As each year passes, it would seem that the coal seems being dug out would be harder and harder to get at. You'd always mine the easiest stuff first-right? Is it possible, that some other coalfield will take over the PRB's dominance? Have other coalfields played out?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Railway Man Question posed in your title: Yes About 30 years without rather radical changes in the economy, technology, or law..........................RWM
Murphy Siding Railway Man Question posed in your title: Yes About 30 years without rather radical changes in the economy, technology, or law.......................... RWM What changes in economy, technology, or law could extend the economic life?
Railway Man Question posed in your title: Yes About 30 years without rather radical changes in the economy, technology, or law.......................... RWM
RWM
Economy: if the price was to increase significantly causing power plants to switch to another method in the long term.
Technology: Finding cleaner fuels and begin using them quickly.
Law: Maybe reducing the numbers of coal fired power plants and eventually eliminating them.
Just my
Will
Murphy SidingWhat changes in economy, technology, or law could extend the economic life?
What changes in economy, technology, or law could extend the economic life?
You realize what you are saying is that you are looking for a change that would make it attractive to mine more of the PRB coal resource -- in other words, make the coal cheaper FOB the power plant, but not any other coal or energy source cheaper at the power plant.
First, let me summarize what the economic limits of PRB coal are. The principal field in the PRB is the Gillette Field. It is mined along a north-south line about 80 miles in length, extending from about 20 miles north of the City of Gillette, Wyoming, to about 60 miles south. The coal-bearing strata outcrop east of the BNSF-UP Joint Line, and dip westward at about a 1 degree slope. Mining commenced at the outcrop of the seams beyond the clinker zone (where the coal has been burned in situ over time) and is proceeding westward down-dip. While there are multiple seams in the formation, only two seams are mined, the Anderson (or Upper Wyodak) and Canyon (or Lower Wyodak), and often they have no discernable parting between them.The other seams are either too thin or too deep or too intermittant to be economically mined.
The seam runs beneath the Joint Line, getting into deeper cover as it trends westward. Mining east of the Joint Line is relatively simple. The open-mine commences at the outcrop where there is very little cover. As the coal is excavated westward, the cover is cast into the prior mining zone. Because the coal seam is thick relative to the cover, there is plenty of room in the pit to cast the cover as the mine proceeds westward.
But to open a mine west of the Joint Line is a different matter. Because the Joint Line interrupts the mining progression, opening a mine requires excavation of a sizeable "box" to uncover the coal seam, and casting up a very large spoil pile which cannot be dumped back into an already mined area, which is a very expensive proposition.The current mining operations average a 3:1 stripping ratio, but moving west of the Joint Line and starting a box excavation entails a 6:1 to 9:1 stripping ratio, or in other words, mining costs double to triple.
In sum, the Joint Line is a hard stop. The mines will advance down-dip until they get to the Joint Line, and in all likelihood, that's where they will close. Going further would require either moving the Joint Line further west or back onto the mined-out area, either way, a trillion-dollar proposition, or converting to a long-wall underground operation, or excavating down to the seam on the west side of the track.
So we are looking for a change that makes PRB coal more valuable relative to other energy sources.
Taking them one at a time:
I have the impression that the PRB over burden is unconsolidated material and it is all removed by drag lines and shovels. Am I correct on this?
Old Ben #1 in Southern Indiana started early in the 20th Century from the out crop of the seam. With the seam slopping down, by the 1980's the overburden was, as I recall, at least 100 feet and the consisted of layers of limestone and shale that had to be blasted so it could be removed with the drag line. About that time, they began using the technique called cast blasting. I assume it had something to due withthe timing of the explosive detenations, and as a result there was a considerable increase in the amount of material blown into the adjacent mined out pit. As I understand, this process added years to the economic life of the mine.
So the question. Are the life of PRB forecasts based on the continued use of prevailing mining methods or do they reflect all methods that are or might reasonably become state-of the-art in the next 20-30 years?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Jay: In generalized terms, yes. Some of the mines that had low stripping ratios at least initially actually were able to employ dozer-scraper operations to remove the overburden. Mines with medium stripping ratios have typically been truck-shovel operations, and those with the highest ratios have typically been dragline operations. Most of the mines at one time or another have used two or more of these methods. A common technique is to use slot-dozer operation to shove overburden into the reach of a dragline. Usually a D10 or D11 ripper is sufficient to break the hard material, but sometimes downhole drilling is used. The coal seam itself is usually drilled and shot to reduce shovel time and make the crusher more efficient.
