UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - USGS · Research and Development Administration. For each sample, the U.S. Geological Survey has quantitatively determined the amounts of

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Collection, chemical analysis, and evaluation of coal samples in 1975

By

Vernon E. Swanson, Jack H. Medlin, Joseph R. Hatch, S. Lynn Coleman, Gordon H. Wood, Jr., Scott D. Woodruff, and Ricky T. Hildebrand

Open-file report 76-468 1976

This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards and nomenclature,

Table of contentsPage

ADS tiract" ~ j_

Introduction 2

Acknowledgments 3

Methods of sample collection and analysis 5

Distribution of sample localities 6

Evaluation of sample distribution and geochemical data presented 9

Explanation of data presentation 12

Average composition of coal in the United States 15

Summary of analyses of anthracite, Pennsylvania anthracite region- 23

Summary of analyses of bituminous coal, Appalachian region 53

Summary of analyses of bituminous coal, Interior province 217

Summary of analyses of lignite, Gulf province 308

Summary of analyses of lignite and subbituminous coal, Northern

Great Plains province 336

Summary of analyses of coal, Rocky Mountain province 381

Summary of analyses of coal, Alaska province 486

References cited 500

IllustrationsPage

Figure 1. Chart showing sequence of chemical analysis 7

2. Map showing distribution of samples, Eastern

pr o v in c e ~~ ~"~ _______________________ £L\

3. Map showing distribution of samples, eastern and

northern regions, Interior province 218

4. Map showing distribution of samples, western region,

Interior province 219

5. Map showing distribution of samples, Gulf province 309

6. Map showing distribution of samples, Northern Great

JTj_ciins pirovniCG" "-~ ~~ ~~~~~~ - - - - ~~ -" "* jj/

7. Map showing distribution of samples, Rocky Mountain

province 382

8. Map showing distribution of samples, Pacific Coast

province . 480

9. Map showing distribution of samples, Alaska province 487

TablesPage

Table 1. Distribution and number of samples by coal area and

C f-i 4- a_ _________________ ___ _ ____ ____ __ ______ ____ _ _ __ __ ______ ___ flOL.dLC __ _____ Q

2. Average content of 43 elements in shale and in Earth's

C.1TUS L " ^ ^ ^^^^ ^ ^ JLJL

3. Percent of samples by coal rank 16

4. Average composition of all coal samples in United States

and of ranks of coal 17

5. Means and ranges of analyses, 53 anthracite samples,

Pennsylvania anthracite region 25

6. Sample descriptions and analyses, 53 anthracite samples,

Pennsylvania anthracite region 28

7. Means and ranges of analyses, 331 coal samples,

A T\T> Q 1 Q oT^ "1 Qn T*_CJ O" "1 rf^n » __ _ ._ _._, ._. « « « « « « « « .-_ ._. ._. ._.._ ._. « « « « « « « « « « «- «- «- «- -.-* .-. _-_. ^\ /irl]-lpclJ.clC.IlXcLLl -L Cg J_ULJ. _. ...... JH-

8. Sample descriptions and analyses, 97 coal samples,.

9. Sample descriptions and analyses, 70 coal samples, Ohio 103

10. Sample descriptions and analyses, eight coal samples,

Maryland 130

11. Sample descriptions and analyses, 49 coal samples, West

TM fo-i-n-i a __________ _____________ _____________ _______ ________________ __ 1 "\fiV J.I. gJUlJLa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . JLJU

12. Sample descriptions and analyses, 45 coal samples,

Virginia 162



T* ̂ nn £_o o £_£_« « « « « _ « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « JL tumctjcjct;


A1 aKamn __________________________________ , _______________________________ 91 1 riXdUdUld .-. _«XX

16. Means and ranges of analyses, 143 coal samples, Interior

province 221

17. Sample descriptions and analyses, three coal samples,

_____ 99 A _^_^*+

Tables continuedPage

Table 18. Sample descriptions and analyses, 22 coal samples,

Trirl -J ar»a ____ ___ ___ ___ __ __ __ ___ __ ___ __ __ __ _ ___ 99QJ-L1L1 Xdllct ^£,37

19. Sample descriptions and analyses, 32 coal samples, Iowa- 240

20. Sample descriptions and analyses, five coal samples,


Missouri 264


V^TIOOO 9 "1 QIXctiiOCLo ~" ~" "~" £. / y



A.T" £cLHS clS """ *"" " " """""" """" ""*"""*1""" t ""t ~"~"""'"~"""'"~"~"~" ^-./ /

25. Means and ranges of analyses, 34 lignite samples ,. Gulf

pro vine e~

26. Sample descriptions and analyses, 19 lignite samples,

AT o1->oma _______ _______ ____ ____ __________ _____________ ________________ _____f\ JLcLUcililcL

27. Sample descriptions and analyses, seven lignite samples,

28. Sample descriptions and analyses, eight lignite samples,

29. Means and ranges of analyses, 93 subbituminous coal and

lignite samples, Northern Great Plains province 339

30. Sample descriptions and analyses, 18 lignite samples,

North Dakota 342

31. Sample descriptions and analyses, 40 coal samples, Powder

River region, Montana 351

32. Sample descriptions and analyses, 35 coal samples, Powder

River region, Wyoming 365

33. Means and ranges of analyses, 124 coal samples, Rocky

Mountain province 383

34. Sample descriptions and analyses, 14 coal samples, Hams

Fork region, Wyoming 386

Tables continuedPage

Table 35. Sample descriptions and analyses, three coal samples,

Green River region, Wyoming 396


Hanna field, Wyoming 401


North Park field, Colorado 412


Boulder-Weld field, Colorado 423

39. Sample descriptions and analyses, two lignite samples,

Denver region, Colorado 428

40. Sample descriptions and analyses, four coal and rock

samples, Canon City field, Colorado 433

41. Sample descriptions and analyses, 26 coal samples, Uinta

region, Utah . 438


Black Mesa field, Arizona 453

43. Sample descriptions and analyses, 12 coal samples, San

Juan River region, New Mexico 462

44. Sample descriptions and analyses, two coal samples,

Raton Mesa region, New Mexico 470

45. Sample descriptions and analyses, four coal samples,

Carthage and Jornada del Muerto fields, New Mexico 475


Washington- 481

47. Means and ranges of analyses, 18 coal samples, Alaska

province 488


Alaska province 491

Abstract

During 1975, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with other

Federal and State agencies, university groups, and private companies,

continued its program to augment and refine information on the

composition of coal in the United States. This report includes all

analytical data on 799 channel samples of coal beds from major operating

mines and core holes in 28 States, collected mainly by State Geological

Surveys under a cooperative program funded largely by the U.S. Energy

Research and Development Administration.

For each sample, the U.S. Geological Survey has quantitatively

determined the amounts of 24 major, minor, and trace elements (including

Al, As, Cd, Cu, F, Hg, Mh, Na, Pb, Se, U, and Zn), and has semiquantita-

tively determined the concentrations of 15 to 20 additional trace elements

(including B, Be, Cr, Ge, Mo, Ni, and V). In addition, the U.S. Bureau

of Mines has provided proximate and ultimate analyses, and Rtu and

forms-of-sulfur determinations on 488 of the samples.

Statistical summaries of the data are given for all coal samples in

the United States, for coal divided by rank (53 anthracite, 509 bituminous

coal, 183 subbituminous coal, and 54 lignite samples), and the arithmetic

means, ranges, and geometric means and deviations are given for the coal

in each of seven different major coal areas in the United States. For

example, the average coal in the United States contains 11.3 percent ash,

10.0 percent moisture, 2.0 percent sulfur, and has 11,180 Btu per pound;

of the 10 major oxides determined on the 525°C ash, the average SiO

content is 38 percent, Al ?0_ 20 percent, and Na~0 0.67 percent; the

average Cd content is 7.3 ppm, Pb 114 ppm, and Zn 151 ppm (range 1 ppm to

6.0 percent). As determined on the raw coal, the average Hg content is

0.18 ppm (range

2

Introduction

The present and planned large surge in the mining and utilization

of coal has resulted in increasingly frequent requests from industry,

university and government groups for detailed high-quality data on the

composition of coal in the United States. These data are fundamental

in determining the initial economic value of the coal, in evaluating

environmental effects of coal mining and coal use, and in determining

the adaptability of the coal to beneficiation (cleaning), gasification,

liquefaction, and other technologic processes of coal treatment.

For 5 years, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the

Bureau of Mines, has had a growing coal geochemistry program to collect

representative samples from the hundreds of beds of coal (lignite,

subbituminous, bituminous, and anthracite) from which coal is being

produced, or will be produced in the United States. Beginning with the

collection and analysis of 71 coal samples and 16 power-plant ash samples

for the U.S. Department of the Interior's Southwest Energy Study in 1971,

the program has steadily expanded. Now, more than 3,100 samples have

been analyzed by the U.S. Geological Survey, and most of the analyses

have been made publically available in several reports (Swanson, 1972;

U.S. Geological Survey and Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1973,

1974, 1976; Swanson, Huffman, and Hamilton, 1974; U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, 1975a, b, c; Staff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975; this

report). Major segments of the data have also been summarized in a

series of papers presented at national scientific meetings (Swanson and

Vine, 1972; Medlin and others, 1975a, b, and 1976; Coleman and others,

1975: Millard and Swanson, 1975), and prepared by the State Geological

Surveys (Glass [Wyoming]., 1975; Conwell [Alaska], 1976; Williamson

[Mississippi], 1976; Self and others [Alabama], in press).

