Bureau of Mines Report of Investigations/l981 

Direct Method Determination 

of the Gas Content of Coal: 

Procedures and Results 

By W. P. Diamond and J. R. Levine 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 
Report of Investigations 8515 

Direct Method Determination 

of the Gas Content of Coal: 

Procedures and Results 

By W. P. Diamond and J. R. Levine 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

James G. Watt, Secretary 

BUREAU OF MINES 
This publication has been cataloged as follows : 

Diamond, William P 

Direct method determination of the gas content of coal: 

Procedures and results. 

(Report of investigations - United States, Bureau of Mines ; 8515) 

Bibliography: p. 12. 

1. Coal-Analysis. 2, Coal-Methane content. I. Levine, Jeffrey R,, 

joint author, 11. Title, 111. Series: United States, Bureau of Mines. 

Report of investigations ; 8515. 

TN23 .U43 [TP325] 622s [662.6'22] 80-607951 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract ................................................................ 1 

Introduction and historical development ................................. 1 

Acknowledgments ......................................................... 4 

Equipment and procedures ................................................ 4 

Sampling ........................................................... 4 

Test equipment ..................................................... 4 

Calculation of gas content ......................................... 6 

Auxiliary test procedures .......................................... 10 

Summary ................................................................. 11 

References .............................................................. 12 

Appendix A*-- Results of direct method gas content determinations on 

U.S. coal samples ..................................................... 13 

Appendix R.--Diagrams of standard direct method test sample container 

and ball mill ......................................................... 34 

Appendix C.--Field data collection form for direct method test .......... 36 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

1 . Gas content of coal versus actual mine emission ................... 2 . Crushing box used in original procedure for determining residual 

gas ............................................................. 3 . Sample containers used for direct method testing of coal samples .. 4 . Equipment for direct method testing of coal samples ............... 5 . Lost gas graph .................................................... 6 . Ball mill used to crush coal for new residual gas determinations 

procedure ....................................................... 7 . Roller machine for tumbling coal samples in ball mill ............. B-1 . Standard direct method test sample container ...................... B-2 . Ball mill used to crush coal for new residual gas determination 

procedure ....................................................... 

TABLES 

1 . Data for lost gas graph ........................................... 7 

A-1 . Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal 

samples ......................................................... 15 
DIRECT METHOD DETERMINATION OF THE GAS CONTENT OF COAL: 

PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 

by 

W. P. Diamond1 and J. R. Levine2 

ABSTRACT 

The explosion hazard of methane-air mixtures has become an increasingly 

serious mine planning problem, and an advance assessment of methane gas potential can therefore be essential for a safe and economic mine development program. As part of its coal mine health and safety program, the Bureau of Mines 

has developed a simple, inexpensive test to measure the methane content of 

coal samples obtained from exploration cores. The gas content of coal per 

unit weight as determined by the direct method test can be used as a basis for 

a preliminary estimate of mine ventilation requirements, and to determine if 

degasification of the coalbed in advance of mining should be considered. 

Since the Rureau began measuring the gas content of coal samples in 1972, 

experience has led to equipment and procedural changes, the most significant 

of which has been the development of a ball mill for crushing the coal sample 

to release the residual gas at the end of the desorption test period. This 

revised procedfire replaces the crushing box and graphical methods described in 

earlier Bureau p~iblications. 

The results of 583 direct method tests are summarized in tabular form. 

These results include data on the gas content of 125 coalbeds in 15 States. 

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT 

The Bureau of Mines originally became interested in determining the 

methane content of virgin coal as an aid in estimating the amount of methane 

that would be released in an active mine. The method developed for this 

purpose (3-5)3 -- was a variation on a method reported by French researchers in 

1970 (2). - The primary differences between the procedures were that the method 

'~u~ervisor~ geologist. 

2~eologist. 

Both authors are with the Pittsburgh Research Center, Rureau of Mines, 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 

3~nderlined numbers in parentheses refer to items in the list of references 

preceding the appendixes. 
- Beatrice Mine 

- 

/ d~owe Mine 

Loveridge I I 

- 

&ederal N0.2 Mine 1 

r-fiVes+a Mine 

investigated by the Bureau 

used samples of virgin coal 

from exploration cores, and 

the French researchers 

reported results on drill 

cuttings taken from holes 

drilled into coalbeds from 

working faces underground. 

