|
• 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 />
|