On April 30, 1975, the coal geochemistry program was further

expanded by the infusion of funds to the U.S. Geological Survey by the

U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration. Coincident with

this expansion, the State Geological Surveys were invited to cooperate

in the program by submitting samples for analysis. Consequently, the

program is now geared to collect and analyze about 2,000 samples per

year.

This report contains tables of analyses of coal samples submitted

to the U.S. Geological Survey in 1975. About 80 percent of the

samples were collected by State Geological Surveys and analyzed

under the USGS-ERDA agreement, about 15 percent of the samples

were generated within the several projects of the U.S. Geological

Survey, and the remainder were obtained and analyzed under

cooperative arrangements of mutual benefit with coal companies

and university groups.

Acknowledgments

The work that resulted in this report involved the direct

and close cooperation of three groups the U.S. Geological Survey, the

State Geological Surveys, and the Energy Research and Development

Administration. Many individuals in each group contributed materially

to the program, and each individual is herein recognized and given

credit for the accomplishment of objectives attained to date.

The U.S. Geological Survey initiated the program, coordinated the

effort, conducted the analytical study, and is primarily responsible

for reporting the results. Vernon E. Swanson, Gordon H. Wood, Jr. ,

and Jack H. Medlin conceived the program, and were mainly responsible

for bringing the study to its present stage. Joseph R. Hatch and

S. Lynn Coleman have carried much of the day-to-day load of sample

processing and data compilation, assisted by Arthur R. Norton,

Thomas E. Carter, Ricky T. Hildebrand, Scott D. Woodruff, Antoinette L.

Medlin, and Josephine G. Boerngen. John E. Johnston and Val Zadnick

provided much of the direction in obtaining the assistance of the

State Geological Surveys to collect samples.

Fundamental to the program, of course, was and is the team of

chemical laboratory personnel in the U.S. Geological Survey, under the

direction of Claude Huffman, Jr., Fred 0. Simon, and Irving May:

Philip A. Baedecker, James W. Baker, Ardith J. Bartel, David A.

Bickford, Leon A. Bradley, Floyd W. Brown, Joseph W. Budinsky,

George T. Burrow, Esma Y. Campbell, Anthony F. Dorrzapf, Jr., Edward J.

Fennelly, Francis J. Flanagan, Johnnie M. Gardner, Paul L. Greenland,

Patricia G. Guest, John C. Hamilton, Raymond G. Havens, Adolph W. Haubert,

Jesse 0. Johnson, Herbert Kirschenbaum, Benjamin A. McCall, Robert E.

McGregor, Violet M. Merritt, Hugh T. Millard, Jr., Roosevelt Moore,

Harriet G. Neiman, Norma Rait, Jack J. Rowe, Louis J. Schwarz, Van E.

Shaw, Gaylord D. Shipley, James A. Thomas, Richard E. Van Loenen,

James S. Wahlberg, Thomas L. Yager, Robert J. Young, and Robert A.

Zielinski. In connection with the acknowledgment to the above staff of

chemical analysts, the invaluable contribution of the chemists in the

Coal Analysis Section (Forrest E. Walker, Chemist-in-Charge), U.S. Bureau

of Mines, Pittsburgh, Pa., is also gratefully acknowledged.

The following geologists of the U.S. Geological Survey have also

participated in the program by collecting coal samples: Douglas F. B.

Black, S. Lynn Coleman, Carol W. Connor, William C. Culbertson,

Kenneth J. Englund, Wilfred P. Hasbrouck, Joseph R. Hatch, Philip T.

Hayes, Thomas W. Henry, Robert G. Hobbs, Edwin R. Landis, Edward J.

McKay, Jack H, Medlin, Charles R. Meissner, William F. Outerbridge,

Charles L. Rice, Henry W. Roehler, J. David Sanchez, Elmer M. Schell,

Vernon E. Swanson, Virgil A. Trent, Dwight E. Ward, Ralph C. Warlow,

and John F. Windolph.

The conscientious and willing efforts by personnel in the State

Geological Surveys in collecting and submitting samples is hereby

acknowledged: Geological Survey of Alabama Peter A. Boone and

Bruce M. Veek; Alaska Department of Natural Resources Cleland N.

Conwell; Arizona Bureau of Mines Richard T. Moore and Charles W.

Kevin; Arkansas Geological Commission Boyd R. Haley (USGS) and

Mac B. Woodward; Colorado Geological Survey D. Keith Murray; Idaho

Bureau of Mines and Geology Charles R. Knowles; Illinois State

Geological Survey Harold J. Gluskoter and Faith Fiene; Indiana

Department of Natural Resources, Geological Survey D. E. Eggert,

M. T. Iverson, R. K. Leininger, Walter A. Hasenmueller, and Lewis V.

Miller; Iowa Geological Survey Matthew J. Avcin; Kansas Geological

Survey Lawrence L. Brady; Maryland Geological Survey Monty Nock and

R. H. Martin; Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Geological

Survey Division Harry 0. Sorensen; Mississippi Geological Survey

David R. Williamson and Michael Bograd; Missouri Geological Survey

Charles E. Robertson and Ardel W. Rueff; Montana Bureau of Mines and

Geology Robert E. Matson; Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division

Raymond R. Burchett; Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Lawrence

Garside and John H. Schilling; New Mexico State Bureau of Mines and

Mineral Resources Geroge S. Austin and Frank E. Kottlowski; North

Dakota Geological Survey Clarence G. Carlson; Ohio Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Geological Survey Horace R. Collins and

Donald Strieb; Oklahoma Geological Survey Samuel A. Friedman;

Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and Geological Survey William E.

Edmunds, Daniel Gabler, J. C. Hampel, R. V. Reardon, and V. W. Skema;

Tennessee Department of Conservation A. R. Leaman and Edward T. Luther;

Texas Bureau of Economic Geology Christopher D. Henry and Edmund G.

Wermund, Jr.; Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Fitzhugh D. Davis and

Hellmut H. Doelling; Washington Department of Natural Resources

Ellis R. Vonheeder; West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey

Thomas Arkle, Jr., Nick Fedorko, C. D. Henderson, Forrest S. Jones,

Alan Reiser, R. H. Mullennex, Warren Norton, Robert S. Reppert,

Michal Roscoe, and Carl Smith; Wyoming Geological Survey Gary B. Glass.

Much of the work represented in this report was supported and

funded under USGS-ERDA Interagency Agreement No. E (49-18)-2005, dated

April 30, 1975. The advice and cooperation of the following ERDA

personnel are gratefully acknowledged: Paul Duhamel, Harold Podell,

and Alexander Mills.

Methods of sample collection and analysis

Since the inception of the program, the U.S. Geological Survey

has issued and informally distributed a set of guidelines on collecting

coal samples and a summary of the chemical methods used in analyzing

the samples. This information is now available in a U.S. Geological Survey

Circular (Swanson and Huffman, 1976). In general, most samples are

channel samples of individual coal beds; where beds exceed 1.5 m (5 ft) in

thickness, a channel sample is taken of each 1.5-m (5-ft) interval. The

same sample intervals are used in drill-core samples. The samples, each

weighing about 2 kg (4-5 Ib), are put into and transported in plastic bags to

minimize moisture loss and possible chemical contamination, particularly

trace-metal contamination by cloth bags or metal containers. The

sequence of sample preparation and the methods of chemical analysis

routinely used on samples are shown in the following chart (fig. 1) .

All completed coal chemical analyses, including both U.S. Bureau

of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey analyses, are on file on computer

cards, and also are stored in the U.S. Geological Survey's National

Coal Resource Data System. These data can thus be rapidly retrieved,

and can be statistically manipulated for local, regional, or National

summation, correlation, and map-display purposes.

Distribution of sample localities

The areas containing the coal resources in the United States are

divided into provinces, regions,, and fields (Trumbull, 1960). The

specific areas and number of samples reported on here are listed in

table 1 (States are also listed for information purposes). The

descriptions of individual samples are given in the sets of tables of

analytical data for each area. It should be noted that, as of

February 15, 1976, about an additional 300 samples have been submitted

to the laboratories, mostly from the 28 States listed in table 1, but

also from Idaho and Nevada.

One

quart

(abo

ut 60

0 g)

of

coal split

out

for

U.S. Bureau of

Mines

analysis

Ultimate an

d proximate

analyses

(procedures

described

in U.S.

Bur. Mines

Bull

. 638, 1967,

p. 3-12)

Ulti

mate

an

alys

is

and

sulf

urs

Perc

ent

ash

C H 0 N S (total)

S (s

ulfa

te)

S (p

yrit

ic)

S (o

rgan

ic)

Proximate

anal

ysis

Perc

ent

moisture,

vola

tile

ma

tter

, fi

xed

carbon,

and

ash

Heat

va

lue

Btu

per

pound

(cal pe

r kg)

(ato

mic

Raw

coal as re

ceiv

ed (a

bout

5

poun

ds,

or 2.3

kg,

brok

en to 3

cm)

Air

dry

in oven at 32

°C

Sample crushed

and

then

ground

in ve

rtic

al Br

aun

pulv

eriz

er

usin

g ce

rami

c plates se

t to

pa

ss 80

mesh, an

d mixed

One-pint (a

bout

30

0 g)

crushed

coal split

out

for

stor

age

Raw

ground coal

Ground coal (25

to 75 g) as

hed

at

525°C

and

perc

ent

ash

calc

ulat

ed,

ash

then

mi

xed Coal

ash

Wet

chem

ical

an

alys

is

Kg (f

lame

less

atomic

adso

rpti

on

Sb (colorlmetric)

As (colorim

etric)

1 lemical

sis

LC )tio

n)

lg la :d :u A In >b n

F (selective io

n electrode)

I

Six-

step

spectrographic

analysis (6

3 el

emen

t looked fo

r)

Elem

ents

generally

repo

rted

:

Ba Be Co Cr Ga Ge La

Mo

Nb

Ni Sc Sr V Y Yb Zr

X-ray

fluo

resc

ence

analysis

Al Ca Fe K P Si S Ti Cl

X-ra

y fluor-

esce

nce

Se

Neut

ron

activation

U Th

Figure 1. Flow

chart

show

ing

sequ

ence

of

sample preparation

and

chem

ical

analysis

Table 1. Distribution and number of samples by coal area and State

Area No. Area No.

