared for coal seams belonging to the same and differ- Comparison of yields of clean coal at a preselected ash
ent formations within one coalfield, and between seams level (10% ash) for a number of seams in British Columbia
from different coalfields. Washability of lithotypes within can be made from the data in Table 5. In the table seams are
the same seam related to their petrographic composition listed in stratigraphic order for each property (A to 0),in
and, whenever possible, linked to the changes in deposi- 100 or 200-metre intervals. Thin lines separate seams from
tional environment during the seam formation. different properties within stratigraphic positions which are
marked by thick lines. Mist Mountain and Gates formations
In British Columbia, metallurgical coal must be bene- are the most represented among all geological formations
ficiated to remove mineral matter and produce a high-qual- and are the most productive. Other formations are repre-
ity, uniform and saleable coal product. The higher rank of sented by seams from random stratigraphic positions.
thermal coals produced from some British Columbia coal- Yield of clean coal at selected ash levels is influenced
fields allows for less cleaning. by the mineral matter within the coal, but also by the rock
material from the floor and roof of the seam introduced dur-
The geological settings of most of the coal seams in
ing mining or sampling. Low yield of clean coal at a par-
British Columbia are complex. Coal seams from mountain- ticular ash level is not synonymous with difficult
ous regions are especially difficult to mine and process. The washability characteristics. The amount of near-gravity ma-
most common problem encountered during the handling terial at the density of separation for a specific clean coal
and processing of these coals is their tendency to disinte- product is believed to be a practical indicator of ease of
grate. Size degradation of bituminous coals has been attrib- washing, and these values are also included in Table 5.
uted to the natural fissuring and fracture structure in these The best indicators of inherent washing characteristics
coals (Mikhail and Patching, 1980). Fractures and fissures are washability number and the parameters associated with
it, as discussed earlier. These data are presented in Table 6,
have been caused mostly by tectonic movements, leading to
grouped the same way as in Table 5.
compression and tension, and resulting in shearing.
Sheared seams are usually more difficult to wash, es- MIST MOUNTAIN FORMATION
pecially when the shear plane is in contact with the coal A number of coal seams in the Mist Mountain Forma-
seam. Dissemination of floor or roof rock through the coal tion were examined for their washability characteristics (Ta-
seam makes it difficult to distinguish between sheared rock bles 5 and 6). A total of 33 seams have been studied; some
of the bulk samples represent current producing seams,
and coal. Very often the mineral matter is intimately inter- while other data were obtained from exploration reports.
mixed with coal, and as a result is very difficult to remove Raw ash content for these seams varies from 8.37 to 5 1.12%,
during cleaning (Bustin, 1982). with an average of 28.91%. Yield of clean coal at 10% ash
Difficulty in washing British Columbia coals is related ranges from 23.94 to loo%, with an average of 68.16%.
to the middling-stype quality of coarse fractions produced The average amount of near-gravity material at the den-
from these coals. Large amounts of fines also contribute to sity of separation for clean coal at 10% ash, is 8.92%. The
highest values are for seams at the bottom of the formation,
difficulty in cleaning as there are fewer and less efficient with some as high as 56.9% (Table 5). This trend is also
methods to clean fines as compared to coarse coal. These evident in the data presented on Figure 11. It is apparent that
factors significantly increase the overall cost of a coal clean- seams at the bottom of the formation must be cleaned at a
ing operation. lower density, with larger amounts of near-gravity material,
Paper 1994-4 21
7
British Columbia
Clean Coal Ash %

Figure 10. Yield of clean coal for seams from: (a) Mist Mountain; (b) Gates Formations; (c) Gething Formation; (d) Wapiti Formation;
(e) Comox Formation; ( f ) Klappan coalfield; (g) Memtt coalfield.

TABLE 5
WASHABILITY DATA FOR SEAMS FROM DIFFERENT GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS
Formationl Yield at Near gravity Ash of rejects

Coalfield 10% Ash Raw Ash *d (10) % material at 10% ash in CC Property
MIST MOUNTAIN
Bottom 42.24 40.10 1.52 11.00 66.97 A
74.91 22 04 1.46 17.10 80.60
74.84 28.45 2.00 0.00 80.68
80.76 20.55 1.68 5.10 61.43 B
34.54 26.14 1.43 56.90 29.73 C
46.18 46.22 1 74 5.25 75 80

300 metres 84.83 19.25 1.75 3.80 68.20 D
42.81 51.12 1.72 3.40 80 71 A
400 metres 86.10 18.60 2.00 2.00 67.93

48.31 33.95 1.59 5.80 55.86 A
73.56 23.00 1.62 7.W 57.37

500 metres 84.10 21.12 2.10 0.00 75.05 D
63.34 36.10 1.93 3.45 79.10 A
Formation1 Yield at Near gravity Ash of rejects

Coalfield 10% Ash Raw Ash *d(10) % material at 10% ash in CC Property
GATES 99.44 10 35 2 00 0.00 69.69 G
90.49 19 79 1.70 9 59 55 55
100.00 9.00 2.W 0 00 58.39
50.06 44 56 1.80 4 30 77.50
97 49 11.82 1.48 16.00 79.28 H
53 61 35 19 1 56 13.00 60.68
200 metres 80.56 19.13 1.91 0.10 76.39
89.02 17.41 1.79 1.47 75.26 1
300 metres 75.12 26.84 1 70 5.00 73.91

GETHlNG 31.78 45.65 153 27.50 56.77 E
52.77 44 17 1.71 3.60 80.73

WAPITI 39.13 28.55 1.46 49.70 36.23 L
COMOX 79.32 23.39 2.00 3.40 71.49 M
MERRllT 72.00 24.59 1.54 10.50 56.49 N
92.44 15.22 1.82 0.50 77.75