The Bureau's initial 

research results were used to 

construct a graph (fig. 1) 

that related direct method 

test values to the actual 

measured methane emissions of 

nearby mines. The correlation was good for large, 

deep mines, with a sustained 

coal production of at least 

several thousand tons a day 

that had been in operation 

for several years. A complete discussion of the use 

of this graph is available 

(i) 

The Bureau's original 

test method included a crush- a, Mary Lee No.1 Mine 

, , , , , ,I ing procedure to indirectly 

Inland Mine measure the volume of gas 

remaining in the coal sample 

4 8 12 16 after desorption ceased. 

GAS CONTENT MEASURED 20 This procedure involved 

crushing the coal sample in a 

BY DIRECT METHOD, cm3/~ jaw crusher within a sealed, 

FIGURE 1. - Gas content of coal versus actual mine emission. clear plastic box* The box 

was purged of air prior to 

crushing and filled with nitrogen. The operator worked inside the sealed box 

through flexible rubber sleeves as shown in figure 2. After the coal was 

crushed, gas samples were taken for compositional analysis. The percent 

methane in the sample was used in conjunction with the free space volume 

inside the box to calculate the volume of gas released by the crushing 

procedure. 

The crushing box procedure was cumbersome and time consuming; therefore, 

research efforts were directed toward developing a graphical procedure for 

estimating the residual gas. Several coal sample physical and chemical 

variables associated with the gas content data base were evaluated for 

possible estimating parameters. After evaluating all the available data, it 

was determined that a graphical procedure based on the friable or blocky 
FIGURE 2. - Crushing box used in original procedure for determining residual gas. 

character of the individual coal sample, and the amount of lost and desorbed 

gas at a specific time cutoff would provide an acceptable estimate of 

residual gas (2). 

However, subsequent to the development of the graphical procedure and the 

acquisition of a substantially larger data base, Bureau researchers determined 

that the graphical method was not sufficiently reliable. The problem with the 

graph was that it was based on residual gas data obtained from the crushing 

box. It was found that the plastic covering of the box did not always seal 

properly, and the rubber sleeves periodically developed leaks. It was not 

known exactly when the box hegan leaking, or on which previous samples leaks 

had developed; therefore, the reliability of the residual gas results was in 

question. Because the graphical procedure was based on the results from the 

crushing box, the graph could not be considered valid. 

To improve the reliability of the gas content testing procedure, a new 

crushing method that would allow the direct measurement of the volume of 

residual gas has been developed. This method uses a sealed ball mill crushing 

apparatus that will be discussed in detail in the "Equipment and Procedures" 

section of this report. Comparison of data obtained by this direct method 

with estimates from the graph have further confirmed that the graphical procedure is not always reliable. 
Gas content determinations have been completed on 583 individual coal 

samples since the first test was completed in 1972. The testing procedure has 

evolved to provide more complete and reliable data. A summary of the test 

results and an indication of the reliability of those results is presented in 

Appendix A. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The cooperation of numerous coal and gas companies and State and Federal 

agencies, in providing exploratory coal cores for gas content determinations, 

is greatly appreciated. While under contract to the Bureau of Mines and the 

Department of Energy (DOE), the staffs of the Colorado Geological Survey and 

the Utah Geological and Mineral Survey collected a substantial number of coal 

samples that provided the first comprehensive data base of gas in western 

coalbeds. Appreciation is also extended to DOE for giving the Bureau access 

to gas content data collected by their contractors. Slyvester Sudduth, of the 

Pittsburgh (Pa.) Research Center, Bureau of Mines, is gratefully acknowledged 

for his contribution of sample testing in the laboratory. 

EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES 

Sampling 

Coal samples for gas content testing are usually obtained by the Rureau 

from exploratory coreholes of private coal companies. Because of quality 

testing needs of coal companies, it is generally possible to obtain only 

enough sample for one gas test on a coalbed. Therefore, it has been Rureau 

practice to obtain the cleanest section of coal; that is, coal without obvious 

extraneous shale, pyrite, or other noncoal inclusions. Multiple testing, or 

even testing of the entire coalhed, would be the preferable sampling 

procedure. 

The person collecting the coal samples in the field must be present at 

the site when the coalbed is cored. To calculate a portion of the total gas 

content, that person must accurately record the exact times of coalbed 

encounter, start of core retrieval, and elapse time until the sample is sealed 

in the sample container. 