Eastern Province 384

Pennsylvania Anthracite Region- 53

Appalachian Region 331

Pennsylvania 97

Ohio 70

Maryland

West Virginia

Virginia

Kentucky

Tennessee

8

49

45

34

18

Alabama 10

Interior Province-

Northern Region-

Michigan -

143

3

3

Eastern Region 22

Indiana 22

Illinois 0

Kentucky 0

Western Region 118

Iowa 32

Nebraska 5

Missouri 30

Kansas 14

Oklahoma 21

Arkansas 16

Gulf Province (lignite)-

Alabama

Mississippi

Arkansas -

Texas -

34

19

7

8

Northern Great Plains Province 93

Fort Union Region

North Dakota -

Montana -

Powder River Region-

Montana -

Wyoming -

Rocky Mountain Province--

Wyoming -

Hams Fork Region -

Green River Region-

18

18

0

75

40

35

124

34

14

3

Hanna Field 17

Colorado

North Park Field

Boulder-Weld Field

Denver Region

Canon City Field

Utah

Uinta Region

Arizona

Black Mesa Field

New Mexico

San Juan River Region

Raton Field

Carthage and Jornada Fields

Pacific Coast Province-

Washington - -

Alaska Province-

0 Total number of samples

30

21

3

2

4

26

26

16

16

18

12

2

4

3

3

18

799

Evaluation of sample distribution and ©f geochemical

data presented

Each analysis on each coal sample contributes significantly to

the base of knowledge necessary for intelligent evaluation and

utilization of the coal resources of the United States. Thus,

each of the approximately 45,000 individual chemical determinations

(about 115,000 reported values) on the 799 samples in this report

is both valuable and noteworthy. The majority of the samples are

from some 150 major producing mines in the United States, and the

resulting analytical data provide the first comprehensive modern

basis for summarizing elemental contents of U.S. coal, for example,

the average arsenic, mercury, or selenium content of U.S. coal.

However, these averages can be misinterpreted and placed in

the wrong perspective. To place the program in a slightly different

perspective, Averitt (1975) estimated the coal resources of the

United States to be 3.968 trillion short tons. Using this figure,

each of the 3,133 coal samples analyzed during the first 5 years

of the U.S. Geological Survey's coal geochemistry program could be

considered as having to represent more than 1 billion tons of coal.

This is hardly a statistically valid basis for evaluating the

quality of coal in the United States. Nor is this number of samples

sufficient on which to make sound decisions on all of the technological

and environmental problems that will arise during the planned mining

and utilization of coal within the next few decades. From this

latter perspective, the Nation's demonstrated reserve base for coal

that can be currently mined economically by underground or by

stripping methods is about 437 billion short tons (U.S. Bur. Mines,

1975); on this basis, one sample would have to represent about

140 million tons, which is equivalent to about one sample for three

major strip mines, or one sample for 14 major underground mines.

Both the geographic and stratigraphic distribution of samples

described in this report is presently strongly biased in favor of

accessible existing mines that are, in some cases, contiguous to

each other. Samples from many smaller mines, coal outcrops, and

drill cores will be needed to provide a better sample distribution

for valid statistical studies.

10

The actual amounts of 41 to 45 chemical elements are given in

the many tables of data in the following parts of this report.

Table 2L, which does not include the five organic elements (C, H, N,

0, and S), is presented here to provide some basis for evaluating

whether the amounts of one or more elements in coal are significantly

different (higher or lower) than the average amounts in shale

(Turekian and Wedepohl, 1961, table 2) or the Earth's crust (Taylor,

1964, table 3). Each element can thus be individually compared, and

a summation of those elements appreciably concentrated in coal is

given in the text section for all coal in the United States, and at

the beginning of the presentation of data for each province. However,

it is beyond the scope of this report to describe the known or probable

association of each element with the mineral or organic fraction of

coal, or the probable fate of the element during coal combustion, or

other coal utilization processes.

Table 2 . Average content of 43 elements in shale and

in Earth's crust, to be used for comparison with the

contents of these elements in coal listed in other

tables in this report

Shale, average

(Turekian and Wedepohl, 1961)

Si

Al

Ca

Mg

Na

K

Fe

Mn

Tl

P

Cl

As

Cd

Cu

F

Hg

LI

Pb

Sb

Se

Th

U

Zn

Ag

B

Ba

Be

Ce

Co

Cr

Ga

Ge

La

Mb

Mb

Md

Nl

Sc

Sr

V

Y

Yb

Zr

7.3Z

8.0Z

2. 21%

1.5Z

.96Z

2.66Z

4.72Z

.085Z

.46Z

.070Z

.08Z

13 ppm

.3 ppm

45 ppm

740 ppm

. 4 ppm

66 ppm

20 ppm

1.5 ppm

.6 ppm

12 ppm

3 . 7 ppm

95 ppm

.07 ppm

100 ppm

580 ppm

3 ppm

59 ppm

19 ppm

90 ppm

19 ppm

1.6 ppm

92 ppm

2.6 ppm

11 ppm

24 ppm

68 ppm

13 T>pm

300 ppm

130 ppm

26 ppm

2.6 ppm

160 ppm

Earth's crust, average

(Taylor, 1964)

28.15Z

8.23Z

4.15Z

2.33Z

2.36Z

2.09Z

5.63Z

.095Z

.57Z

.105Z

.013Z

1 . 8 ppm

.2 ppm

55 ppm

625 ppm

.08 ppm

20 ppm

12.5 ppm

. 2 ppm

.05 ppm

9 . 6 ppm

2 . 7 ppm

70 ppm

.07 ppm

10 ppm

425 ppm

2 . 8 ppm

60 ppm

25 ppm

100 ppm

15 ppm

1.5 ppm

30 ppm

1.5 ppm

20 ppm

28 ppm

75 ppm

22 ppm

375 ppm

135 ppm

33 ppm

3.0 ppm

165 ppm

12

Explanation of data presentation

The remaining part of this report presents the geochemical data

on the 799 samples analyzed in 1975, and the summaries of these data.

The first section is a summary, including tables, of the average

composition of coal in the United States, and of the average composition

of the different ranks of coal in the United States.

The format of the remaining sections of the report is as follows:

1. Summary of sample and analytical data by coal province, including

a. Written summary.

b. Map showing locations from which coal samples collected,

c. Table listing means and ranges of proximate, ultimate, Btu,

and forms-of-sulfur determinations,

d. Table listing means and ranges of major and minor oxides

in ash of coal,

e. Table listing means and ranges of elements calculated on

whole-coal basis (to be compared with data in table

that gives the average abundance of these elements in

the Earth's crust and in shale).

2. Listing of data on individual samples by State or coal field,

including

a. Table of sample descriptions.

b. Table presenting analyses by U.S. Bureau of Mines, including

proximate and ultimate analyses, and the Btu and forms-of-

sulfur determinations.

c. Table of analyses of laboratory ash, including major and

minor oxide content, quantitative determinations of five

trace elements, and the semiquantitative determinations

of an additional 17 to 20 trace elements.

d. Table of quantitative analyses of whole coal for seven

trace elements.

e. Table of all major, minor, and trace elements on a whole-

coal basis.

13

The geographic locality of each sample is given as to State and

county except for Alaska. Alaska is not divided into counties, so the

samples are located on the basis of quadrangle maps instead of counties.

However, within the U.S. Geological Survey data system, the locality

is given more precisely in either latitude and longitude coordinates

or by a township, range, section, and quarter-section designation.

The names of all coal beds in some regions are not listed

because of correlation problems within basins or, as in parts of

the western U.S., because many beds have not been named or formally

correlated. Because of the above, some coal-bed names in the tables

are designated simply as undetermined or unknown, by informal numbers

or by letters, or by some other descriptive term. In the western

U.S., the name of the geologic formation which contains the coal bed

is used where the coal-bed name is unknown or uncertain. To

facilitate distinctions in the tables, the letter (B) for coal bed,

or (F) for formation precedes the name.

In the table displaying the U.S. Bureau of Mines analyses,

quite commonly several samples have been composited into one sample

for analysis. An asterisk by the sample number indicates where

compositing has been done. As a consequence of this compositing,

the number of samples, within a given set, submitted for proximate

and ultimate analyses will often be less than the number of samples

submitted for other oxide and elemental analyses. Compositing of

samples is done where several samples are from the same locality

(outcrop, mine face, or drill core), or where a set of samples is

closely spaced within a general area.

The sample numbers preceded by the letter D or W (Denver or

Washington) indicate the U.S. Geological Survey laboratory

responsible for the analysis.

14

In this report the geometric mean (GM) is used as the estimate of

the most probable concentration (mode); the geometric mean is the

antilog of the logarithms of concentrations. The measure of scatter

about the mode used here is the geometric deviation (GD) which is the

antilog of the standard deviation of the logarithms of concentration.