KLAPPAN 59.07 28.75 1.65 23.02 49.82 0
*d (10) -density of separation to obtain 10% ash product

CC - clean coal
Paper 1994-4 23
TABLE 6
WASHABILITY NUMBER AND ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS FOR SEAMS
FROM DIFFERENT GEOLOGICAL FORMATIONS
Formation/ Raw Ash d (opt) N (opt) Ash (opt) WN Property

Coalfield
MIST MOUNTAIN
Bottom 40.20 1.70 38.80 13.08 29.66 A
22.04 1.50 54.22 6.35 85.39
28.45 1.60 51.41 8.01 64.18
20.55 1.50 43.85 9.05 54.34 B
26.14 1.50 29.60 13.76 21.51 C

24.39 1.50 42.59 9.40 45.31
19.66 1.50 45.76 8.24 55.50
23.57 1.50 37.68 9.74 38.69
100 metres 16.21 1.40 39.64 7.16 39.64 D
27.85 1.55 44.28 9.97 44.41 A
41.41 1.70 36.75 13.65 26.92
200 metres 34.89 1.60 4 1.97 10.95 38.33

24.95 1.50 52.39 6.39 81.99 A
46.22 1.50 36.42 11.06 32.93
300 metres 19.25 1.45 48.23 6.46 74.66 D
51.12 1.70 34.43 9.87 34.90 A
400 m e w s 18.60 1.45 52.63 4.91 107.20

33.95 1.55 34.24 9.15 37.40 A
36.04 1.60 49.89 6.17 80.90
35.43 1.60 38.89 9.% 39.00 B
22.52 1.50 49.44 6.36 77.70
23.00 1.45 43.87 7.71 57.00
500 m e w s 21.12 1.50 53.69 5.57 96.40 --- D
36.10 1.60 47.69 6.69 71.00 A
8.37 1.35 54.43 2.94 185.10 B
13.05 1.50 34.69 7.94 43.70 D
GETHING 45.65 1.80 31.64 17.46 18.10 F
12.10 1.40 56.73 3 46 164.00
44.17 1.70 40.83 9.95 41.W
GATES 10.35 1.45 37.46 5.79 6470 G
35.19 1.60 38.77 10.87 35.70

200 metres 19.13 1.50 46.12 6.68 69.00
17.41 1.45 43.17 8.06 53.60 1
14.46 1.40 40.35 6.00 67.30
35.84 I .60 41.14 11.02 37.30
26.84 1.5 5 1.93 5.75 90.3

WAPITI 28.55 1.55 30.32 13.56 22.3 L
COMOX 23.39 1.5 5 1.49 6.32 81.5 M
MERRITT 24.59 1.4 43.97 7.21 61 N
22.83 1.4 43.99 7.29 60
23.53 1.4 53.21 6.12 87
15.22 1.5 45.99 7.92 58.1
KLAPPAN 28.75 1.7 39.21 11.20 35 o
d (opt) - density at optimum

N (opt) - degree of washing at optima
Ash (opt) - ash content at oplimum
-
WN washability numbers

L
Density of Separation for 10% - A s h Coal Denslty of Separation for 10% - Ash C o a l
Figure 11. Variations in the ease of washing for seams in the Mist Figure 12. Variations in the ease of washing for Gates Formation
Mountain Formation; density of separation for 10% ash versus seams; density of separation for 10% ash versus near-gravity
near-gravity material at the cut point. material at the cut point.
to obtain a 10% ash product. The large amount of near- and near-gravity material is 6.44%. Whether this represents
gravity material contributes to the difficulty in cleaning of a regional trend is not known at this time.
these coals. An improvement in ease of washing is espe-
cially obvious in seams located above 200 metres from the GATES FORMATION
base of formation. Coal seams in the Gates Formation are usually thick
The variations in washability characteristics of Mist and continuous. The formation reaches up to 350 metres in
Mountain coal seams are not only stratigraphic but also lat- thickness at the southeast end of the Peace River coalfield,
and thins to about 60 metres to the northwest. Commercially
eral. Washability data for two stratigraphic sections of the
important coal seams occur in the southern part of the coal-
formation, 75 kilometres apart, are shown in Tables 7 and 8. field and extend to north of the Bullmoose mine (Figure 8;
There is a more obvious trend in improving ease of washing Grieve, 1992). Eighteen Gates coal seams were examined
for seams towards the top of the formation in the southern in this study, representing the entire stratigraphic section
part of the coalfield. There is very little indication of corre- from throughout the coalfield. Classical washability data for
lation in washability characteristics between these seams. In Gates coals are presented in Table 5. Coal seams on property
effect, seams at the same stratigraphic position have differ- G are from the southeast end of the coalfield; whereas prop-
ent washability characteristics. Generally, washability of erty K is located at the northwest end.
seams from the property in the southern part of the coalfield Raw ash in these seams varies from 9 to 46.9%, with
is much better than seams in the northern part. The average an average of 23.13%. Yield of clean coal at 10% ash ranges
washability number for all seams in the formation from the from 37.08 to 100%, and averages 76.4%, with the average
southern property is 75.4, with near-gravity material at the amount of near-gravity material near the cut point at 8.45%.
density of separation at 10% ash equal to 3.3%. For seams Variation in the ease of obtaining 10% ash for raw Gates
from the northern property, the washability number is 50.6, coals is illustrated in Figure 12. The density of separation
TABLE 7
WASHABILITY DATA FOR MIST MOUNTAIN FORMATION
SEAMS - SOUTHERN PART OF THE COALFIELD
Stratigraphic Yield at Raw Near-gravity Ash of

location of seams (m 10% Ash Ash % Material Rejects
above base) (kO.1 s.g.)
0-100 88.27 16.21 8.20
47.76 29.70
19.25 3.80
13.42 1.50
18.60 2.00
21.12 0.10
13.05 4.00
*d10 = density of separation for 10% Ash, clean coal product.