The forecasts employ trend lines on mining costs, which recognize the historical rate of technological change and its effect on costs. That's a macro-economic approach. Micro-economic approaches that look at the effects of individual technologies are difficult to do (and I do not like to use them myself) because they require lots of assumptions in order to complete the calculation, any one of which, if wrong, turns the whole calculation topsy-turvy.
No one in the mining business or earthmoving business is forecasting a radical reduction in mining costs in the near future, just the steady, grind-it-out incremental improvement in tons per man-hour that has been typical of the business for more than a century. Equipment sizes seems to have plateaued, with the 400-ton (payload) truck, the 850-hp dozer, the 115-ton (bucket capacity) rope shovel, and the 110-160 cy (bucket capacity) dragline, becoming the apparent economic upper end for about a dozen years now. Significantly larger machines haven't been economically successful on any generalized basis. The next wave of technology will be ways to leverage other technologies to reduce man-hours, such as robot trucks.
Thanks for your response. I'd have to agree that a forecast going out about 30 years has to take a macro approach. As I think about it, I doubt that a mining company starts to even consider extending the life of a specific mine until they get well within a decade or so of the end date of the original plan. It then follows that questions to the mining companys about the future for a mine beyond the current plan would get "Who knows?" as a response.
On getting to the west side of the railroad, shall we just move the railroad?
Recently the BNSF has opened a mine spur in southern Montana to one or two mines at the present that holds much hope for future coal production. The potential area for coal in the southern Montana area is believed to be greater than that of the PRB. Eventually the new spur could be built to a distance of about 200 miles. Like the PRB the coal is easy to reach and so far only the BNSF has built into this area. They have known of the Montana deposits for a number of years and are just now starting to mine the area. It is believed there is at least a fifty year supply of coal in the region and now that the BNSF has finally built a spur into the region it is expected to grow.The spur to the mine area is built using concrete ties and CWR. It is my understanding the spur is also built with double and triple tracking in mind for the future.
Years ago I was told by Alaskans that huge amounts of coal exist close to the Alcan highway in both the Yukon territory and Alaska. The problem of course is there is no cheap transportation to get to the coal deposits. Another reason talks keep surfacing that a RR should be built connecting the lower 48 with Alaska.
Now with all of the talk of wind generation and solar generating it is even less likely they will ever build a RR connecting the lower 48 with Alaska. If they ever do in my lifetime Amtrak can take my reservation now for a round trip. I have traveled the Alcan highway numerous times and never cease to be amazed at its wilderness beauty and marvel at the fact that when built it took only a year I believe. Of course it has been upgraded and paved since originally built but it is a marvelous piece of construction. If the Army could build the Alcan in WW II we should be able to build a RR today to connect the lower 48 with Alaska.
Al - in - Stockton
Al: The spur to which you refer is the Bull Mountain Spur, which serves the Bull Mountain #1 Mine north of Billings. The total economic reserve for this coal field is about 400 million tons, which represents about 10 months of southern PRB production at current rates. The permitted production rate is 15 million tons per year, which is less than 3 percent of southern PRB production rates. This coal is not easy to reach compared to PRB coal, as most of the reserve requires underground mining at a much higher cost than the low stripping ratio that enables the very low cost of PRB coal.
There never will be cheap transportation to move Alaskan or Northern Canadian coal to lower 48 markets, only expensive transportation. The rail transportation charges and capital cost to build an Alaska-Canada rail link would make this coal very dear. Even if someone else paid for the rail line and the coal could use it without paying a dime in capital costs, the rail transportation charges alone would be on the order of $50-60/ton to get this coal into a lower 48 coal market.
It's rarely a question of a mineral being used up, but almost always a question of the cheap sources of the mineral being used up.