These statistics are used because of the common tendency for the amounts

of trace elements in natural materials to exhibit positively skewed

frequency distributions; these distributions are normalized by analyzing

and summarizing trace element data on a logarithmic basis.

If the frequency distributions are, in fact, lognormal, the

geometric mean is the best estimate of the mode, and the estimated

range of the central two-thirds of the observed distribution has a

lower limit equal to GM/GD and an upper limit equal to GM-GD. The

estimated range of the central 95 percent of the observed distribution2 2

has a lower limit equal to GM/(GD) and an upper limit equal to GM*(GD)

(Connor and others, 1976).

Although the geometric mean is, in general, an adequate estimate

of the most common concentration, it is, nevertheless, a biased

estimate of the arithmetic mean. In the summary tables of data, the

estimates of the arithmetic means are Sichel's _t statistic (Miesch,

1967). In this report the terms arithmetic mean, average value, and

abundance are used synonymously.

A common problem in statistical summaries of trace element data

arises when the element concentration in one or more of the samples

lies below the limit of analytical detection, resulting in a censored

distribution. Procedures developed by Cohen (1959) were used here to

compute unbiased estimates of the geometric mean, geometric deviation,

and arithmetic mean where the concentration data are censored.

15

Average composition of coal in the United States

The analytical data in this report are not adequate in number and

sufficiently representative (table 3) to make reliable estimations of

the average composition of coal in the United States and of the

different ranks of coal. However, these estimates are listed for

several purposes: 1) the value given for any element or component can

be used as a baseline value for comparing the higher or lower value of

another coal sample or group of coal samples; 2) the list of element

abundances in coal can be added to and readily compared to similar

lists of average abundances for shale, sedimentary rocks, and the

Earth's crust; and 3) list provides an informed basis for reasonable

decisions on the most efficient utilization of coal, regulation of coal

use, and the expected potential for byproduct recovery from coal use.

No attempt is made in this report to compare the averages of coal

composition given here to the many averages published in years past by

others.

Table 4A presents the average composition (ultimate and proximate

analyses) of the 488 coal samples analyzed for this report by the U.S.

Bureau of Mines. The values given are believed to be excellent averages

for all coal in the United States, and for the different ranks of coal,

with the possible exception of lignite. The average values, for example,

for percent ash and sulfur in lignite appear to be about 20 to 25 percent

too high, and the Btu/lb to be about 20 to 25 percent too low; the

explanation for these abnormal average values for lignite is the

predominance of data from the 19 samples of lignite from Alabama and

Mississippi (not currently mined), compared with only seven samples

from the Fort Union region.

16

Table 3 . Percent of samples by coal rank included in this report,related to coal reserves andStates as of

Rank of coal and number of samples

Anthracite 53

Bituminous 509

Subbituminous 183

Lignite 54

January 1, 1974.

Percent of samples by rank

6.6

63.7

22.9

6.8

coal production in

Demonstrated coal reserves^' by rank

(percent)

1.6

53.6

38.4

6.4

the United

2/ Coal produced by rank (percent)

0.6

95.1

3.1

1.2

- Modified from U.S. Bureau of Mines (1974)

21- Modified from Averitt (1975, p. 37).

Table 4A . Average composition, in

percent

on as

-rec

eive

d ba

sis,

of

all

coal sa

mple

s, and

of samples

by rank of

co

al proximate and

ultimate an

alys

es, and

Btu

and

f or

ms-o

f-sulfur de

term

inat

ions

.

Moisture

Vol. matter

Fixed

carbon

Ash

Hydrogen

Carbon

Nitr

ogen

Oxygen

Sulfur

Btu

(per

Ib

)

Sulfate

sulf

ur

Pyritic

sulfur

Orga

nic

sulf

ur

All

coal

(488

samples)

10.0

29.9

48.8

11.3 5.1

64.1 1.1

16.4 2.0

11,180

.12

1.19 .70

Anth

raci

te

(38

samp

les)

1.4

6.5

79.5

12.6 2.4

80.1 .8

3.2 .8

12,7

80

.02

.35

.48

Bitu

mino

us

(277

sa

mple

s)

4.8

32.3

51.2

11.7 5.0

69.1 1.3

10.3 2.7

12,2

60

.16

1.70 .88

Subb

itum

inou

s (1

05 sa

mple

s)

18.4

33.8

39.0 8.8

5.9

54.3 1.0

29.3 .7

9,41

0

.04

.35

. 1?

Lignite

(28

samp

les)

41.5

23.0

20.9

14.6 6.8

29.9 .5

46.5 1.7

5,00

0

.24

.68

ft:

18

Table4-B . Average composition of ash (10 major oxides, in percent, and four traceelements , in parts per million) of all

[Percent

All coal (799 samples)

ash determined

Anthracite (53 samples)

coal samples and of samples by rank of coal.

at 525°C on air-dried coal]

Bituminous (509 samples)

Subbituminous (183 samples)

Lignite (54 samples)

Ash, percent

13.5 12.6 13.9 10.8 21.6

Oxides, percent

Si02

A1203

CaO

MgO

Na20

K20

Pe203

MnO

Ti02

SO,

Cd

Cu

Li

Pb

Zn

38

20

7.3

1.6

.67

1.4

17

.10

1.0

7.4

7.3

166

142

114

278

44

31

1.0

.73

.58

2.0

5.3

.03

2.0

1.2

Trace

1.5

314

291

95

151

38

20

4.3

1.1

.45

1.6

23

.10

1.0

3.9

elements, ppm

12.3

190

167

151

368

37

16

13

3.1

1.4

.60

7.2

.06

.82

12

1.0

95

61

44

173

36

12

12

3.6

2.1

.78

.14

.10

.85

17

3.6

93

60

61

114

19

TablaAC . Average amounta of 36 elementa in all coal aamplea and in different ranks of coal, presentedon whole-coal basis. For corner ison, average amounta in shale are listed1961.

Percent

Si

Al

Ca

Kg

Ha

K

Fa

Ha

Ti

ppm

As

Cd

Cu

P

Hg

Li

Pb

Sb

Se

Tb

U

Zn

B

Ba

Ba

Co

Cr

Ga

Ho

Nb

Ni

Sc

Sr

V

Y

Yb

Zr

table 2).

All coal (799 samples)

2.6

1.4

.54

.12

.06

.18

1.6

.01

.08

15

1.3

19

74

.18

20

16

1.1

4.1

4.7

1.8

39

50

150

2

7

15

7

3

3

15

3

100

20

10

1

30

Anthracite (53 aamplea)

2.7

2.0

.07

.06

.05

.24

.44

.002

.15

6

.3

27

61

.15

33

10

.9

3.5

5.4

1.5

16

10

100

1.5

7

20

7

2

3

20

5

100

20

10

1

50

Bltuminoua (SOQ samples)

2.6

1.4

.33

.08

.04

.21

2.2

.01

.08

25

1.6

22

77

.20

23

22

1.4

4.6

5.0

1.9

53

50

100

2

7

15

7

3

3

20

3

100

20

10

1

30

Subbituminoua (183 aamplea)

2.0

1.0

.78

.18

.10

.06

.52

.006

.05

3

.2

10

63

.12

7

5

.7

1.3

3.3

1.3

19

70

300

.7

2

7

3

1.5

5

5

2

100

15

5

.5

20

(Tureklan and Wedepohl.

Lignite (54 aamplea)

4.9

1.6

1.2

.31

.21

.20

2.0

.015

.12

6

1.0

20

94

.-16

19

14

.7

5.3

6.3

2.5

30

100

300

2

5

20

7

2-

5

15

5

300

30

15

1.5

SO

Averageahale

7.3

8.0

2.21

1.55

.96

2.66

4.72

.085

.46

13

.3

45

740

.4

66

20

1.5

.6

12

3.7

95

100

580

3.0

19

90

19

2.6

11

68

13

300

130

26

2.6

160

20

Of particular interest in these figures are the average moisture

content of 10.0 percent for all coal in the United States, 11.3 percent

ash, 2.0 percent sulfur, and 11,180 Btu per Ib. The fact that 60 percent

of the sulfur in United States coal is in the form of sulfides (pyritic

sulfur) is also worthy of note. The decrease of moisture and oxygen

content with increase of coal rank, and the increase of Btu values with

coal rank are as expected. The decrease of hydrogen content with

increasing rank is indicative of the loss of volatile matter, and

suggests that the lower-rank coal, lignite and subbituminous coal, is

of more value for gasification and liquefaction uses.

The average compositions of the ash of all coal in the United States,

and of coal by rank are presented in table 4B. Silica is the most

abundant component, followed by alumina and ferric oxide. The fact

that the contents of both calcium and magnesium oxides are two to three

times greater in lignite and subbituminous coal than in bituminous coal

and anthracite is noteworthy; the explanation is very likely that the

calcium and magnesium compounds initially deposited in peat are more

soluble than other inorganic compounds and are largely removed during

the coalification process. By contrast, silica and alumina are largely

inert in the acid environment of peat and coal and are residually

concentrated during coalification. No explanation will be attempted

here to explain the very conspicuous decrease of S0_ content of ash with

increase in coal rank, except to suggest that the sulfur is captured

during combustion to form calcium, magnesium, and sodium sulfates,

which make up a significant part of the ash of lower-rank coal.

21

The average amounts of phosphate (P 0,.) and chlorine (Cl) in coal

ash are not given in table 4B, because too many samples contained

amounts less than the limit of analytical detection to provide meaningful

averages.

