Laserfiche WebLink
• Figure 2 -1: Comparison of Total Moisture by sampling campaign <br />TS recommends a direct comparison between the seams analysed as part of the quality <br />control for production and those same seams in the historic data. TS also recommends that <br />the sample procedure be revised to either reduce the time between sampling and analysis or <br />to better store the core to reduce moisture loss. <br />The in situ moisture content of the coal is not easily determined from core samples. <br />However, a reliable estimate is necessary in order to calculate the in situ relative density <br />(RD) or Apparent Specific Gravity (ASG) for resource calculations and mine planning. TS <br />experience with other lower rank bituminous thermal coals has found that the in situ moisture <br />value is typically higher than the as received total moisture. <br />2.3.3 Coal Quality - Apparent Specific Gravity <br />In coal, relative density varies with the condition of the analysis sample which, in turn, differs <br />from the original condition of the coal in the ground. Therefore, for the determination of coal <br />tonnages. TS recommends the density of the coal in situ is used in calculating tonnages from <br />measured volumes. <br />For the purposes of this example, TS has instead used laboratory as received ASG values, <br />reduced to dry basis and plotted against dry ash (values above 70% ash were excluded). <br />• There is an apparent correlation of 0.95. However this is misleading as there is an <br />overestimation of ASG at very low ash contents, but an underestimation at higher ash <br />contents (Figure 2.2), There are also clearly a high number of the same (low) ash values with <br />varying ASG. <br />Figure 2 -2: Dry Ash vs Dry ASG from recent Collom core analyses <br />It is reasonable to expect a robust relationship between ash and relative density <br />for a given <br />• seam or seam group within a coalfield. Variation in this relationship due to rank and ash <br />RIO <br />'f I lr'f O <br />TS Ref: DRAFT Version: I <br />a r „i,,,,,.,,i,,,,,.;.,, <br />Y`� tt543 <br />_ � <br />• r• • <br />�• f <br />• Y <br />JV ini <br />t <br />MASG <br />Figure 2 -2: Dry Ash vs Dry ASG from recent Collom core analyses <br />It is reasonable to expect a robust relationship between ash and relative density <br />for a given <br />• seam or seam group within a coalfield. Variation in this relationship due to rank and ash <br />RIO <br />'f I lr'f O <br />TS Ref: DRAFT Version: I <br />a r „i,,,,,.,,i,,,,,.;.,, <br />Y`� tt543 <br />_ � <br />• r• • <br />�• f <br />• Y <br />t <br />for a given <br />• seam or seam group within a coalfield. Variation in this relationship due to rank and ash <br />RIO <br />'f I lr'f O <br />TS Ref: DRAFT Version: I <br />a r „i,,,,,.,,i,,,,,.;.,, <br />