**WN=Washability number.
Paper 1994-4 25
British Columbia
TABLE 8
WASHABILITY DATA FOR MIST MOUNTAIN FORMATION
SEAMS - NORTHERN PART OF THE COALFIELD
Stratigraphic Yield at Raw d10* Near-gravity Ash of WN**

location of seams 10% Ash Ash % material % rejects
(m above base) p 0 . l s.g.)
0-100 42.24 40.10 1.52 11.00 66.97 29.7
74.91 22.04 1.46 17.10 80.60 85.4
74.84 28.45 2.00 0.00 80.60 64.2
100-200 69.07 27.85 1.55 14.50 63.71 44.4
46.25 41.41 1.53 12.10 64.98 26.9
76.11 25.59 1.78 4.50 72.67 71.4
200-300 79.03 24.95 1.98 2.00 77.91 82.0
46.18 46.22 1.74 5.25 75.80 32.9
300-400 23.94 65.62 1.72 3.00 82.33 16.2
42.81 51.12 1.72 3.40 80.71 34.9
40.93 50.64 1.68 5.50 77.20 31.1
400-500 48.31 33.95 1.59 5.80 55.86 37.4
65.67 36.04 1.95 2.50 82.88 80.9
500-600 63.34 36.10 1.93 3.43 79.10 71.0
= density of separation for 10% ash, clean coal product.

*dI0
** WN = Washability number.
varies from 1.50 to 2.00, and near-gravity material varies in the Sukunka area; the third seam is at the top of the bottom
from 0 to about 23%. Coal seams from the base of the for- coal measures, north of Sukunka (Figure 8).
mation, in the southeasternmost part of the coalfield, are Washability characteristics of the seam from the lower
considered to be the easiest to wash in terms of their amount part of the formation are very different from those of the two
of near-gravity material (see values for property G in Table upper seams (Tables 5 and 6). The former has a very low
5), and seams become progressively more difficult to wash yield of clean coal at 10% ash, and high amounts of near-
towards northwest. gravity material at the density of separation. This is con-
The lowest three seams on properties J and K, in the firmed by the very low washability number (18.1). High ash
upper part of the formation (above 200 m), representing the content at the optimum density of separation indicates a very
same stratigraphic sequence, have very similar washability high content of unseparatable mineral matter. The two other
characteristics (Table 5); this is even more evident when seams have much better washing characteristics their wash-
their washability numbers are compared (Table 6). Variation ability number values are 164 and 41.
in washability numbers for Gates coals is significant, with
values ranging from about 20 to 141, with an average of WAPITI FORMATION
64.1. There is no significant correlation between washabil- Coal from the Wapiti Formation is generally unaffected
ity numbers and stratigraphic position in the formation. by the structural complications so common in coals in the
Variation between adjacent seams can be as great as that Peace River coalfield. However, the major seam at the base
between widely separated seams. Only in one instance is of the formation has very difficult washability charac-
correlation possible between seams in the same stratigraphic teristics. Despite having relatively moderate ash content in
position, based on very similar washability characteristics raw coal, yield of clean coal at 10% ash is low and near-
(the lowest three seams on the J and K properties; Table 6). gravity material is very high (Table 5). The washability
number is also very low, with high ash at the density for
GETHING FORMATION optimum washing (Table 6). The difficult washing charac-
The Gething Formation is also a major coal-bearing teristics are due to large amounts of mineral matter inti-
unit in the Peace River coalfield. It varies in thickness from mately intermixed with the coal.
100 metres in the southeast, up to 1000 metres in the Carbon
Creek area in the northwest. Three Gething Formation coal COMOX FORMATION
seams were examined for washability, two from the upper Washability of one coal seam from the Comox Forma-
and one from the lower part of the formation. The upper tion was evaluated. This seam appears to have quite good
seams are a part of the upper formation, which pinches out characteristics: relatively high yield of clean coal at 10%ash