Of the averages of quantitative determinations for the five trace

elements listed in table 46 , it should be noted that the significantly

higher average amounts of cadmium, lead, and zinc in bituminous coal

are directly related to the higher amount of average pyritic sulfur in

bituminous coal (see table 4A).

The final summary table (table 4C ) lists the average amounts of

36 elements in all coal samples and in the different ranks of coal,

presented on a whole-coal basis. (The average values for the five major

organic elements in coal hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and sulfur,

listed in table 4A are not repeated in table 4C).

22

This table 4C is presented in order to look at the composition of

coal as a rock type, and in order to compare the composition of coal

with the composition of the most abundant sedimentary rock, shale. As

might be expected, those elements that form the "major oxides" in coal,

silicon through titanium, are, without exception, significantly less in

coal than in shale. The same holds true for most of the trace elements.

The only important exceptions are arsenic, cadmium, and selenium,

and then only for some of the average values of the different ranks of

coal. Selenium averages from two to nine times higher in the different

coal ranks than in shale. The average amounts of molybdenum, lead,

antimony, and zinc in coal are very similar to those in shale. When

one recalls that the average sulfur content of all coal is 2-.0 percent

(table 4A), and that of shale is 0.24 percent (Turekian and Wedepohl,

1961, table 2), the average amounts of the above listed seven trace

elements in coal are better understood because they generally are

considered to be directly correlated with sulfur, and are present in coal

mainly as sulfides associated with pyrite.

23

Summary of analyses of anthracite, Pennsylvania anthracite region

Tabulated chemical data for 53 anthracite samples from rocks of

Pennsylvania age in east-central Pennsylvania (fig. 2) are presented

in tables 6B, 6C, 6D, and 6E. Statistical summaries of these data are

listed in tables 5A, 5B, and 5C.

Table 5A summarizes, on an as-received basis, the ultimate, proximate,

Btu, and forms-of-sulfur determinations on 38 Pennsylvania anthracite

region samples. From this table, the average (arithmetic mean) ash

content is 12.6 percent, nitrogen 0.8 percent, sulfur 0.8 percent,

and the average Btu/lb is 12,780. For comparison, the average ash

content of 158 bituminous coal samples from the Appalachian region

(table 7A) is 11.0 percent, nitrogen 1.3 percent, sulfur 2.3 percent,

and the average Btu/lb is 12,890.

A comparison of the average concentrations of oxides and elements

in the laboratory ash of the 53 anthracite samples (table 5B) with those

in the laboratory ash of 331 bituminous coal samples from the Appalachian

region (table 7B) shows that Al 0_, Na 0, and TiO. concentrations are

higher by more than 50 percent in the Pennsylvania anthracite, while

Fe~0~, CaO, MnO, S0_, and Cd are higher by more than 50 percent in the

Appalachian region coal. SiO~, MgO, K.O, Cu, Li, Pb, and Zn concentrations

are about the same in both sets of samples.

Table 5C summarizes the oxide or element data calculated to, or

reported on, a whole-coal basis. For comparative purposes, the average

element concentrations in shale (Turekian and Wedepohl, 1961, table 2)

are also listed. A comparison of the average values of elements in

Pennsylvania anthracite with those in the average shale shows that the

concentrations of Zn, Ba, and V are less by more than a factor of five

in the coal, and that the concentrations of Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe, Mn,

F, and B are less by more than a factor of ten. Only Se is enriched

in the coal by more than a factor of five. The concentrations of the

24 other elements reported in the table are very similar to those in the

average shale.

24

Figure 2 . Number and distribution

of samples, Eastern Province.

Explanation: c \ v \^--.*. N̂ ^ r- '.\.l,V\^KjX~. J \

less than 10 samples

10 to 19 samples

20 or more samples

25

Table 5A . Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometricdeviation ofPennsylvania

proximate,anthracite

[All values are in percent

ultimate, and forms-of-sulfur analyses for 38region samples

except Btu and are reported on the as-received basis]

Arithmetic _. , Observed range mean 6(abundance) Minimum Maximum

Proximate and ultimate

Moisture

Volatile matter

Fixed carbon

Ash

Hydrogen

Carbon

Nitrogen

Oxygen

Sulfur

Btu

1.4

6.5

79.5

12.6

2.4

80.1

.8

3.2

.8

12,780

0.5

3.8

39.8

5.2

1.7

43.2

.5

1.3

.3

6,730 14,

Geometric mean

(expected value)

Geometric deviation

analyses

3.9,

11.2

87.0

45.1

3.5

88.2

1.4

9.0

5.1

360

1.3

6.3

78.8

11.1

2.3

79.5

.8

3.1

.7

12,690

1.5

1.3

1.2

1.6

1.2

1.1

1.3

1.3

1.6

1.1

Forms of sulfur

Sulfate

Pyritic

Organic

0.02

.35

.48

0.00

.03

.17

0.09

4.47

.83

0.01

.16

.45

2.0

2.8

1.5

26

deviation of 15 maior and minor oxidesof 53 Pennsylvania

[All samples were ashed

Oxide or element

Ash %

Si02

A1203 %

CaO %

MgO

Na20 %

K20%

Fe203 %

MnO %

Ti02 %

S03

Cd ppm

Cu ppm

Li ppm

Pb ppm

Zn ppm

Arithmetic mean

(abundance)

12.6

44

31

1.0

.73

.58

2.0

5.3

.029

2.0

1.2

1.5

314

291

95

151

anthracite

at 550°C; value

Observed

Minimum

3.1

24

17

.11

.29

.09

.43

.78

.020L

.63

.10L

.5

36

42

13

.63

samples

L after a shown]

range

Maximum

38.4

63

46

15

3.17

4.31

4.6

30

.51

4.8

7.3

5.5

8,850

1,940

592

1,310

and trace elements

value means less

Geometric mean

(expected value)

10.9

42

30

.58

.66

.40

1.8

3.9

.001

1.8

.31

1.1

196

220

69

91

in the ash

than the

Geometric deviation

1.7

1.3

1.3

2.9

1.6

2.3

1.6

2.2

16.2

1.5

5.4

1.7

2.6

2.1

2.2

2.7

27

Table5 C . Arithmetic mean, observed range, geometric mean, and geometric deviation of 36 elements in 53 Pennsylvania anthracite region samples. For comparison average shale values are listed (Turekian and Wedepohl. 1961)

[As,F,Hg,Sb, Se, Th, and U values used to calculate the statistics weredetermined directly on whole-coal. All other values used were calculated from determinations made on coal ash. L means less than the value shown]

Element

Si %Al ICa %Mg ZNa 2K %Fe %Mn ppmTi %As ppmCd ppmCu ppmF ppmHg ppmLi ppmPb ppmSb ppmSe ppmTh ppmU ppmZn ppmB ppmBa ppmBe ppmCo ppmCr ppmGa ppmMo ppmNb ppmNi ppmSc ppmSr ppmV ppmY ppmYb ppmZr ppm

Arithmetic mean

(abundance)

2.72.0.072.055.046.24.44

18.15

6.26

27.361

.1533.19.6.9

3.55.41.5

16.110

1001.57

20723

205

10020101

50

Observed range

Minimum Maximum

3.6.46.007.015.005.019.055

4.8 L.014.7.02

5.920 L

.034.01,0.1 L.6

2.8.3.1

210

.2

.3 L51.5.5-.5 L

3.7

521.15

7

9.46.41.3.239.287

1.54.1

210.53

1401.37

274290

1.2516224.212.51314.425.264.620

3005

50702015157020

70070303

50

Geometric . mean

(expected value)

2.21.8.045.044.033.16.29

4.2, .124.19

21.541

.1124.17.5.6

2.74.71.2

10.0107015

2051.53

153

50207.7

30

Geometric deviation

2.01.72.62.02.32.42.46.2.1.92.72.32.02.42.22.22.02.62.01.81.92.71.82.01.9 '2.21.71.8

201.81.81.83.11.91.71.71.9

Average shale

7.38.02.211.55.96

2.664.72

850.46

13.3

45740

.466201.5.6

123.7

95100580

3.01990192.6

116813

300130262.6

160

Tabl

e SA.~Sample de

scri

ptio

ns for

53 Pe

nnsy

lvan

ian

anthracite samples, fro

m Pe

nnsy

lvan

ia.

Desc

ription

Samp

le No

.D171208

D171209

D171210

D171

211

D171212

D17121

3D1

7121

4D1

7121

5D171216

D171217

D171218

D171219

D171220

D171221

D171

222

D171223

D171224

D171

225

D171226

D171

227

W184936

W18493

7W184938

W184

939

W184940

W184

941

W184

942

County

Schuylkill

Northumberland

~do~

do~

do

do

do-

Carbon

Luzerne

do

Schuyl

kill

do-

Columb

iaLu

zern

e do

do

do

do

do

do

Schuylkill

do

do

do

do

Nor th

umb er

land

do

Coal

be

d (B)

or formation

(F)

(B)

Orch

ard (9

12)

(B)

Lyke

ns Valley #4

(B)

Buck Mountain (#

5)(B)

Holmes (#10)

(B)

Roug

h (#10 1/2)

(B)

Holmes (#10)

(B)

#9 1/

2(B

) Orchard (#

12)

(B)

Primrose (#

11)

(B)

Buck M

ount

ain(

#5)

(B)

Holmes(#10)

(B)

Prim

rose

(#

11)

(B)

Buck Mou

ntai

n(#5

) do

do

do

(B)

Gamm

a (#6)

(B)

Bottom R

oss

(B)

Buck Mou

nt ain

( #5

) do

(B)

Mamm

oth(

#5)

do

do

do

(B)

Mammoth(#8)

(B)

Mammoth(#8 and

19)

(B)

Mamm

oth(

#8)

Rank

Anthracite

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do-

Samp

le

type

Chan

nel

do

do

do

do

do

do--

Comp

osit

e do-

Chan

nel

do-

Comp

osit

e do-

Channel

Comp

osit

e do-

Chan

nel

Comp

osit

eCh

anne

lCo

mpos

ite

Chan

nel

do

do

do

do-

Comp

os it e

do-

Thic

knes

s (m

etre

s)0.92

1.98 .46

1.06

do

.68

1.72

6.10 .76

1.52

1.01

6.71

1.83 .50

3.66

4.57

4.87

3.05

do

1.52-3.04

.76

.99

1.07

9.14

3.63 .41

6.10

00

Table &A. Sample descriptions for 53

Pennsylvanian

anthracite sa

mple

s from Pen

nsyl

vani

a (continued)

Desc

ript

ion

Samp

le No

.