Test Equipment 

Figure 3 shows sample containers of several shapes and sizes that have 

been constructed for various testing purposes. The standard container (can A) 

used by the Bureau is made from a 12-inch piece of aluminum pipe, having an 

inside diameter of 4 inches. A top flange and bottom plate have been welded 

to the pipe section, and a removable lid that attaches to the top flange can 

be fitted with a gage and various types of valve assemblies. A diagram of 

this canister is presented in appendix B. Valves with a quick-connect capability are preferred if a large number of samples are tested at the same time. 
p

plastic water filter housings (cans B, C, and D) available from many plumbing 

supply outlets. These containers are sometimes awkward to use because of 

their rounded bottoms (cans C and D), or because of the difficulty of opening 

and/or sealing the large screw-type caps. Thus, standard metal containers are 

preferred because of their flat bottoms and durability, especially in longterm collection programs. In general, any container.that can be easily sealed 

airtight, can contain about 2,000 grams of sample, and can hold approximately 

50 pounds of internal pressure would be adequate for the test. 

It has been suggested that containers of greater length, perhaps even 

long enough to hold an entire cdre of a coalbed should be used for testing. 

Although it would be preferable to test the entire core, several complications 

may arise in using large containers. Occasionally, a sample container will 

leak, invalidating the test. If six individual 1-foot sections of a 6-foot 

coalbed are tested separately, a leak in one can is of little consequence. 

But if the entire 6 feet is placed in one can, and it leaks, few usable data 

are obtained. Coal samples that are friable and very gassy will usually give 

off large volumes of gas early in the desorption procedure. If very large 

amounts of coal of this type are sealed into a large canister, then bleeding 

the large volume of gas into the measuring apparatus, which will be described 

later, can require an excessive amount of time which can invalidate the calculation of the lost gas. 
The equipment (fig. 4) 

needed to measure the actual 

volume of gas desorbing from 

the coal sample consists of 

an inverted graduated cylinder sitting in a pan filled 

with water and a ring stand 

and clamps to hold the 

Sample graduated cylinder in place. 

container The desorbed gas that collects in the canister is 

periodically bled into the 

graduated cylinder and 

measured as the volume of 

water displaced. This procedure is performed both at 

Pan of water the drill site and subsequently, in the laboratory. FIGURE 4. - Equipment for direct method testing of coal 

samples. Calculation of Gas Content 

The gas content of a 

particular sample is composed of lost, desorbed, and residual gas, each of 

which is determined by slightly different techniques. A core sample actually 

begins to desorb gas before it is sealed in the sample container. The amount 

of this lost gas depends on the drilling medium and the time required to 

retrieve, measure, and describe the core and seal the sample in the can. The 

shorter the time required to collect the sample and seal it into the can, the 

greater the confidence in the lost gas calculation. In general, because of 

its speed, wire line retrieval of the core is preferable to conventional 

coring. If air or mist is used in drilling, it is assumed that the coal begins 

desorbing gas immediately upon penetration by the core barrel. With water, 

desorption is assumed to begin when the core is halfway out of the hole; that 

is, when the gas pressure is assumed to exceed that of hydrostatic head. 

The lost gas can be calculated by a graphical method based on the relationship that for the first few hours of emission, the volume of gas given 

off is proportional to the square root of the desorption time. A plot of the 

cumulative emission after each reading against the square root of the time 

that the sample has been desorbing ideally would produce a straight line. 

A sample of experimental data (table 1) and supplementary information 

used to construct a lost gas graph follows: 

Drilling medium--water. 

Time coalbed encountered (A)--12 : 01 a.m. 

Time core started out of hole (B)--12:30 a.m. 

Time core reached surface (C)--12:40 a.m. 
Time core sealed in canister (D)--12:50 a.m. 

Lost gas time: (D-A) if air or mist is used 

I C -B (D-C) + if water is used 1 

= 15 minutes. 

TABLE 1. - Data for lost gas graph 

I 

( The resulting graph is shown in figure 5. The intercept on the X axis 1 

3.87 

5.48 

6.71 

7.75 

8.66 

9 .49 

10:25 

is the square root of the elapsed time (lost gas time) in minutes from the 1 

Time since 

placed in 

can, min 

0 

15 

30 

45 

60 

75 

90 

Reading 

I.............. 