and a low amount of near-gravity material at the density of WASHABILITY OF LITHOTYPES
separation. Washability number and ash at optimum also Variation in coal quality, and consequently washing
indicate good inherent washing properties (Tables 5 and 6). characteristics, are related to the I ithologicalcompxition of
MERRlTT COALFIELD -
each seam. Testine washabilitv cllaracteristics of c'oal litho-
types may be used as a predictive:tool in assessing: the ease
Four coal seams from Memtt were examined, and they
represent almost the entire stratigraphic section of the coal-
., .-
of washing of the whole seam. Lithfihrne.. -nr*.*n,
yL,.,.. t changes
in depositional conditions, and as expected ease of washing,
bearing formation (Tables 5 and 6).Raw ash in these seams as measured by washability number, is significant parame-
varies from 15.2 to24.59%, withan average of 21.54%. The ter for relating the lithology of a seam to washing charac-
average yield of clean coal at 10% ash is equal to 80.05%. t<
and the average amount of near-gravity material is 5.77% at
the density of separation. There is an improvement in the 1 IF LITHOTYPES FROM
ease of washing towards the top of the formation. Washabil- 6 ~ f i f i ~ t I l LAND
lA QUINTETTE
ity numbers indicate less visible improvement in the wash-
ing characteristics towards the top of the coal sequence. This Lithotype samples were collected from producing
v it mav be easier to obtain a 10% ash nroduct
mav,i m ~ l that seams in the Jurassic-Cretaceous Mist Mountain Formation
& <
from the upper seams, but difficulty will be encountered of southeast British Columbia, and the Lower Cretaceous
when a lower ash product is needed. Gates Formation of northeast British Columbia. Plates 7 and
8 shaIW sampling from seams at Quintette and Green hills
KLAPPAN COALFIELD
Two seams from the Klappan coalfield were studied.
- ~~~..... .-.~.
mine!r. The seams selected were Greenhills 16 seam and
Quintette u ana c seams. A roral or
~~~ ~~~ ~P.0 ....~-.~~~~
l a nrnorype samples
~~~~
They are from the middle part of the anthracite-bearing se- from Greenhills and 15 samples from Quintette were ana-
lyzed. The!se represented six lithotypes: bright; banded
quence, but they account for almost 70% of the mineable
bright; bancled coal; banded dnll; dnll and sheared coal.
reserves identified to date. Despite the fact that these seams ... . .
Washab~utynUmbeIS ancl associatea parameters for
are close together stratigraphically, the washability of one
is far superior to the other (Tables 5 and 6).The washability these lithotype samples are presented in Table 9.
number for one seam is higher by a factor of two. The seam Greenhills seam 16 is composed predominantly of
with the lower washability number has quite a high ash con- banded lithotypes, with banded bright the most abundant.
tent at the optimum cut point, and this contributes to the The base of the seam is banded dull, but not until the middle
difficulty in cleaning this coal. Klappan coals are anthraci- of the seam does the coal change from being predominantly
tic; the higher density of anthracite requires cleaning at a banded bright to predominantly banded dull. Dull lithotypes
higher specific gravity. are common near the top. Quintette seams D and E are also
composed of predominantly banded lithotypes. Lithotype
composition of seam E changes from banded bright at the
Plate 7. Sampling lithotypes at Quintette
Paper 1994-4 27
bottom, to mainly dull and banded dull in the middle, to
banded bright and banded coal, becoming duller and
sheared near the top. A similar trend is observed in Quintette
seam D; the base of the seam is composed predominantly of
banded bright and banded coal, then becomes duller towards
the middle. The seam brightens up again towards the top,
but becomes duller and sheared in the uppermost part of the
seam.
The highest washability numbers and the lowest clean-
coal ash values (at the optimum) are associated with the
bright lithotypes in all three seams. There is an evident trend
in the decrease of washability numbers from bright to dull
lithotypes. This is accompanied by an increase in ash at op-
timum, and this is more consistent for lithotypes from Quin-
tette seams. The average washability numbers for all
lithotypes from Greenhills 16 seam are much higher than
for the same lithotypes from Quintette D and E seams. The
average washability number for bright lithotypes for Green-
hills samples, for example, is three times greater than for
Quintette seams, with the clean coal at optimum values sig-
nificantly lower.
Sheared coal in the Greenhills seam has a degree-of-
washing value similar to that of bright coal, but with amuch
higher ash of clean coal at the optimum, and a washability
number between that of banded coal and banded dull. For
Quintette seams, the washability number of sheared coal is
similar to that of banded dull, while degree of washing cor-
Plate 8. Sampling lithotypes at Greenhills. responds to the banded bright lithotype. The raw ash content
for the sheared coal from Greenhills and Quintette is the
TABLE 9
WASHABILITY NUMBER. DEGREE-OF-WASHING AND OTHER ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS
FOR SELECTED LlTHOTYPES FROM GREENHILLS AND QUINTETTE SEAMS
Bright (3)
Banded Bright (6)
Banded coal (5)
Banded Dull (3)
Dull (1)
Sheared (1)
Property: Quintette Seams D and E

Bright (1)
Banded Bright (1)
Banded Coal
Banded Dull (6)
Dull (2)
Sheared (2)
WN - Washability Number
N (opt) - degree of washing at optimum
d (opt) - density of separation at optimum
CC (opt) - clean coal ash at optimum
( ) -numbers of samples analyzed

highest. However the clean coal at optimum value is much matter associated with coal. An interesting maceral trend
higher for the Quintette seams. was observed in lithotypes from Greenhills seaml6: the ra-
The variations in brightness of lithotypes in these seams tio of vitrinite A to vitrinite B decreases toward duller litho-
is a result of changing maceral composition, from vitrinite types. Abundance of vitrinite A, representing structured
rich (bright) to intertinite rich (duller), and generally an in- vitrinite macerals, indicates a more preserving depositional
crease in ash content from bright to dull lithotypes (Lam- environment, and reflects depositional conditions with less