W18494

3W1

8494

4W184945

W184

946

W184947

W184

948

W184

949

W184950

W184951

W18495

2W1

8495

3W18495

4W184955

W184956

W18495

7W1

8495

8W18495

9W1

8496

0W18496

1W18496

2W184963

W184964

W18496

5W187050

W187051

W187052

County

Northumberland

~do~

Schu

ylki

llCa

rbon do

do

Luzerne

do-

Carb

onSc

huyl

kill

do

do

Nor thum

b er

land

Luzerne do

do

do

do

do

do

Schuylkill

do

do

do

do

do

Coal

be

d (B

) or

fo

rmat

ion

(F)

(B)

Mamm

oth (#

9)(B

) Ma

mmot

h (/

/8)

(B)

Mamm

oth (#

8 1/

2) do

do

do

(B)

Mammoth

do

do

(B)

Mammoth(//8)

(B)

Mamm

oth(

//9)

do

(B)

Mammoth(//8

1/2)

(B)

Buck Mou

ntai

n( #5)

do

(B)

Mammoth(#8 1/

2)(B)

Balt

imor

e do

(B)

Mamm

oth(

#8 1/2)

do

(B)

Mamm

oth(

#8)

do

(B)

Mamm

oth(

#9)

(B)

Prlmrose( #11)

do

do-

Rank

Anth

raci

te do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do

do-

Sample

type

Chan

nel

Composite

Channel

do

do

do-

Comp

osit

e do

do

do

do

do

do-

Chan

nel

do-

Comp

osit

e do

do-

Chan

nel

do

do

do

do

do

do

do--

Thic

knes

s (metres)

3.2

4.57

3.04

3.65

do

3.81 .58

.71

2.74

5.49

4.27

do

do

1.52

1.98

3.04

6.10

do

1.52

do

do

2.43 .92

1.52

do

do

Table

6B Pro

xima

te,

ulti

mate

. Bt

u. and

fo

ras-of

-aul

fur

anal

yses

of

38

anthracite sa

mple

s fr

om Pennsylvania.

anal

yse*

except

Btu

are

in p

erce

nt.

Orig

inal

moi

stur

e co

nten

t na

y be s

ligh

tly

mare

th

an s

hown b

ecau

se s

ampl

es w

ere

coll

ecte

d and

transported

in p

last

ic

bags to

avo

id o

ctal c

ontamination.

Fora

of

anal

yses

: A,

ss

rec

eive

d; B, mo

istu

re free;

C, mo

istu

rs a

nd a

sh f

ree.

Al

l an

alys

es b

y Co

al Analyst*

Section,

U.S. Bu

reau

of Mines, Pi

ttsb

urgh

. Pa

.]

PROXIMATE ANALYSIS

rorm of

Vola

tile

Sample M

o.

anal

ysis

Mo

istu

re

matt

er

D171

208

D171

209

D171

210

0171

211

D171

212

D171

21S

D171

214

D171

215

D171

216

D171

217

D171

226

4 27

D171

218

D171

219

0171

220

A 3.9

11.2

B

11.7

C

21.9

A .7

7.9

B

7.9

C

10.9

A 1.

4 .1

B

.2C

~

.1

A l.S

.3B

.4C

7.2

A .S

7.8

B

7.9

C

«.4

A .»

8.9

B

9.0

C -

13.7

A .8

8.8

B

8.9

C

11.1

A

1.4

3.8

B

C .

.

A

1.4

B -

C ^^

^

A

2.1

B

mim-mi

C

»

A 1.3

B -

C __ 1

_

A 1.

3B

»

C

A

1.4

B

' e»«»»

.9 .4 .6 .7 .2 .8 .9 .3.

.1 .2 .1 .7 .8 .3 .8 .9C

7.7

Fixe

d carbon

39.8

41.4

78.1

64.2

64.8

89.1

80.7

81.9

90.9

80.3

81.5

92.8

85.3

86.0

91.6

56.1

56.6

86.)

70.5

71.1

88.9

83.3

84.5

95.6

84.8

86.0

93.8

86.0

87.9

94.7

79.4

80.5

92.9

73.6

74.5

91.7

81.2

82.3

92.3

Ash

4S.1

46.9

-

27.2

27.3

. 9.8

9.9

11.9

12.1

6.1

6.1

34.1

34.4

19.9

20.6

11.5

11.6

8.2

8.3

7.1

7.2

14.2

14.3

18.4

18.7

10.6

10.8

Hydr

ogen

1.9

1.5

2.8

2.9

2.8

3.8

3.0

2.9

3.2

2.7

2.S

2.9

3.5

3.4

3.6

2.5

2.4

3.7

3.1

3.0

3.8

2.0

1.9

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.2

2.0

1.8

2.0

1.9

. 1.

82.1

2.0

1.9

2.3

2.4

2.3

2.5

ULTIMATE ANALYSIS

Carb

on

43.2

45.0

84.7

65.1

65.5

90.2

81.5

82.7

91.8

80.3

81.5

92.8

86.2

86.9

92.5

58.2

58.7

89.5

72.0

72.5

90.7

82.6

83.8

94.8

85.7

86.9

94.8

86.5

88.4

95.3

78.9

79.9

93.3

72.7

73.6

90.6

81.5

82.7

92.7

Nitr

ogen

o.s .5

1.0 .9 .9 1.3

1.0

1.0

1.1 .8 .9 1.0

1.2

1.2

1.3 .8 .8

1.3

1.0

1.0

1.3 .8 .8 .9 .7 .7 '.7 .7 .8 .8 .7 .7 .9 t . t .

Oxygen

9.0

5.8

10.9 3.3

2.9

3.9

3.8

2.6

2.9

3.8

2.5

2.7

2.2

1.6

1.8

3.8

3.1

4.5

2.6

2.1

2.4

2.5

1.3

1.5

2.7

1.5

1.7

3.2

1.3

1.3

2.3

1.3

1.4

1.3 .2 .2 4.2

2.9

3.3

Sulfur

0.3 .3 .6 .6 .6 .8 .9 .9 1.0 .5 .5 .6 .8 .8 .8 .6 .6 1.0

1.4

1.4

1.8 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .5 .5 .6 2.0

2.0

2.3

5.1

5.1

6.3 .5 .5 .6

Btu Va

lue

6.73

07,010

13,190

10,710

10,780

14.840

13.2

9013,480

14,9

60

12.990

13,180

14,990

14.360

14,470

15,4

20

9,500

9,590

14.610

12,010

12.110

15,140

12,950

13.130

14,860

13,410

13,610

14.840

13,450

13,740

14,800

12,490

12.660

14,7

80

11,740

11,890

14.630

13,010

13,200

14,8

00

FORM

SOF

SULFUR

Sulf

at*

Pyrl

tlc

O.oi .01

.02

.02

.02

.03

.06

.06

.07

.01

,01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.02

. .0

2.

.02

.03

.00

.00

.00

.02

.02

.02

.00

.00

.00

.05

.05

.06

.09

'.0

9.11

.00

.00

.00

0.08 .08

.16

.04

.04

.06

.09

.09

.10

.07

.07

.08

.09

.09

.10

.05

.05

.08

.58

.58

.73

.12

.12

.14

.09

.09

.10

.17

.17

.19

1.75

1.77

2.07

4.47

4.53

5.58 .17

.17

.20

Orga

nic

0.24 .24

.47

.55

.55

.76

.77

.78

.87

.45

.46

.52

.69

.70

.74

.57

.58

.88

.83

.84

1.05 .44

.44

.50

.46

.47

.51

.35

.35

.38

.17

.17

.20

.49

.50

.61

/.36 .36

.41

o

Tab

le 6

B P

roxln

ate

. vl

tt«a

t<.

Btu

.and

fo

nu

-of-

sulf

ur

«n«l

yi«t

of

38 a

nth

raci

te

t«np

l«g

from

Pen

nsyl

vani

a.

Con

tinu

ed

PROXIMATE

ANAL

YSIS

Seap

le N

o.

D171

221

D171

222

D171

223

D171

224

D171

225

_ V184

936-

38& V184965

W184

939

U184

940

U184

941

V184

942

W.84

943

U184

944

V184

945

Form of

anal

yst*

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C

Nola

tura

1.8

2.1

.

1.7

__ 1.

8.~

.

1.2

__

mmm

2.0

M.

1.4

~_

1.8

~~

1.1

~~ .8 -

~~"

1.2

_~.

~~ .5

...