2.............. 

3..... ......... 4........ ...... 5.............. 

6........ ...... 7.... .......... 

time gas desorption begins and the sample is sealed in the container. The 

estimated value of the lost gas is the point at which the constructed line 

Gas released, 

cm3 

0 

92 

84 

55 

36 

40 

33 

Tim, a.m. 

12 : 50 

1:05 

1:20 

1:35 

1:50 

2:05 

2:20 

intercepts the negative Y axis. 

The desorbed gas is simply the total volume of gas drained from the SamTotal gas, 

cm3 

0 

92 

176 

23 1 

267 

307 

340 

ple and measured in the graduated cylinder. The desorbing of a sample is 1 

generally allowed to continue until a very low emission rate is obtained, 

generally an average of less than 10 cm3 of gas per day for 1 week. The time 

required to reach this low rate of emission will vary considerably and is 

affected by many things, including the size of the sample, the physical 

characteristics of the coal, and the amount of gas contained in the sample. 

At the point at which it is determined to discontinue the measurement of 

desorbed gas, the coal sample will usually still contain gas. To complete the 

gas determination procedures, the amount of residual gas must be measured. 

The procedure recommended by the Bureau is to crush the coal in a sealed ball 

mill. The ball mill constructed for crushing coal (fig. 6) was fabricated 

from a piece of 1/4-inch-wall, 7-inch-diameter steel pipe. A steel plate was 

welded to the bottom, and a lid was fitted to the top. At the top, a short 

1 section of pipe with 1-inch wall thickness was welded inside the 7-inch pipe 1 
FIGURE 5. - Lost gas graph. FIGURE 6. - Ball mill used to crush coal for 

new residual gas determinations 

procedure. 

to provide sufficient surface area for machining a groove for an O-ring seal 

and for bolt holes to secure the lid. A diagram of the ball mill is presented 

in appendix B. 
FIGURE 7. - Roller machine for tumbling coal samples in ball mill. 
Weight of crushed powder--735 grams. 

Weight of uncrushed lumps--45 grams. 

Volume of gas bleed off --1,082 cm3. - 

Gas bleed off, cm3 Residual gas calculation = Weight of sample crushed to powder, grams 

- 1,082 cm3 

735 grams 

Theoretically, it is possible to crush a coal sample in the ball mill at 

any point after collection and to obtain the total gas content (excluding lost 

gas) of the sample. This procedure is generally not considered appropriate if 

maximum information from the sample is desired. By crushing the sample before 

the desorption process is complete, it is impossible to obtain the relative 

amounts of desorbed and residual gas. This distinction is important because 

the actual residual gas, which will not desorb from the sample while sealed in 

the canister, probably represents gas that will not flow to a degasification 

borehole and possibly represents gas that will not be emitted into a mine 

atmosphere. It is true that during the process of mining coal, the coal is 

broken up into variously sized pieces; however, the majority of these pieces 

will not usually duplicate the very fine powder that the ball mill produces 

in the residual gas procedure. 

The total gas content of a particular sample is the volume of lost gas 

and desorbed gas divided by the total sample weight plus the residual gas 

content. The calculation procedure and sample data set follow: 

Lost gas--240 cm3. 

Desorbed gas--3,246 cm3. 

Total sample weight--780 grams. 

Residual gas--1.5 cm3 /g. 

Total gas = gas + desorbed gas + residual gas 

Total sample weight 

- 240 cm3 + 3,246 em3 + l.5 cm3,g 

780 grams 

Auxiliarv Test Procedures 

Proximate, ultimate, and Btu analyses are obtained on the crushed powder 

from the residual gas test. These test results can be used to further evaluate 

the gas content results on a practical and theoretical basis. Because the gas 
content is presented on a volume-to-weight ratio, the presence of noncoal 

material, primarily shale and pyrite--which adds weight but not gas storage 

capacity--can produce seemingly erroneous data. Thus two samples from the 

same coalbed core may have gas contents varying by several cubic centimeters 

per gram if one sample contains appreciably higher noncoal material. The 

coal analysis will help determine if noncoal material is influencing the total 

gas content. 

Theoretical studies on the influence of depth of burial on the gas content are preferably done on a clean coal, thus removing the noncoal material 

variable from the evaluation. However, because coalbeds do contain noncoal 

material, the actual in-place methane in a particular volume of coal should 

be related to the as-received coal data. 