Note: the use of concrete ties and CWR means little if it's intended to be a marker that a line is being intended for long life and heavy tonnage. Concrete ties in the western U.S. are generally less expensive installed in new construction than treated timber ties, and CWR is generally cheaper than stick rail for anything longer than a few thousand feet of new construction. Even in industrial spurs that will never see speeds higher than 10 mph, and might have 300 carloads a year across them, concrete and CWR is now often less expensive.
One technology I wonder about in the longer term is in-bed gasification i,e extracting SynGas directly from a coal seam. the gas can be burned in an onsite powerplant or upgraded to "synthetic natural gas"...of course such technology is not going to increase coal loadings for the railroads.....
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The Map of the Month in the November 2008 Trains (page 42) shows a coal mine named Hilight located several miles west of Reno Junction. Does this mine actually exist, or is it a mistake in the magazine?
nanaimo73The Map of the Month in the November 2008 Trains (page 42) shows a coal mine named Hilight located several miles west of Reno Junction. Does this mine actually exist, or is it a mistake in the magazine?
Don't have the magazine handy. Assume you're talking Reno Junction, Wyoming, and not Reno Junction, Nevada?
There's a "Hilight Loadout", though.
Note that Belle Ayr, Caballo, and Cordero Rojo, and Antelope mines are already west of the Joint Line. The question is taking the the Coal Creek, Jacobs Ranch, Black Thunder, Black Thunder West, North Antelope, and Rochelle Mines across the Joint Line.
Also note that this is condensing about 2,000 pages of technical report into about 20 sentences, so there is a lot of generalization required on my part. I apologize for that, but listing all the nuances and exceptions turns it back into the 2,000 pages of report and then there's no summary. The point is that the PRB has a definite economic lifespan that is principally determined by the cost effect of the increasing stripping ratio as the mines move down-dip to the west. The current location of the Joint Line effectively strands a substantial quantity of coal and creates an economic westward limit of mining for a large portion of the Gillette Field.
Yes, the Map is about the PRB in Wyoming, with Reno Junction being on the Joint Line at the start of the Reno Sub leading to the Black Thunder Mine. Sorry about the confusion.
The "Hilight Mine" is shown several miles west of the Joint Line.
Murphy SidingAs each year passes, it would seem that the coal seems being dug out would be harder and harder to get at. You'd always mine the easiest stuff first-right? Is it possible, that some other coalfield will take over the PRB's dominance?
By the time the PRB runs out of mine-able coal, environmental issues will have rendered using coal either immoral, illegal, or just plain stupid to use anywhere on this planet. In the 30 or so years before the coal is gone, if we as a species have not developed alternate energy sources, then our cultures and way of life will no longer exist.
Railway Man Question posed in your title: Yes About 30 years without rather radical changes in the economy, technology, or law.
Remember, there were cover stories on news magazines about the coming ice age about 30 years ago.
Railway Man Yes, you mine the easiest first. That's why the PRB was virtually untouched until the 1970s, because it was a long way away from everywhere and the coal is very low in heat value. Higher value coal closer to markets was mined first.
But you keep mining what is marginally the most econimical. If there is nothing that is cheaper than continuing to mine in the PRB, then mining will continue. Even if it stopped, it might start again at some point in the future. The Missabe Range was thought to be dead, until technology and economic forces made taconite feasible.
We need to be careful when predicting the future. No one has a crystal ball, especially looking out 30 years.
Visit look4trains.com
Railway ManThe point is that the PRB has a definite economic lifespan that is principally determined by the cost effect of the increasing stripping ratio as the mines move down-dip to the west. The current location of the Joint Line effectively strands a substantial quantity of coal and creates an economic westward limit of mining for a large portion of the Gillette Field. RWM
Dan
CNW 6000That makes me wonder if the RRs involved at the in the construction of the joint line knew of the scope of the Gillette Field. A forecast of the cost of recovery of the coal from that time could have missed the potential mark on the field as it dips down. As was just said, seeing far into the future is hard at best. If they did know and built anyway that sounds like that decision could become colossal miscalculation, depending on how big the field is on the other side of the line and the going price for the coal.
That makes me wonder if the RRs involved at the in the construction of the joint line knew of the scope of the Gillette Field. A forecast of the cost of recovery of the coal from that time could have missed the potential mark on the field as it dips down. As was just said, seeing far into the future is hard at best. If they did know and built anyway that sounds like that decision could become colossal miscalculation, depending on how big the field is on the other side of the line and the going price for the coal.