*"

1.6

Vola

tile

a

ttar

6.1

6.2

6.8

5.7

3.8

6.1

5.2

5.3

6.2

4.6

4.6

3.0

6.2

6.3

7.1

4.9

5.0

5.7

6.8

6.9

7.4

6.7

6.9

7.0

7.6

7.6

8.1

7.4

7.5

9.7

9.9

10.1

11.1 7.4

7.4

8.3

4.2

4.2

4.9

Fixed

ear b

oa

82.8

84.4

93.2

87.0

88.9

93.9

78.7

80.1

93.8

83.8

87.4

95.0

80.8

81.8

92.9

81.3

83.0

94.3

85.0

86.2

92.6

81.8

83.3

92.4

83.4

86.5

91.9

68.7

69.2

90.3

79.4

80.3

88.9

81.0

81.5

91,7

81.0

82.4

95.1

Aah

9.3

9.4 .

5.2

5.3

14.4

14.6 7.8

8.0

11.8

11.9

11.8

12.0

6.8

6.9 9.7

9.8 5.

95.9

23.1

23.3

- 9.5

9.6

11.1

11.1

-

13.2

13.4

Hydrogen

2.0

1.9

2.1

2.0

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.8

2.1

2.0

1.8

2.0

2.8

2.7

3.1

1.9

1.8

2.0

2.5

2.3

2.5

2.6

2.3

2.7

2.9

3.0

3.0

2.3

2.4

3.1

3.3

3.2

3.6

3.3

3.3

3.7

1.7

1.6

1.9

ULTI

MATE

ANA

LYSI

S

Carb

on

83.5

85.1

93.9

88.2

90.1

95.2

79.4

. 80.8

94.7

85.8

87.3

94.9

80.9

81.9

93.0

81.3

82.9

94.3

85.6

86.9

93.3

82.6

84.2

93.3

86.7

87.7

93.2

69.4

69.9

91.2

82.1

83.1

91.9

81.2

81.7

91.9

81.1

82.4

95.2

Nitr

ogen

0.6 .6 .7 .7 .8 .8

>

.6 .6 .7 .7 .7 .8 .8 .8 .9 .8 .8 .9 .8 .8 .9

0.9

1.0

1.1 .9 .9

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.4 .9 .9

1,1

Oxygen

3.4

1.8

2.0

3.3

1.4

1.3

3.3

1.8

2.0

3.1

1.6

1.7

2.9

1.9

2.1 .4 .7 .9 .7 .4 .6

3.4

1.7

2.0

2.6

1.5

1.7

3.0

2.4

3.2

3.0

1.9

2.1

2.2

1.7

1.9

2.7

1.3

1.3

Sulf

ur

1.2

1.2

1.3 .6 .7 .7 .4 .4 .3 .6 .6 .6 .8 .8 .9 .8'

.8 .9 .6 .7 .7 .8 .8 .9 1.0

1.0

1.1 .9 .9

1.1 .8 .8 .9 .9 .9 1.1 .4 .4 .5

Bcu Va

lue

13.070

13,3

2014

,700

13,7

4014

,020

14,820

12,290

12,3

0014,640

13,3

1013

,350

14,730

13,0

5013,200

14,9

90

12,690

12,940

14,710

13,660

13,860

14,890

13,280

13,530

15,010

14,240

14,400

15,3

10

11,160

11,250

14,670

13,680

13,840

15,310

13,540

13,6

1015

,320

12,500

12,700

14,6

70

FORM

S OF S

ULFU

R

Sulf

ate

0.04 .04

.04

.03

.03

.03

.02

.02

.02

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.05

.05

.07

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00*

..00

.01

.01

.01

Pyri

tie

0.77 .78

.87

.09

.09

.10

.05

.05

.06

.16

.10

.11

.20

.20

.23

' .3

4.3

5.39

.03

.03

_.0

3

.17

.17

.19

.18

.18

.19

.24

.24

.32

.13

.13

.13

.10

.10

.11

.05

.05

.06

Orga

nic

0.38 .39

.43

.52

.53

.56

.35

.35

.42

.47

.48

.52

.56

.58

.79

.44

.45

.51

.62

.62

.67

.60

.61

.68

.79

.80

.85

.56

.56

.74

.63

.64

.70

.83

.83

.94

.35

.35

.41

Tab

le 6

B-

Pro

xia

ate.

u

ltim

ate.

B

tu.a

nd

fon

aa-o

f-«

ulf

ur

anal

y«ea

of

18

an

thra

cite

aa

ople

i fr

om P

enns

ylva

nia.

C

onti

nu

ed

FRO

XIK

ATE

A

NA

LYSI

SF

ora

of

Sam

ple

No.

aa

alyei

*

H18

4946

-48

W.8

4949

W.8

4950

W.8

4951

W1B

4952

V18

4953

W18

4954

W.8

49SS

W18

4956

*

57

V18

495*

W1M

960

U18

4961

-64

A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A 1 C A B C

Vo

lati

le

Fix

ed

Moi

etur

a M

Cte

r ca

rbon

1.8

~~ -

1.6 1

.1 . 2.3

«

__ .7

1.0

1.5

1.0 1.1

_ __1 l.S .« 1.4

1.1

__

...

.7

82

.1.1

83

.6.5

9

3.5

.5

81

.5.6

82

.8.4

92.6

.1

84.7

.2

85.6

.7

93.3

.9

86

.0.0

88

.1.4

93

.6

5.3

84,1

5.3

84.7

5.9

94.1

6.0

84.2

6.1

85.0

6.7

93.3

6.5

82.1

6.6

83.4

7.4

92.6

8.4

79.5

8.4

80.4

9.5

90.5

5.7

83.2

5.7

84.2

t.4

9.3.

6

4.8

86.7

4.8

88.1

5.2

94.8

5.7

82.3

5.8

83

.56.

5 93

.5

4.5

80.0

4.6

81

.35.

3 94

.7

Aah

10.4

10.6

10.4

10.6

8.1

8.2

5.8 5.9

-

9.9

10.0

.

8.8

8.9

9.9

10.0

11.1

11.2

10.0

10.1 7.0

7.1

10.6

10.7

13.9

14.1

Hyd

roge

n

1.7

1.5

1.7

2.6 2.5

2.8 2.0

1.9

2.1

2.1 1.9

2.0 2.0

2.0

2.2

2.3

2.2

2.4

2.4

2.3

2.5

3.4

3.3

3.7

2.0

1.9

2.1

2.1

1.9

2.1

2.4

2.3

2.6

2.0

1.9

2.2

ULT

IMA

TE

AN

ALY

SIS

Car

bon

82.6

84

.194

.0

81.9

83.2

93.1

85.6

86.5

94.2

87.0

89.1

94.7

85. 0

85.6

95.1

84.9

85.8

94.2

83.0

84.3

93.6

80.4

81.2

91.4

83.9

84.8

94.4

86.1

87.4

94.1

81.9

83.0

93.0

79.2

80.5

93.7

Nit

roge

n

0.8 .8 .9 1.0

1.0

1.1 .7 .7 .8 .6 .6 .7 .9 .9 1.0 .9 .9 1.0 .9 .9 1.0

1.4

1.4

1.6 .8 .8

..9 .7 .7 .8 .9 .9 1.0 .8 .8 .9

Oxy

gen

3.9

2.4

2.7

3.1 1.7

1.9 2.9

2.0 2.1

4.1 2.1

2.2 1.7

1.0

1.1

2.6

1.6

1.8

3.3

2.0

2.4

3.0

2.2

2.5

2.6

1.7

1.8

'3.0 1.8

1.8

3.6

2.5

2.7

3.5

2.0

2.4

Sulf

ur

0.6 .6 .7 1.0 1.0 1.1 .7 .7 .8 .4 .4 .4 .

5 .5 .6 .5 .6 .6 .5 .5 .5 .7 .7 .8 .7 .7 .8 1.1

1.1

1.2 .6 .6 .7 .6 .7 .8

Btu

Val

ue

12,9

0013

.130

14,6

90

13,2

4013

.450

15,0

40

13,4

1013

,560

14,7

70

13.6

6013

,980

14,8

60

13.2

6013

,360

14.8

40

13,4

7013

,610

14,9

40

13.2

3013

.430

14,9

30

13.5

1013

,640

15.3

60

13,0

8013

,220

14.7

10

13,5

0013

.710

14,7

60

13,0

6013

,250

14,8

40

12,5

3012

.740

14,8

30

FORK

S OF

SUL

FUR

Su

lfat

e

O.o

i.0

1.0

1

.03

.03

.03

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01 .02

.02

.02

.00

.00

.00

.04

.04

.05

.03

.03

.03

.01

.01

.01

.00

.00

.00

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

.01

Fy

ritl

c

0.2

0.2

0.2

3

.51

.52

.58

.48

.48

.53

.08

,06

.09

.07

.07

.08

.09

.09

.10

.22

.22

.25

.09

.09

.10

.38

.38

.43

.62

.63

.68

.17

.17

.19

.14

.14

.17

Org

anic

0-3

8.3

9 '

.43

.45

.46

.51

.25

.25

.28

.31

.32

.34

.44

.44

.49

.46

.46

.51

.20

.20

.23

.60

.61

.68

.28

.28

.31

.50

.51

.55

.44

.45

.50

.50

.51

.59

u>

ho

oaoao ooooo ooaoo oooowOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOC»OO

KJhOKJNJKJ KJKJNJI

CDhOI >Ol

ts>OOOOK>

0> 9 OQ M < CT3 H. tO H- O (B*O O* O CO M CDn i i rt co *o (D re n> p>X O rt o. i-tH- H- M co n

BP H- «: 3- rt o ro o i-*

5?cr

ON c\

3 O.

Ono xH- CL, rt

0) 3 O.