berson et al., 1991; Holuszko, 1992). Due to the fact that frequent changes in water level. This environment is char-
mineral matter (ash) has a major influence on the washabil- acterized by less mineral matter deposition. Vitrinite B, rep-
ity number, lithotypes having a dull appearance as a direct resented by vitrodetrinite and vitrinite associated with other
result of a higher mineral matter content show more dra- macerals and mineral matter, indicates coal of detrital ori-
matic changes in washability numbers than those whith a gin, usually characterized by more degraded organic matter
dull appearance that is due to a change in petrographic com- and a higher mineral matter content.
position. It is not always the amount of mineral matter (raw Comparisons of lithotypes from the Greenhills and
ash), however, but its association with the coal that contrib- Quintette seams show that washability numbers for the same
utes to the change in washability characteristics. Two differ- lithotypes are much higher for Greenhills 16 seam than for
ent lithotypes with very similar petrographic compositions Quintette D and E seams. This may indicate that the Green-
and ash contents were found to have different washability hills seam was deposited in less turbulent conditions than
characteristics. In one lithotype, mineral matter was dis- the Quintette seams. According to Cameron (1972) for ex-
seminated throughout the coal, whereas in the other it was ample, seams in the upper part of the Mist Mountain For-
epigenetic. The disseminated occurrence of mineral matter mation (Greenhills seam 16), were accumulated in an upper
made one lithotype look duller and contributed to the diffi- delta plain environment. Coal seams in the Gates Formation
culty in washing. are believed to have formed in depositional settings ranging
Assuming that washability numbers indicate variation from coastal swamp to upper delta plain (Kalkreuth et al.,
in depositional environment, the actual decrease in the mag- 1991). The coastal swamp coals are characterized by vari-
nitude of this number, in conjunction with the increase in able lithotype sequences (brightening-up, dulling-up).
clean-coal ash at the optimum in moving towards the duller Seam D from Quintette, however, was formed on a coastal
lithotypes, indicates a change from a wet forest swamp to plain, more open to clastic influx than seam 16 at Greenhills
an open marsh environment (Lamberson e t al., 1991; Kalk- (Kalkreuth et al., 1991). This resulted in a higher content of
reuth e t al., 1991). This trend is usually evidenced by mineral matter intermixed with coal, and contributed to
changes in maceral composition and the amount of mineral more difficult washing characteristics.
Paper 1994-4 29
r
-
British Columbia

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
A number of coal seams from various coalfields and
geological formations in British Columbia were examined
in terms of their "ease of washing". In general, the washa-
bility characteristics of British Columbia coal seams are
considered to be moderately difficult to difficult compared
to other coals. For some coals a density of separatibn of
around 1.5 is necessary to obtain a clean coal product (e.g.,
10% ash); for others higher densities can be used to obtain
the same quality coal product. For coals which require a
lower density of separation, higher amounts of near-gravity
material are usually encountered, and this leads to technical
0 15 30 45
difficulties in their cleaning. The average values of near- Amount of Near Gravity Material, WtO&
gravity material, close to the density of separation for a 10%
ash product, for Mist Mountain and Gates Formation coals
are about 9%. For Gething coals the average amount of near- Figure 13. Correlation between washability numbers and amount
gravity material is 10.5%; for Menitt 5.77%; for Klappan of near-gravity material for 10% ash clean coal for all examined
13.15%; for Comox 3.40%; and for Wapiti as much as coal seams from British Columbia.
49.70%. Accordingly, Comox and Merritt coals are catego-
rized as simple to wash, Mist Mountain and Gates Forma- increase in the amount of near-gravity material. Most coals,
tion coals are moderately difficult, coals from the Gething however, fall into a washability number range of 30 to 100,
Formation and Klappan coalfield are difficult to clean and and these correspond to the range of 0 to 10% of near-gravity
coals from the Wapiti Formation are formidable to wash. For material.
situations where a lower ash product is required (e.g., 7% For the most difficult to clean coals, washability num-
ash or less) more difficulty in cleaning is likely, as many of bers range from about 18 to 30. The lowest numbers are for
these coals would have to be washed at even lower densities. seams in the lower part of the Gething Formation (18.1) and
In the Mist Mountain Formation, the most difficult the Wapiti Formation (22.3); the highest for seams in the
coals to clean, in terms of ease of washing, are seams at the middle and uppermost parts of the Mist Mountain Forma-
bottom of formation, with near-gravity material up to 57% tion (147, 107 and 185), the upper part of the Gething For-
in one case. Only three other seams studied fall into the same mation (164) and two lower seams in the Gates Formation
category (formidable to wash). These are: a seam from the (110.2 and 141.9). Variation in washability numbers be-
top of the Gates Formation; a seam from the lower part of tween seams in very close proximity may be equally high;
the Gething Formation and the one from the Wapiti Forma- two seams in the Gething Formation have values of 164 and
tion. In other seams, ease of washing ranges from simple to 41. The average washability number for all coal seams ex-
exceedingly difficult. amined is about 63.5, with an average degree of washing of
The trend in improving ease of washing toward the top 43.19, a clean coal at optimum equal to 8.22% ash and a
of the formation is observed in the Mist Mountain Forma- 1.53 density of separation at optimum. Among the different
tion and in the Merritt coalfield. In Gates coals the opposite formations the highest average washability number, 74.7, is