BN (which built the coal line) knew exactly what it was doing. It made an economic tradeoff. Had it decided to build the coal line where it would never be in the way of mining activity, then the cost of the coal line would have escalated to the point that the cost to transport the coal would have been so high that the first ton of coal never would have not moved for a number of additional years -- or maybe never. Power plants need to have a firm fixed coal supply before they are constructed or even designed. All coal is not equal, and a plant designed to burn one type of coal cannot burn many other types of coal without very expensive modifications or even complete re-equipping of the combustion machinery, Had the PRB not come on line when it did, many plants would have turned instead to other coal sources or to other energy sources and the opportunity window for the PRB would have shrunk dramatically.
Economic analysis never gives you ideal solutions, it just gives you least-ugly solutions. Rarely is it possible to engineer a rail line that is perfect not only for the cash and economic reality of today, as well as that of tomorrow. You do what you can with what you have.
I would imagine that (to a point) the feasibility of the coal is a sliding scale. Hence Murph's questions and your excellent replies. Great thread and thanks for sharing your expertise once again.
If the future economic life of PRB coal is in the 30 year range, does that put a lot of power plants in the position of making radical, expensive changes, once their favorite flavor of coal is no longer available?
Murphy Siding If the future economic life of PRB coal is in the 30 year range, does that put a lot of power plants in the position of making radical, expensive changes, once their favorite flavor of coal is no longer available?
It would be my guess that many (most?) would convert to natural gas when that time came.
Mike
Railway Man The current location of the Joint Line effectively strands a substantial quantity of coal and creates an economic westward limit of mining for a large portion of the Gillette Field. RWM
The current location of the Joint Line effectively strands a substantial quantity of coal and creates an economic westward limit of mining for a large portion of the Gillette Field.
Was that a deliberate choice in the line location? Build the line on one side of the (then) economical limit of the field and let the mines start at the other side and work their way toward the Joint Line? (Would seem to save on spur extentions as the mines played out.) Or was it just how the location played out topographically?
Kevin C. SmithWas that a deliberate choice in the line location? Build the line on one side of the (then) economical limit of the field and let the mines start at the other side and work their way toward the Joint Line? (Would seem to save on spur extentions as the mines played out.) Or was it just how the location played out topographically?
The location of the Joint Line was a balance between:
No one wants to build a rail line where it will eventually be in the way. But no one wants to let perfect get in the way of good enough, either. When one looks at this problem from the perspective of the time when it was planned, no one was quite sure what kind of mining rate the PRB would ultimately obtain, nor the duration of the market demand. It would have been pretty foolish to build an expensive line that never got in the way of any of the coal resource, only to have the demand for that coal resource cease long before the coal mining encountered the location where a less-expensive rail line could have been constructed.
It's important to think about what is economical to mine and what isn't. There's an old saying in the mining business that "today's waste is tomorrow's ore." In other words, every time the value of the mineral changes, the demarkation line changes between what you would mine and what you would not. In disseminated-body, low-grade ore deposits such as porphyry copper or primary molybdenum, the mining limit will literally change by the day, and assays are run by the hundreds on a real-time basis to define what will be sent to the concentrator and what will be sent to the waste dump. In a large-scale open-pit coal operation, there is a substantial engineering staff projecting mining plans into the future according to various cost and price scenarios, trying to hold onto as much flexibility as possible. This is difficult because each scenario creates a particular excavation plan which can't be easily interrupted without incurring substantial cost penalties. In effect, the open-pit mine becomes "spoilbound" where it runs out of room to economically dump new spoil in order to advance the pit, and has to remine this spoil and carry it out of the way at very high cost.
Ironically, a long-term, substantial price escalation for coal isn't particularly helpful to production volume or longevity for a low-BTU field such as the PRB because it is so heavily penalized by transportation costs due to its high moisture and ash content, low heat value, and distance from markets. To illustrate, suppose a powerplant is willing to bid $30 FOB its dumper for every 17 million BTU of coal. That enables a PRB mine with 8,500 BTU/lb. coal to hit the target price with a mining cost of $9/ton and a transportation cost of $20/ton, and have a 10 percent profit margin on its mine cost. A mine in Colorado, producing 12,500 BTU coal that is compliant for the same plant, with the same transportation cost of $20/ton, has an effective transportation cost advantage of $6.40/ton (because it only takes 0.68 tons of its coal to deliver the same BTU), so as long as its mining cost is not more than $16.40/ton it can compete. But in reality the Colorado mine, being underground, is at a $20/ton mine cost, so it's excluded from the market.