Theoretically, the gas content of coal is influenced by the rank of the 

coal, with higher ranks generally having higher gas contents. The coal 

analysis can be used to determine the apparent rank of the coal by ASTM Standard D388 (1) - for evaluation of the rank parameter. 

Gas samples should be obtained periodically during the desorption testing 

of coal samples. Gas compositional analysis will provide information on the 

gas quality, especially what, if any, gases other than hydrocarbons are 

present. 

SUMMARY 

The Bureau has developed and refined a simple, inexpensive testing procedure to directly determine the gas content of coal samples obtained from 

exploration coal cores. The procedures for determining the lost and desorbed 

gas in a coal sample have remained essentially the same, but the residual gas 

determination procedure has been revised. The current recommended residual 

gas procedure involves crushing the coal sample at the end of the desorption 

period in a sealed ball mill and then measuring the liberated gas directly by 

a water displacement method. 
REFERENCES 

1. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification for 

Classification of Coals by Rank. D388 in 1977 Annual Book of ASTM 

Standards: Part 26, Gaseous Fuels; Coal and Coke; Atmosphere Analysis. 

Philadelphia, Pa., 1977, pp. 214-218. 

2. Bertard, C., B. Bruyet , and J. Gunther. Determinations of Desorbable Gas 

Concentrations of Coal (Direct Method). Intern. J. Rock Mechanics and 

Miner. Sci., v. 7, 1970, pp. 43-65. 

3. Diamond, W. P. Evaluation of Methane Gas Content of Coalbeds: Part of 

a Complete Coal Exploration Program for Health and Safety and Resource 

Evaluation. Proc. 2d Internat. Coal Exploration Symp., Denver, Colo., 

Oct. 1-4, 1978, v. 2, pp. 211-222. 

4. Kissell, F. N., C. M. McCulloch, and C. H. Elder. The Direct Method of 

Determining Methane Content of Coalbeds for Ventilation Design. BuMines 

RI 7767, 1973, 17 pp. 

5. McCulloch, C. M., J. R. Levine, F. N. Kissell, and M. Deul. Measuring 

the Methane Content of Bituminous Coalbeds. BuMines RI 8043, 1975, 

22 PP 
APPENDIX A. --RESULTS OF DIRECT METHOD GAS CONTENT DETERMINATIONS 

ON U . S . COAL SAMPLE S 

Table A-1 is a compilation of direct method test results on coal samples 

collected between 1972 and mid-1979. The results are listed alphabetically by 

coalbed. To better evaluate the total gas content of each sample, the component parts of the total are listed. The major physical and chemical 

variables known to affect the gas content of coal samples are provided if 

available. Space limitations preclude the listing of all detailed data associated with each sample, but this information is available for specific 

samples from the ~ureau's Pittsburgh Research Center. The Bureau has also 

published detailed geologic studies related to the occurrence of methane in 

selected coal measures. A bibliography of these papers, as well as other 

topics related to the occurrence and premining drainage of methane, is available from the Bureau of Mines, Methane Control Group, P.O. Box 18070, 

Pittsburgh, Pa. 15236. 

Discussion of Data Presented in Table A-1 

Coalbed: Coalbed names are generally those assigned by the cooperating 

coal companies or by other agencies supplying samples or data to the Bureau. 

If the name of the coalbed is unknown, either the formation name is listed or 

the sample is cataloged by the State name followed by (unc) for uncorrelated. 

A (?) following the coalbed name indicates that the name is probably correct, 

but the coal may be miscorrelated. The following abbreviations for different 

benches of the same coalbed are used in association with the coalbed name: 

U = upper, M = middle, and L = lower. 

State and County: Coal companies are generally reluctant to permit publicationofthe exact location of their exploratory coreholes. The location of 

sample collection sites are therefore identified only by the State and county. 

Sample depth, feet: The measured depth of the bottm of the sample 

placed in the desorption container, rounded off to the nearest foot. 

Lost gas, cm3: That portion of the total gas content lost before the coal 

sample was sealed in the canister, estimated by the graphical procedure 

described in the text. A dash in the lost gas column indicates that the lost 

gas could not be calculated, usually because of incomplete sample data. 

Desorbed gas, cm3: That portion of the total gas content liberated from 

the sample while sealed in the collection container and measured directly by 

the water displacement method described in the text. 