trend is apparent; coal seams become more difficult to wash derived for Gething Formation coals and the lowest value,
upwards in the formation, albeit in an iregular manner. Lat- 23, represents the Wapiti Formation. The other formations
eral changes in washability characteristics over 75 kilome- have washability numbers in the range of 56 to 66. In this
tres were noted in Mist Mountain coals. Seams on a property comparison, however, only the Mist Mountain and Gates
in the southern pan of the coalfield have better washing
formations are well represented.
characteristics than those in the north. Moreover, the upward
trend of improving ease of washing is more persistent for It has been shown that the washability characteristics
coals on the southern property. For Gates coals, difficulty in of a coal seam are strongly dependent on its lithological
washing appears to increase from southeast to northwest. composition. There is a strong correlation between washa-
In general, the lowest washability numbers, with high- bility number and relative brightness. The bright lithotypes
est ash at optimum, are for coals which are the most difficult consistently have the highest washability numbers with low-
to clean in terms the amount of near-gravity material. The est ash at optimum, and washability numbers decrease con-
correlation between washability numbers and the amount of siderably towards duller lithotypes. However, where the
near-gravity material at density of separation for 10% ash duller appearance is related to varying petrographic compo-
coal for all tested coals is illustrated in Figure 13. It shows sition, there is little evidence of change in washability char-
that a decrease in washability number is accompanied by an acteristics.
Paper 1994-4 31
It is also evident that it is not the amount of mineral sedimentary origins of the coal. Washability number and
matter, but rather its association with the coal, that deter- parameters associated with it can also be related to indices
mines the washing characteristics Of a particular seam. The derived from rnaceral composition, leading to conclusions
disseminated occurrences of mineral matter usually affect about the depositional environment of the coal.
both the appearance of the coal as well as its washability
characteristics. This is why there is a strong correlation be- Washability number defines inherent washability char-
tween lithology and washability characteristics of the seam. acteristics and, as such, may be used as a valuable index in
The same lithotypes from different coals may, however, dis- many technological applications, as discussed in the follow-
play different washability characteristics, due to different ing chapter.

c
- -
TECHNOLOGICALAPPLICATIONS OF
WASHABILITY NUMBER AND
ASSOCIATED PARAMETERS
Use of the washability number extends the scope of tion can help in assessing the mode of association of mineral
application of standard coal quality data, especially in as- matter with coal (Sarkar and Das, 1974). It may be practical
pects related to coal processing. In fact, it was suggested by to use the ratios of the washability number of the coarse coal
Grounds (in Sarkar and Das, 1974) that washability number (of specified top size) to the washability numbers at various
should be included in the list of indices used to characterize levels of crushing, as a valuable parameter characterizing
coals (e.g., caking index, shatter index or Hardgrove index). coal or even performance of size reduction equipment. The
The washability number is often a good parameter for ratio of washability number at any particular level of crush-
correlation of coal seams in accordance with their washa- ing to that of the critical top size should be significant in
bility characteristics, for developing sedimentation patterns describing coal liberation characteristics, and also should
for coalfields, and even for prediction of coal quality (ash correlate with grindability index.
distribution patterns, etc.; Sarkar et al., 1977). In any processing operation where inherent washability
Washability analyses are costly and time consuming, properties of coal are important, use of washability number
and the ability to predict washability from small samples or will be of great benefit. With blending, for example, where
lithological descriptions of coal seams is a very attractive raw or clean coals are mixed in order to ensure consistency
feature of washability number. Estimating washability of in coal quality, it is necessary to take into account a number
coal seams from small samples using washability number of coal quality parameters which affect either the washabil-
was discussed by Ryan (1992). Prediction of seam washa- ity or the eventual product specification. For thermal coals
bility from washability of lithotypes has also been discussed it is the ash content and the heating value of the desired
by Holuszko, (1992). product, while for metallurgical coals, ash and swelling and
For every coal within a specified size range, there is an plastic properties are critical. Due to the fact that conditions
optimal density cut point for separation, which distinguishes for obtaining desired ash-level products do not necessarily
free from fixed mineral matter. Degree of washing and correspond to the optimum conditions of separation, defin-
washability number represent this optimal condition for ing the blending ratios based on these parameters is not al-
separation. Theoretically, the maximum advantage could be ways the best approach.
expected for separation at this point. In practice, however,
the separation at optimum may not necessarily correspond Coals which are easy to wash usually have high yields
to the level of ash in clean coal which is required by com- of low density material, very little middlings and some
mercial specifications. amount of liberated or free impurities. For these coals, low-
density material usually has a very low ash content and, as
It has been shown that the size of coal generally influ- a result, achieving a certain ash level (e.g., 10%) leads to a
ences washability characteristics. Therefore, washability situation where rock material must be added to meet product
number, degree of washing and ash at the optimum of sepa- specifications. Using the washability number as a blending
