Moving baseline for evaluation of advanced coal-extraction systems

Abstract

This document reports results from the initial effort to establish baseline economic performance comparators for a program whose intent is to define, develop, and demonstrate advanced systems suitable for coal resource extraction beyond the year 2000. Systems used in this study were selected from contemporary coal mining technology and from conservative conjectures of year 2000 technology. The analysis was also based on a seam thickness of 6 ft. Therefore, the results are specific to the study systems and the selected seam thickness. To be more beneficial to the program, the effort should textended to other seam thicknesses.iii FOREWORD This document is one of a series which describe systems level requirements for advanced underground coal mining equipment. These requirements are summarized in 'Overall Requirements for an Advanced Underground Coal Extraction System," JPL Publication 80-39 by Martin Goldsmith and Milton L. Lavin. Five areas of performance are discussed:(1) Production cost.(2) Miner safety.(3) Miner health.(4) Environmental impact.(5) Recovery efficiency.The report which follows presents details of a study which extrapolates contemporary coal mining technology to the year 2000. The projections for cost and production capability comprise a so-called moving baseline which will be used to assess compliance with the systems requirement for production cost. Separate projections were prepared for room and pillar, longwall, and shortwall technology all operating under comparable sets of mining conditions. This work is part of an effort to define and develop innovative coal extraction systems suitable for the significant resources remaining in the year 2000. Sponsorship is provided by the Office of Coal Mining, United States Department of Energy via an interagency agreement with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Overall requirements for an advanced underground coal extraction system

“…With the use of an interactive control system, each shearer would cut its segment of the face such that the conveyor is not overloaded and collision of the shearers is avoided. Analysis of this configuration, by Bickerton (1980), showed a 33 percent decrease in the cycle time while obtaining the same production per cycle as the one-shearer scheme.…”

“…Bickerton (1980), illustrated this point in his analysis of the half-face method currently used most commonly in the U.S. The nonproductive segments of the shearer cycle for the two cases examined ranged from 30 to 47 percent of the total cycle time.…”

“…Section production, and ultimately the annual capability of a mine Next, a baseline system for the resource in question should be selected, and both cost and production performance should be projected to the year when the advanced system is expected to be commercially available. Bickerton (1980) has projected year 2000 performance for room and pillar, longwall, and shortwall technology. (To ensure a close comparison, the baseline technology should be analyzed while operating at the same site as the one selected for the advanced system.)…”

“…In Table 7 we present estimates of the ranges of production rates expected from the moving baseline systems. The basis for these estimates is reported in Bickerton (1980). Each subject is covered in this section of the report, with the objective of developing specific goals or targets for an advanced underground coal mining system.…”

“…Assuming acquisition of mineral riC:hts via option-lease, the principal impact of greater recovery is felt via a change in the capital recovery factor, which declines as the mine life lengthens. A rough feeling for the magnitude of the impact may be obtained by analyzing the 2.0 million ton/year longwall mine described by Bickerton (1980). If the required return is 15 percent and the effective Federal tax rate is 50 percent, recovering the $100 million investment over 40 years instead of 20 years, reduces the capital recovery factor by about 0.01, and the minimum acceptable selling price by approximately $1/ton.…”