Now suppose the market demand for coal skyrockets, and the powerplant is now willing to bid $40 for the same 17 million BTU. Now the mine in Colorado with its FOB cost of $40 ton for 12,500 BTU coal can deliver the same BTU as a ton of 8.500 BUT PRB coal for $36.40 and take a $4.60/ton profit. In theory, the PRB mine could hold the line on its price, increase its production, and exclude the Colorado mine from the market. But to do that, it will have to accelerate the depletion rate of its only asset (its coal in the ground), hasten the day when its mine costs will start to creep upward from $9/ton as it gets into deeper cover, and forgo the handsome profits it can earn by not increasing its output to try and keep competing coal fields out of the market. It takes a really, really big mine of a very rare mineral to enforce a ceiling on prices by increasing production to match demand, and coal is not scarce enough to make that strategy feasible.
The more that energy prices go up, the more it favors high-BTU coal, or natural gas or oil, because they are less penalized by transportation cost -- which varies with tonnage, not with heat content. As long as the mine cost of the low-BTU coal is very low, it can tolerate high transportation charges, but as its mine cost starts to approach the mine cost of high-BTU coal, it's going to get squeezed. Against that, however, is that a large coal-burning power plants has a 50-year economic life, and re-equipping a power plant to burn a coal with different ash fusion temperatures, sodium content, or sulfur content may virtually require flattening the entire plant upstream of the high-pressure steam pipe to the turbine and starting over. Thus utility companies need a high degree of assurance that whatever coal originally designed for, that coal resource won't be exhausted before the plant reaches its economic lifespan. That has tended to heavily favor the PRB for a coal supply because it is a very, very, large field. Even if its life is nominally 30 years at current production rates, in reality as the field started to approach exhaustion, certain utilities would likely seek to lock in supply with long-term contracts at a price premium, the value of that premium being the marginal cost of converting their generating stations to a different coal or fuel. Other utilities that had plants that were nearing their economic lifespan or were readily convertible to a different coal or fuel would not wish to pay that premium and exit the market, so production would fall but total mine value for the coal would climb.
In a very long-winded way for which I again apologize, what I'm getting at is that (1) yes, there are scenarios where the lifespan of the Gillette Field at current production rates could be substantially extended, but (2) those scenarios do not yet exist and each one of them is contingent upon the occurance of at least one event that would be a substantial departure from the recent past. Many people like to think of the future as a theater of unlimited possibilities, but when one looks at economic history the reality is that economic change tends to be rather banal and glacial for large-scale, long-duration human activities such as coal mining and railroading. Actually, I hope to live long enough to be proven wrong in this particular case, just because I find the whole activity of excavating vast slices of the Wyoming prairie and dispatching it in fleets of trains across the nation to still be amazing 30 years after I first started earning a living in this business.
Thanks RWM I have traveled the area since the PRB was first built and have marveled at the size of it since it's humble beginnings.
Here in California we have another problem. The enviromentalists successfully shut down Rancho Seco a Nuclear Power plant and have blocked the Auburn Dam project as well.
So the answer in California was to turn to Wind Generators and Solar fields such as constructed in the Mojave desert.
Now we have a problem with the wind generators. There is a suit before the courts that has twice been delayed that says the wind generators are killing hundreds of migrating birds along the Pacific flyway. The suit wants to shut down all wind generators in the state for six to eight weeks in the spring and six to eight weeks in the fall during the annual bird migration. I don't know what side I personally stand on having recently watched the Sand Hill Cranes arrive for the winter from as far away as Siberia and Alaska I must say I was very impressed with these magnificent flyers arrival. They winter in the Delta area and are magnificent to see. I have also witnessed power company officials in jeeps on the Altamont Pass picking up dead birds beneath the wind generator towers. In this way the bird watchers can not get an accurate count of the numbers being killed. There also many roaming Coyotes eating the dead birds as well. It will be interesting to see how the suit will play out in the very Liberal California courts. The power companies argue that the loss of all California wind generators for six to eight weeks in the spring and six to eight weeks in the fall.
