Laserfiche WebLink
<br />31. PWCC has revised its labor costs to be consistent with the <br />Division's. <br />32. PWCC has revised its equipment costs to be consistent with the <br />Division's. <br />33a. The source was actual PWCC drilling rate. We have revised <br />this to 2 fpm. <br />b. The cost was for PWCC bit rates. The cost is negligible, so <br />we changed to the Division's rate. <br />c. The cost includes fuel oil, blasting caps, cords, and primers. <br />d. The cost as stated per pound included the bulk and cap truck. <br />Realizing that Peabody may get a high volume discount, the <br />cost per pound has been increased to $0.15/lb to ensure <br />sufficient costs are included for a cap truck and a bulk <br />truck. <br />e. Here again, the original cost estimate included these in the <br />cost per pound. <br />f. PWCC equipment costs now match the Division's. <br />34. The material consistency factor is one of those numbers that <br />could be argued either way and still not arrive at a solution. <br />It appears from Caterpillar's range that 0.6 would be for <br />ripped material and 0.8 for blasted material. Material at <br />Seneca, due to the fragmentation and the material itself, <br />should be on the higher end of the spectrum. Also, no credit <br />• is taken for the amount of material that is actually cast into <br />the pit during highwall reduction. In the interest of <br />resolving these comments, PWCC has changed the factor to 0.7. <br />PWCC would be interested to know how the Division arrived at <br />this number. <br />Peabody was not aware that Caterpillar allows for factors <br />based on number of shifts. Those usually allowed are for <br />operator efficiency or minutes worked per hour. The CAT <br />program(s) that Peabody uses will not allow for a 0.81 factor. <br />Therefore, PWCC has changed the work hour to 50 minutes per <br />hour to compensate for this. <br />Recent discussions with Caterpillar representatives indicate <br />that most of their D11 dozers are equipped with the dual tilt <br />accessory when shipped from the factor. PWCC was not <br />questioned on the use of D11 dozers and, therefore, continues <br />to use this option on backfilling and grading operations, but <br />not on final grading. <br />35. The material consistency factor in this case is again somewhat <br />subjective. In this case, the spoil may not be considered a <br />loose stockpile and, therefore, the factor has been revised to <br />1.1. <br />• <br />9 <br />