ration vary with the top size of crushing. For some British parameter allows the use of the least amount of the best
Columbia coals a decrease in the top size of coal during quality coal in the most beneficial way in composing the
crushing usually increases the washability number, and low- blends.
ers the ash in the clean coal at the optimum density of sepa-
ration. For others, reducing the top size leads to From a knowledge of variability in washability num-
deterioriation in washability characteristics, as discussed in bers it may be possible for the coal process engineer to make
earlier sections. This results from reaching the critical top decisions on the size of crushing, method of blending and
size below which there is no advantage in further crushing. even on designing specific cleaning operations for a particu-
Other studies show that systematic calculation of lar coal. There are probably other useful applications of
washability numbers and corresponding ash of clean coal at washability number in coal processesing and utilization,
optimum degree of washing at various levels of size reduc- which should be explored in the future.
Paper 1994-4 33
F-
-
Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resourres
REFERENCES
Bustin, R.M. (1982): The Effect of Shearing on the Quality of Holuszko, M.E. and Grieve, D.A. (1991): Washability Charac-
Some Coals in the Southeastern Canadian Cordillera; Cana- teristics of British Columbia Coals; in Geological Fieldwork
dian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Bulletin, Volume 1990, Grant, B. and Newell, J.M., Editors, B.C. Ministry of
75, No. 841, pages 76-83. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Paper 199 1- 1,
Bustin, R.M., Cameron, A.R., Grieve, D.A. and Kalkreuth, W.D. pages 371-379.
(1983): Coal Petrology - Its Principles, Methods and Appli- Horsley, R.M. and Smith, H.G. (1951): Principles of Coal Flota-
cations; Geological Association of Canada, Short Course tion; Fuel, Volume 30, pages 54-63.
Notes, Volume 3. Hower, J.C. (1988): Additivity of Hardgrove Grindability: A Case
Butcher, S.G. (1985): Economic Impact of Coal Preparation Prob- Study; Journal of Coal Qualiw, Volume 7, pages 68-70.
lems; Canadian Institute ofMining and Metallurgy, Bulletin, Hower, J.C. and Lineberry, G.T. (1988): The Interaction of Coal
Volume 78, No. 881, pages 47-51. Lithology and Coal Cutting on the Breakage Characteristics
Cook A.C. (1972): Report on Samples of Coal from Sukunka, Can- of Selected Kentucky Coals; Journal of Coal Quality, Vol-
ada; Clifford McElroy and Associates Pty. Lid., unpublished ume 7, pages 88-95.
internal report, January 1972 Hower, J.C. and Wild G.D. (1991): Maceral Partitioning for Se-
Cook, A.C. (1981): What Are We Trying to Separate?; Separation lected Eastern Kentucky Coals; Journal of Coal Quality, Vol-
Science and Technology, Volume 16, No. 10, pages 1545- ume 10, No. 4, pages 159-163.
1569. Hower, J.C., Esterle, J.S., Wild, G.D. and Pollock, J.D. (1990):
Perspectives on Coal Lithotypes Analysis; Journal of Coal
Cameron, A.R. (1972): Petrography of Kootenay Coals in the Up-
Quality, Volume 9, No. 2, pages 48-52.
per Elk River and Crowsnest Areas, British Columbia and
Alberta; Research Council of Alberta, Information Series Hower, J.C., Grease, A.M. and Klapheke, J.G. (1987): Influence
No. 60, pages 3 1-45 of Microlithotype Composition on Hardgrove Grindability
for Selected Eastern Kentucky Coals; International Journal
Diessel, C.F.K. (1965): Correlation of Macro and Micropetrogra- of Coal Geology, Volume 7, pages 68-70.
phy of some New South Wales Coals; in Proceedings, Vol-
ume 6,8th Commonwealth Mineralogical and Metallurgical Hower, J.C., Trinkle, E.J. and Wild G.D. (1986): Maceral Parti-
Congress, Melbourne, Woodcock, J.T., Madigan, R.T. and tioning through Beneficiation of Illinois Basin Coals; Inter-
Thomas, R.G., Editors, pages 669-677. national Journal of Coal Preparation, Volume 2, pages
149-164.
Diessel, C.F.K., (1986): The Correlation between Coal Facies and
Depositional Environments. Advances in the Study of the International Committee for Coal Petrology (ICCP) (1963): Inter-
Sydney Basin; in Proceedings, 20th Symposium, The Uni- national Handbook of Coal Petrology, 2nd Edition; Centre
versity of Newcastle, New South Wales, pages 19-22. Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris
Kalkreuth, W.D., Marchioni, D.L., Calder, J.H., Lamberson, M.N.,
Falcon, L.M. and Falcon, R.M.S. (1983): The Application of Coal
Naylor,R.D. and Paul, J. (1991): The Relationship between
Petrography to Certain Beneficiation Techniques on South
Coal Petrography and Depositional Environments from Se-
African Coal; Geological Society of South Africa, Special
lected Coal Basins in Canada; International Journal of Coal
Publication 7, pages 137-148.
Geology, Volume 19, pages 21-76.
Falcon, L.M. and Falcon, R.M.S. (1987): The Petrographic Com- Kenyon, C., Cathyl-Bickford, C.G. and Hoffman, G. (1991): Quin-
position of Southern African Coals in Relation to Friability, Sam and Chute Creek Coal Deposits (NTS 92F/13,14); B.C.
Hardness and Abrasive Indices; South African Institute of Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Paper
Mining and Metallurgy, Journal, Volume 87, pages 323-336. 1991-3.
Grieve, D.A. (1985): Rank Variation, Coallfication Pattern and Klassen W.I. (1966): Flotation of Petrographic Components; in
Coal Quality in the Crowsnest Coalfield, British Columbia; Flotacja Wegla, Slask, Katowice, Poland.
Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Bulletin, Vol-
ume 78, No. 881, pages 39-46. Lamberson, M.N., Bustin, R.M., Kalkreuth, W, and Pratt K.C.
(1989): Lithotype Characteristics and Variation in Selected
Grieve, D.A. (1992): British Columbia Coal Quality Catalogue; Coal Seams of the Gates Formation, Northeastern British
B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Columbia; in Geological Fieldwork 1989, B.C. Ministry of
Information Circular 1992-20. Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Paper 1990-1,
Holuszko, M.E. (1991): Wettability and Floatability of Coal Mac- pages 461-468.
erals as Derived from Flotations in Methanol Solutions; un- Lamberson, M.N., Bustin, R.M. and Kalkreuth, W. (1991): Litho-
published M.A.Sc. thesis, The University of British type (Maceral) Composition and Variation as Correlated