There is a growing argument to reinstate the Rancho Seco Nuclear plant that supposedly is just mothballed whatever that means and build additional Nuclear plants in the State for the much needed power the state consumes. If there should be a government push for electrification of the major RR arteries than Nuclear Power plants will have to be built to suuply enough long term energy. There has even been some talk of building a tidal power plant or plants in the Northwestern part of the state where tides are high enough to supply power like the French and and Dutch have. California has an adversion to Coal fired generating plants and Natural Gas is getting more expensive so once again if wind generators lose there court battles than I belive the state will have no choice but to once again turn to Nuclear. And once again the law suits will come forward and thousands of lawyers will have high paying jobs for another ten years at least.
The true cost of coal for energy purposes is only now being revealed in terms of damage to the environment and adjustments that we will have to make as a result of global warming. These are large costs which have only recently come to light and which are only now being factored into the cost equation of coal. Once the extent of these costs are more fully understood other energy sources like nuclear will become that much more attractive by comparison..It's hard for anyone to say what the next 30 years will bring although there's general consenus now that pumping CO2 into the air through combustion is warming the planet. That fact combined with the finite supply of thermal coal available suggests that we need to look elsewhere for our energy needs in 30 to 50 years when energy demands will have increased exponentially. Any recent develops in nuclear fusion? Maybe fusion can become viable over the next 50 years...
Railway Man .......................In a very long-winded way for which I again apologize............................. RWM
.......................In a very long-winded way for which I again apologize.............................
+1 [what Murphy said]
Thanks once again, Railway Man for sharing your expertise and insights, and summarizing those years of observations and thought - and the dynamics of the coal and mining businesses, too - so succinctly (yes - esp. when compared to the volume of material that the rest of us would have to plow through to maybe arrive at the same level of understanding). That's one of the things that makes this railroad business so fascinating - almost inevitably, you wind up involved with the affairs of the shipping and receiving industries as well. It's hard to think of a better way to learn about economics and business on many different levels.
Did you really mean to say that re-locating the PRB main line through the coal fields would be a $Trillion dollar proposition ? ["Going further would require either moving the Joint Line further west or back onto the mined-out area, either way, a trillion-dollar proposition, . . . "] For example, figuring $10 Million a route-mile for the 4 main-line tracks for the 100 miles* or so that would be involved = $1 Billion or so.
*Campbell 0.0 to past Converse Jct. 65.4 = 70 miles, plus say 30 miles for various spurs and branches, etc. See the "Mines Area" detail map on BNSF's "Powder River Operating Divsion" map dated Janaury 1, 2005 at:
http://www.bnsf.com/tools/reference/division_maps/div_pr.pdf
Here in NorthEastern Pennsylvania, some years ago (like 20 to 25 years), one of the Louis DeNaples enterprises - he was/ is involved with landfills, banks, coal mines, and most recently, casinos - paid to relocate segments of the Pocono Northeast Railroad's low-speed, poor conditions (typically FRA Class I track) single-track line in certain parts of the Scranton - Wilkes Barre area. I wasn't directly involved with it, so I can't provide details as to the locations, but my understanding is that it was worthwhile to pay for because it allowed mining of the coal underneath the line's embankment, and maybe also expansion of a nearby landfill into the resulting void. That, of course, is a much different dynamic and cost/ benefit structure than would occur in the PRB scenario.
- Paul North.
I would like to nominate this for "thread of the year" award. Not only is it interesting to the rail industry, but the discussion on coal operations is very informative and easy to understand.
RWM, thanks for filtering 2000 pages to a few paragraphs. I truly appreciate your effort not only on this topic but others as well.
Was it really 30 years ago when David P. Morgan, in the winds of the energy crises of the 1970's discussed the PRB coal and told us railfans there was enough low sulpher coal to supply our energy needs for the next 50 years? Time flies.
Where are we now in the world of energy? What is next? The 50 years were to get us to the point where alternative forms would be developed? Have we used those 30 plus years prudently?