O CO

3 rt

OO 9 o oCO

VDI -OOhOVDvjivooomao o

U1QOVOOO1tO O

K> O

VOOOVOO>00 O

A .M 0 CD

rt3* (0

N» O

3-°

cr o nrr O

CD3*

VJINJ rococo\OKJt---P~Oo

CO

3 rt3"

» O

OOOOO K>K>roK>K>OOOOO

OOOOO OOOOOrotorohON) NJNJNJKJNJOOOOO OOOOOtHririr1r< t-r

oooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo j>*"*i *^i *^j -P*-P*-P* £*-P* -P* £* ^* -i> -P* pcOOO VDvDvOvOvD sovovovovo fa

O"> O> O*1 C>*-n*-n^\Ji f"Ul-P-CONJH- O s u>«j^u>toto OCT

o4J

H CJ4J

35CO

ae

PO

OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOirnr> \r\\r\\r\

r-tr-tr-H r-tr-IrH r-tr-t CM

,J vOOOOOvO OvOOOOCM vOCMCMO«T OO-CTOO^OO'-H'^OO ^^ r-HOOCM

r-Hr-HCMOOCM CMCM»-Hir»CM CM O|CO»-H r-t»-Hr-HCOr-( r- tr-HCMr-HCM OM-H CM CS

ICMCMCM r-tr-ti t < CM I »-ICMt < ( CM

PL, ,J,J,J,J,J JJooooo oomoo OOO--HO omooo cooocMoom

CMrH rHrHr-Hr^r^ »-H r-H CMCMCMr-H

OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO

CM !"-« CO »-l

CMCMCS»CS»CM CMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCM

oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo oooooooooo

QQQOQ QQOOO O O QQ Q OOQQQ

h-» » '» '» '» » » h t '» « OT I-]

CO CO CO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO J^ p)vj^jv^j ^.^.^jsjs *>4>^*»*» Jz cr"OOO VDvOvOvOvO VDWDwDvOvO T3 (

ONOÔÔ^CT* O^ v«n Vî *Ji ^-" r* IDv/i-p-U>N5» OVOOO-ÎO^ PI _

ON

O TJ fsJ O

OOH-K5NSO fO» 'OOOOVO OOO

0) ft- X 3

3oCD

O 3

3

OON>N> fsJH- f LOH-NS B> CÔOVOUIOO

O M

s 23:

DO

> n> O COuiuiuiouji >tJft-1 ft-1 5 o

J, B>u n3

H-KJI-- H- B> B

5 § COOOO OOOOO OOOOO

37

COa

9 (0

£ ft-ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooo«no ooooo opu~tpp

tO CMuÛÔCM CMCMCMCMlO CMCMOOO CMf^CMCMCM IOi/%.CMCMO r~»fnO~HCM IOOCMCMCMas

COift- ft-

iooooo omooo cn« tcM.~t.-i

XXX XXX

JZ (0 03

W O

OOOOO OO o en oCM

o4JCOho s 0

OOOOO OOOOO oenooo

ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo

09oIoCJ

o O

u-iOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOmO moOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO

a>0) CJ 03144J

o

g0) o HXo

ft- ft-w o

acft- ft-w pq

2525,-J J^5

ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo OOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOOOOO OOOOO OOi/ÔO 0'^*^%'^'^ OO^ÔO OOO^/Ô* ~ CMCM^HCMCM CMi t~H~H»H CMCM^HCMCM CMCMCM^-tCM

oG 03

CO

£ft-

BQ

ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ?5OOPO poppp pppop ooooo poppp ppppo ppppp ppppo

M)4)

r-t

CO H

^H^HCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCM CMCMCMCMCM

38

aS

e

«n

08

&

o

§ g J Jpoomo oooo^ ooo

CQ

c0)

04

P-Ia,O -* CM" «

ooooo ooooo ooo <

ooooo ooooo ooo < Oi

CO

X CM CM

OOOOO OOOOO OOOrj 05 Oi^OOO OOOOO ^ r^ o._.. A ^i». CMCMCMCMm

3 * -»O»AOOO OOOOO OOO

oB O CM

39

M M 01

ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo oooooK moomm mmmmp oi^opo opmoo ooooo ooooo ooooo ooooo - r-.r-.csmm ommcsm - - -

CO

nnnmr-. mf»inmm P^r^nmm r^mmmr-. mmmr-.r-.

cu 4J H CJ cOM4JecO

tn mu-i o

o| * §§§§§ §g§§m- SSSgS §§§§£ S§°.§§ §§SS§ §°,§§°, m-m-Sm-g > ftesnnn -4 . .... ..... ..... .....** OQQQa aaaciQ aoooa C.OQQQ

«sCC »- »- » oooooo oooooooooo oooocooooo vj^jvj 4>4>4>*-4> 4>4>4>4>4>OOO VOVOVOVOVO \oio > ' t-O K5 OWiOOO OOOOO OOOOO

enO

T)

"0

Dt en

enya

H2*«

0\ n I

ft OH- O O

¥en

ooo ooooo ooooo

cocouicoui corococooiooo ooooo oooooooo ooooo ooooo

"0 D 3!M

0*7

41

£3

CMcOCOi I CMU"> 't t ,-4, (CM I « I 4CM _|i li 1> 1> I .HCM I p I. I. l> I C *J CM Q

r-

0co> d o« J J . . . .

00 (^ ^50O«^H *^ (^ C^O^ ^^ OOO^ ^^ vO^^ ^3*^ ̂ O ^5 O^ ^^\O C^ CO^^ OO ^^ vO(^ *^ (^ ̂ D ^^vOC? H 3= .....

§

aa) a)

o. X o P* E « d- «05 »-( C W

3- oMnoocneM COU-XMCOCO CJ\CMCMCMCM >3-nrocnco nmcococo mco^-coco corococooo

O

C -H Xa) n CM

^ CM

« O vS

0) 0) a) H co b O >> f-3 oo»-i'-Hr-« ^n^H^-tr-H^-t ^H^-icMeMcM CMCMCMCMCMCd iH a CMCMCNCMCM CMCMCMCMCM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM CM OxO\ONO*ON O\ONaxO»a\ OM3\O\ONO\ O\O\ O\O\O\

ooooooooao ooao oooooo oooo oooooo aoooooooao

42

-o0) 3 C

wC C 0)

P-i

6 o

03 0) rHa 6 CO 03

X PVI PVI

S PM PM

S CM PM

W CO

. (r-l r-|r-l

0

*:*:*:*:*: *:*:*:*:*: ooaoo ooooa ooooa ^_l ^f }^)«_t ̂ ' }v« ^» ̂_l ^_l ) _ )W ^v_« ^_. ̂_. )«. ^_* ̂_. }«_ )«. t^~l fw» ^«t )«. f J 'ooooooooOu ooc»oocx)oo oooooooooo co oc oo c» oo ^j^-j^-j^j^j ^*^j

\OvOvOvOvD VDVOvOvDvD vOvOVDvOVO vOvDVOVOvO NJNJNJN3NJ KJhONJhONJ rohOfOIONJ NJIOKJNJN) "0-f>UJUJU)U> rohohofoho tohossn- h- *-~ t-'t-'t" i i i i OO t-

r 1-0*000 --JaNv/i^-oj K>»-'OVOOO PI

'to »- )- N>^»-«^>| >_>|_fo... ..... ...

OU>OON3U>

OO» N3O OUJOOO CJNJOOO OOOO> OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO O^>r ! '^/>»o t sj^noj ooLot '^/iro ^>oro»Mn(jj t^t^t-^t 't ' ~^t uo w oo --jtor NJ vo h-1! -o «-JNJOO c»oo»-'«~j ^nroovooj c»ui--J4--o

ooooo oroi-ôo » i o» o ooooo ooooo ooooo oooo» 0000^- 3;

OOOOO OOOOO Ol OOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO ONJOOO OOOO» 2S

OOOLOh- OLOI '-vj c»

-ro o*~»-'u>ro

ft-|cHt-'t-< fr't-'t-'t-' ft-t-'t-tr-1 ft-'r'f f ft-r1 f f

OOJONN5NJ vot '^JOvO ££

ON

ft-1 t-'tr't-'t-'f 3;

OOMI 'i i 'NJi roo oocwwaôo

»- £» ONH- H- LOVD »- J ^-» » >vj4s

roooi oooooo-(> >-"-jooo ooaôo

JU

Po p3" 3 fu fO(u rt M CO3 3" O

M C Prt Cu M i-l3" O » 0)fl> H- rt

rt (D H-< (D D. 3

C i-l H- ID H O rt CT03- W (D (D 31 P> i-l O H 3

3 3 M a. O rt H-ft) O0. 3 ' to

o 3

i-3 H-

(D <

a.(P O

CD ft> 10 HP* 0 O

3 « to

r1 rt o H- c cu o -

rt in r1 (D H- HO-

3 O *"d

0» a* < H-- 01 i-l

C (X 3 CD i-l CX.

H- 0 (D Mro ex. 3 o>3 /-s <en u> Oi

N3 M M o C (D O (D cn x-- cn en

n> n(D

o O3-aO

H- O3

O Hi

O H-rt (Dto Oi 0

3* 3

0)I

3CD

44

I

°* £PuCO PL,fOja

OO

Documents

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - USGS · Research and Development Administration. For each sample, the U.S. Geological Survey has quantitatively determined the amounts of