Columbia. with Paleo-wetland Environments, Gates Formation, North-
Holuszko, M.E. (1992): Washability of Lithotypes from a Selected eastern British Columbia, Canada; International Journal of
Seam in the East Kootenay Coalfield, Southeast British Co- Coal Geology, Volume 18, pages 87-124.
lumbia; in Geological Fieldwork 1992, Grant, B. and New- Laskowski, T. (1948): Problem of Processing of Fines in the Polish
ell, J.M., Editors, B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Coal Industry; in Biuletyn Instytutu Naukowo-Badawczego
Petroleum Resources, Paper 1993-1, pages 5 17-525. Przemyslu Weglowego, (Polish National Science Foundation
Paper 1994-4 35
K- -
t British Columbia
and the Department of the Interior Bulletin), No. 23, pages Ryan, B. (1992): Estimation of Coal Washability Using Small Sam-
1-82. ples; Journal of Coal Quality, Volume 11, No. 1-2, pages
Laskowski, J.S. and Walters, A.D. (1987): Coal Preparation; in 13-19.
Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology, Volume Sanders, G.J. and Brooks, G.F. (1986): Preparation of the "Gond-
3, Academic Press, pages 37-61. wana" Coals. 1. Washability Characteristics; International
Journal of Coal Preparation, Volume 3, pages 105-132.
Leonard, J.W. (1979): Coal Preparation, 4th Edition; American In-
stitute of Mechanical Engineers, New York. Sarkar, G.G. and Das, H.P. (1974): A World Pattern of the Optimum
Ash Levels of Cleans from the Washability Data of Qpical
Mackowsky, M.-Th. and Hoffman, E., (1960): Coal Preparation; Coal Seams; Fuel, Volume 53, pages 74-84.
in Textbook of Coal Petrology; Gerbruder Bomtraegec Ber-
lin, Stuttgart, 3rd Edition, pages 415-419. Sarkar, G.G., Das, H.P. and Ghose, S. (1977): Sedimentation Pat-
terns: Do They Offer Clues to Coal Quality?; WorM Coal,
Marchioni, D.L., (1980): Petrography and Depositional Environ- August 1977, pages 10-13.
ment of the Liddell Seam, Upper Hunter Valley, New South
Smith, G.G. (1989): Coal Resources of the Rocky Mountain Front
Wales; International Journal of Coal Geology, Volume 1,
Ranges and Foothills; British Columbia and Alberta; Coal
No. 1, pages 35-61. Resources of Canada, Geological Survey of Canada, Paper
Matheson, A. (1990): Subsurface Coal Sampling Survey, Quinsam 89-4, pages 50-68.
Area, Vancouver Island, British Columbia; in Geological Stopes, M.C. (1919): On the Four Visible Ingredients in Banded-
Fieldwork 1989, B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petro- Bituminous Coals, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series
leum Resources, Paper 1990-1, pages 439-443. B, 90, page 470.
McCabe, L.C. (1942): Practical Significance of the Physical Con- Sun, S.C. (1954): Hypothesis for Different Floatability of Coals,
stitution of Coal in Coal Preparation; Journal of Geology, Carbons, and Hydrocarbon Minerals; American Institute of
Volume 50, pages 407-410. Mining Engineers, Transactions, Volume 199, pages 67-75.
Mikhail, M.W. and Patching, T.H. (1980): Size Degradation of Bi- White, W.H. (1947): Report on the Memtt Coalfield; in Report of
tuminous Coal from Western Canada; Canadian Institute of the Minister of Mines 1946, B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines
Mining and Metallurgy, Volume 73; No. 8 17, pages 105-110. and Petroleum Resources, pages A250-A279.
Queen'c Printer tor B r ~ t ~ sColumbia0

h
Victoria, 1994

Washability Characteristics British Columbia Coals: by Maria E. Holuszko

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Washability Characteristics British Columbia Coals: by Maria E. Holuszko

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Washability Characteristics British Columbia Coals: by Maria E. Holuszko

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Province of British Columbia MINERAL RESOURCES DIVISION

Ministry of Energy, Mines Geological Survey Branch

By Maria E. Holuszko, P. Eng.

iv Geological Survey Branch

PLATES 6. Line Creek seams - coal bearing strata exposed in the

vi Geological Survey Branch

5. Topography of Mount Taylor in Parcel 82. .

6. Former coal licences in Parcel 73..............................

2 British Columbia Geological Survey Branch

Paper 1994-4 vii

Plate 1. Fording mine operation -view to the West

2 Geological Survey Branch

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COAL

nffrr Scopes (1919) Clnrrificnlion Description

Plate 2. Elkview operation, formerly Balmer mine -coal loading.

4 Geological Survey Branch

Plate 3. Quintette coal preparation plant.

6 Geological Survey Branch

MINERAL MATTER AND ITS

During the process of mining, the structure of a seam is

8 Geological Survey Branch

Type Origin Examples Physical Separation

After Cook (1981).

presents varying washability characteristics (as predicted 0 1

10 Geological Survey Branch

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

as density versus yield (D). The near-gravity material curve TABLE 4

PREDICTING THE EASE OF WASHING DEGREE OF WASHING AND WASHABILITY

a density of separation which maximizes the yield of the

Ash % o f Clean Coal

Ash % o f Clean Coal

given coal sample. It is advisable to express the washability

12 Geological Survey Branch

14 Geological Survey Branch

SOURCES OF DATA AND SAMPLES

Geological Survey Branch

Ministryof Enemy, Mines and Petmleurn Resources

Figure 7. Location of coalfields in British Columbia.

18 Geological Survey Branch

Ministryof Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

mation of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Kootenay Group. Strati- MERRITT COALFIELD

Elk Ford~ng Westar Line Westar Byron Hosrner Sage

Figure 9. Stratigraphic positions of the seams in southeast British Columbia.

20 Geological Sunrey Branch

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resoumes

Clean Coal Ash %

22 Geological Survey Branch

Formationl Yield at Near gravity Ash of rejects

46.18 46.22 1 74 5.25 75 80

400 metres 86.10 18.60 2.00 2.00 67.93

73.56 23.00 1.62 7.W 57.37

Formation1 Yield at Near gravity Ash of rejects

300 metres 75.12 26.84 1 70 5.00 73.91

52.77 44 17 1.71 3.60 80.73

92.44 15.22 1.82 0.50 77.75

*d (10) -density of separation to obtain 10% ash product

Formation/ Raw Ash d (opt) N (opt) Ash (opt) WN Property

26.14 1.50 29.60 13.76 21.51 C