When one travels from to Indianapolis on I65 the massive wind farms developed (by Duke Power?) leads to as many questions as answers?
How viable are these to addressing our needs? Can anyone provide information on the power generated vs a coal fired system? How many wind turbines does it take to equal a coal powered unit? Pros and cons?
We seem to have considerable nat gas reserves in the lower 48 states? Will there be a movement from coal to nat gas? What are the ramifications of switching over? BTW, BNSF has a great map entitled "Coal Map" which lists power plants, coal mines, marine terminals and railroad lines.
Call the BNSF investor department for a copy...the investor department will obviously be gone soon.
ed
I can't answer for RWM's figure for moving the rail line, as he (and you) are far more qualified than I to toss out cost numbers for railroads.
However, I think what happens 20 to 30 years from now will be largely dependent on how desparately we need the coal to meet our power needs. At this time, I don't think any possible action would be taken off the table, but when the time comes to make the decision, even an option running a billion or so might be a deal breaker.
One thing that can't change is the ratio of overburden to recoverable coal. As noted, that goes from 3 to 1 to the range of 6 to 9 to one. In any circumstance, that is a lot of additional dirt to get out of the way to get to the coal. If the cost of moving the overburden is say just $2.00 per ton, adding another $2 to $4 a ton to production cost against a $9 price probably wrecks the operating profit margin.
jeaton [snip] One thing that can't change is the ratio of overburden to recoverable coal. As noted, that goes from 3 to 1 to the range of 6 to 9 to one. In any circumstance, that is a lot of additional dirt to get out of the way to get to the coal. If the cost of moving the overburden is say just $2.00 per ton, adding another $2 to $4 a ton to production cost against a $9 price probably wrecks the operating profit margin.
Sure. But if the dip of that seam of coal is 'bedded' pretty much uniformly, then that overburden ratio shouldn't just jump discontinuously from 3:1 to 6:1 - it should normally progress from 3:1 to 4:1 to 5:1 and then to 6:1, with all the smaller steps or increments between, of course. And I do recognize that where the PRB Line is, its support will probably require that a wide wedge or trapezoid-shaped 'Chinese Wall' be left in place - at least 4+ times as wide as the depth of the average excavation on each side, due to the need for at least 2-to-1 side slopes. So, for a 200 ft. wide R-O-W and bed for 4 tracks plus an access road, etc., and say, a 200 ft. deep pit, that would be 4 x 200 ft. + 200 ft. = 1,000 ft. wide at the bottom. For the typical 1 degree dip cited by RWM = around 1.8 % slope, that would increase the depth of the excavation across that berm by 18 feet - from like 190 ft. on the approach side to 210 ft. on the departing side. [For a 300 ft. deep excavation, the base width would be 1,400 ft., and the difference across it would be around 25 ft., and so on.]
So with those numbers, I'm not seeing the depth changing radically as the mining would want to cross the railroad. What would be a major hassle would be handling of the 'cast' - what to do with the several million cubic yards that will first have to be excavated from beginnings of the removal of the overburden on the departing side, because the hole to put it in as before is now on the far side of the 4-track railroad, and from 600 to 1,000 ft. away for the 200 ft. deep pit; 800 to 1,400 ft. away for the 300 ft. deep pit. But once that initial 'slug' of overburden is moved to the 'old' or approach side of the tracks, then mining - and life - can proceed pretty much as before. Maybe put a glorified snowshed or quonset-hut type structure over the tracks, and pile the dirt on top of them ? Or, a tall retaining wall right next to the R-O-W to keep the dirt from spilling onto the tracks ? Either might be cheaper to do than having to set up the haul operation to reach the old hole on the approach sode of the tracks.
In theory, anyway. But all that means is that maybe the PRB mining gets to the point of not being worthwhile a little more gradually - that we'll get there eventually as RWM says, I do not dispute.
Unless, of course, the price of other competing alternate energy sources increases such that - using your example numbers - the PRB coal can then get a $12 to $15 price on the market, or the cost of rail transport decreases likewise by $2 to $4 a ton, or some combination of those, etc. - but for either of those to occur, the radical changes that RWM 'excepted' would probably have to occur, too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.