Gas content, cm3 /g , excluding residual gas : Determined by adding the lost 

and desorbed gas and dividing by the total sample weight; represents the gas 

that desorbed from the sample naturally. This may be the only valid gas content data for those samples for which residual gas was determined by the 

crushing box or graphical procedures. This value is probably less than the 

actual total gas content of those samples. 
Residual gas, cm3, and method of calculation: That portion of the total 

gas content of the sample remaining in the coal at the end of the desorption 

period, which will not freely desorb from the coal while sealed in the container. The residual gas has been determined by three methods as described 

in the text: CB = crushing box, G = graphical, and BM = ball mill. The 

crushing box method was determined to be unreliable; therefore, the graphical 

procedure based on the crushing box data must be considered unreliable. The 

residual gas data obtained from the ball mill is considered valid. A dash in 

this column indicates that this value was not determined, usually because the 

donors did not want the samples to be crushed. 

Total gas content, cm3/g: Determined by adding the column labeled Gas 

content, excluding residual gas, and the Residual gas column. The total gas 

content (subject to the validity of the residual gas) represents the gas content of the coal sample on an as-received basis. 

Apparent rank: Determined from coal analysis data by the method described 

in ASTM Standards D388 (1). The abbreviations (samples from all coal groups 

may not appear in table A-1) correspond to the following standard coal groups: 

M-Ant--Me ta -anthracite. 

Ant --Anthracite. 

Semi Ant - -Semianthracite. 

LV--Law-volatile bituminous. 

MV--Medium-volatile bituminous . HV-A--High-volatile A bituminous. 

HV-B- -High-vola ti le B bituminous. 

HV-C--High-volatile C bituminous. 

Sub-A--Subbituminous A. 

Sub-B--Subbituminous B . Sub-C--Subbituminous C. 

Lig-A--Lignite A. 

Lig-B--Lignite B. 

A dash in the apparent rank column indicates that a rank determination could 

not be made because of the lack of coal analysis data. 

Percent ash, as-received: Data are presented to permit an evaluation of 

the possible effect of the amount of ash on the total gas content of the - 

sample. Because the mineral matter represented by the ash in the coal analysis 

adds weight, but generally no gas, an abnormally low gas content may be 

measured if a high mineral matter content is present. A dash in this column 

indicates that a coal analysis was not obtained on the sample. 

- Code: Assigned to each coal sample processed for gas content determination by the Bureau. All inquiries concerning specific samples should refer 

to these code numbers. 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal samples 

Gas content, 

cm31g 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

6.3 

3.6 

4.9 

8.0 

. 3 

.9 

.7 

.2 

.8 

. 2 

1.3 

. 5 

1.2 

1.0 

. 5 

1.1 

4.2 

.1 

-3 

. 0 

. 0 

.I 

. 0 

. 0 

. 0 

. 0 

-1 

. 0 

. O 

Coalbed 

Alabama (uric)..... 

Alma.............. 

American.......... 

Anderson.......... 

Bald Knoll........ 

Rallard........... 

Ballard........... 

State 

Ala. 

W.Va. 

N.Mex. 

Ala. 

Mont. 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

County 

Jefferson... 

Mingo....... 

Pickens..... 

Rosebud..... 

Garfield.... 

Grand....... 

Grand....... 

Residual 

gas 9 

cm31g, and 

method of 

calculation 

0.0 BM 

1.1 BM 

.5 RM 

.4 BM 

.O G 

.6 G 

.5 G 

.1 G 

.5 G 

.1 G 

1.7 RM 

.3 G 

2.4 BM 

.2 G 

2.4 BM 

2.3 BM 

.2 BM 

.0 RN 

.1 G 

.O RM 

.0 BFI 

.2 RM 

. 0 BM 

.O RM 

.2 BM 

.O RM 

.O BM 

.O BM 

.O RM 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

810 

1,130 

1,224 

1,514 

754 

819 

855 

869 

934 

963 

972 

996 

1,005 

1,031 

1,046 

1,059 

1,495 

62 

274 

192 

198 

254 

297 

336 

371 

394 

410 

416 

42 3 

Apparrent 

rank 

HV-A 

HV-A 

MV 

MV 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-B 

Sub-C 

- 

HV-R 

HV-B 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-C 

HV-B 

HV-C 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-R 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3 Ig 

6.3 

4.7 

5.4 

8.4 

. 3 

1.5 

1.2 

. 3 

1.3 

-3 

3.0 

.8 

3.6 

1 2 

2.9 

3.4 

4.4 

.1 

. 4 

. 0 

. 0 

. 3 

. 0 

. O 

. 2 

• 0 

. 1 

. 0 

. O 

Lost 

ga;, 

cm 

175 

60 

120 

1,520 

20 

53 

46 

28 

8 2 

54 

3 0 

36 

30 

5 6 

30 

36 

320 

26 

80 

0 

0 

3 1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Desorbed 

ga;, 

cm 

2,370 

1,072 

1,653 

11,900 

9 0 

571 

432 

9 0 

464 

7 0 

790 

31 7 

64 1 

98 6 

226 

44 5 

1,805 

3 7 

220 

2 

0 

141 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 7 

0 

5 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method gas content determinations on 1J.S. coal samples--Contin

Coalbed 

Ballard (?). . . . . . . Rallard (U) ....... Rallard (L) ....... 

Rear Canyon....... 

Reckley........... 

Beckwith.......... 

Rig & Little Dirty 

Black Creek....... 

Rlue Creek........ 

Rriar Hill(No. 5~) 

Brookville........ 

Rrookwood......... 

State 

IJtah 

Utah 

IJtah 

Utah 

W.Va. 

IJtah 

Wash. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Ill. 

Pa. 

Ala. 

County 

Grand.. . . . .. Grand ....... Grand ....... 

Emerv....... 

Raleigh..... 

Emery....... 

Pierce...... 

Jefferson... 

Jefferson... 

Clay.. . ..... 

Allegheny... 

Pickens..... 

Appar

rent 

rank 

HV-A 

HV-R 

HV-R 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-I3 

- 

- 

HV-A 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

861 

505 

530 

971 

558 

588 

6 53 

655 

740 

830 

850 

852 

875 

990 

1,198 

1,200 

1,075 

468 

485 

537 

297 

1,078 

1,020 

1,020 

683 

Residual 

gas, 

cm3/g, and 

method of 

calculation 

0.5 RM 

.3 RM 

.2 WI 

.0 G 

.I CR 

.3 G 

.8 RM 

1.8 RM 

.6 CR 

.8 CR 

.6 C, 

.8 C: 

.9 CR 

.9 CR 

-1 G 

.O G 

.O R11 

.O RM 

.O RH 

.7 BII 

.8 RTI 

.5 BY 

- 

- 

2.6 RM 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3/g 

0.5 

.8 

1.5 

.O 

.4 

4.8 

5.5 

11.5 

13.7 

15.3 

9.3 

12.0 

14.4 

13.1 

9.9 

10.8 

-1 

2.5 

1.5 

3.7 

4.0 

1.0 

2.7 

2.5 

5.0 

Lost 

gas, 

cm 

0 

7 9 

- 

3 

32 

28 

430 

880 

890 

1,660 

1,720 

2,880 

1,880 

640 

1,400 

1,900 

30 

1,300 

830 

360 

160 

130 

250 

235 

155 

Desorbed 

gas, 

cm 

0 

253 

1,120 

39 

333 

3,313 

7,805 

14,967 

16,641 

17,787 

9,630 

16,160 

17,214 

12,920 

14,903 

14,016 

92 

5,741 

5,278 

4,251 

3,633 

758 

5,210 

5,979 

1,217 

Gas content, 

cm3/g 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

0.0 

-5 

1.3 

.0 

-3 

4.5 

4.7 

9.7 

13.1 

14.5 

8.7 

11.2 

13.5 

12.2 

9.8 

10.8 

.1 

2.5 

1.5 

3.0 

3.2 

-5 

2.7 

2.5 

2.4 
Canyon.... ........ 

Canyon or Cook.... 

Carbonera......... 

Castlegate........ 

Castlegate A...... 

Wyo. 

Wyo. 

IJtah 

Utah 

Utah 

Campbell.... 

Campbell.... 

Grand....... 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

.0 RM 

.0 RH 

.0 RH 

.0 RH 

.O SM 

00 RE4 

.O RH 

. 0 Rbl 

00 SPI 

.0 RM 

.0 RM 

.O RM 

02 RbI 

04 RbI 

.3 RM 

1.0 CR 

02 G 

.0 RM 

.3 RM 

1.5 RE7 

1.2 srI 

05 BbI 

.3 RM 

1.1 BEI 

1.3 BH 

3.9 REI 

-3 RH 

.4 RM 

.1 C, 

2.3 RM 

2.3 G 

08 RM 

.9 RM 

.2 RFI 

1.2 RM 

1.2 RM 

.9 RE1 

;ub-C 

;ub-C 

;ub-C 

;ub-C 

;ub-C 

Guh-C 

;ub-C 

;ub-C 

qub-C 

?ub-C 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-R 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV -A 

- 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal samples--Continued 

Coalbed 

Castlegate R...... 

Castlegate R Rider 

Castlegate C...... 

Castlegate C...... 

Castlegate C...... 

Castlegate C...... 

Castlegate C...... 

Castlegate D...... 

Castlegate D...... 

Castlegate D...... 

State 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

County 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

Emery....... 

Carbon...... 

Emery....... 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

Emery....... 

Carbon...... 

Desorbed 

gas, 

cm 

256 

85 

4 4 

680 

592 

787 

0 

318 

5,292 

199 

794 

451 

682 

213 

320 

6,964 

294 

366 

450 

0 

5,747 

93 

86 3 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3Ig 

1.5 

1.1 

1.2 

1.7 

1 . 0 

3.0 

1.4 

1.1 

7.2 

. 7 

1.3 

1.3 

1.4 

. 7 

. 4 

10.6 

. 7 

. 7 

.8 

1.5 

6.2 

2.9 

1.0 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

316 

353 

441 

504 

511 

737 

776 

973 

1,234 

198 

301 

556 

563 

898 

1,249 

3,292 

149 

161 

170 

1,101 

1,136 

1,308 

1,431 

Gas content, 

cm3/g 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

0.4 

. 3 

. 0 

.6 

.6 

1.2 

. 0 

. 5 

6.4 

. 2 

1.3 

.6 

. 7 

. 2 

. 4 

10.2 

. 2 

. 7 

.8 

. 0 

5.4 

. 1 

1.0 

Apparrent 

rank 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV -R 

HV-B 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV -A 

HV-R 

- 

HV -R 

HV -B 

HV-R 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

Lost 

ga;, 

cm 

0 

0 

0 

70 

37 

130 

0 

75 

149 

0 

22 4 

6 4 

110 

- 

10 

420 

0 

5 1 

33 

0 

90 

44 

134 

Residual 

gas 9 

cm3/g, and 

method of 

calculation 

1.1 BM 

.8 RM 

1.2 RM 

1.1 BM 

.4 RM 

1.8 BM 

1.4 RM 

.6 RM 

.8 RM 

.5 BM 

.O G 

.7 BFI 

.7 RM 

.5 RM 

.0 G 

.4 BM 

.5 BM 

.O C, 

.O G 

1.5 RM 

.8 BM 

2.8 RF! 

.O G 

P

a

r
Cedar Grove (L). .. 

Chesterfield...... 

Christensen (?)... 

Christensen....... 

Clarion........... 

Clarion........... 

Coalburg.......... 

Colorado J-J...... 

W.Va. 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

W.Va. 

Pa. 

W.Va. 

Ala. 

Colo. 

Grand....... 

Garfield.... 

Garfield.... 

Barbour..... 

Allegheny... 

?lingo.. ..... 

Pickens..... 

Rio Rlanco.. 

.O G 

1.2 G 

02 G 

05 G 

05 G 

.1 RM 

01 G 

1.9 RFl 

05 G 

1.4 BM 

1.3 RM 

01 G 

.1 C, 

2.7 BM 

01 G 

2.7 BM 

.3 RM 

.3 RM 

.O RM 

.O R?I 

.O BM 

.O RM 

.3 CR 

.3 CR - 

.1 G 

.1 BM 

.O BFI 

.O RM 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

- 

FTV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-B 

HV-R 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-A 

HV -A 

- 

- 

- 

HV-c 

HV-C 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method Eas content determinations on U.S. coal sam~les--Continue

Coalbed 

Colorado (unc) .... 

Colorado (unc) .... Colorado (unc).... 

Colorado (unc) .... Colorado (unc).. .. Colorado (unc) .... Colorado (unc). . . . Colorado (uric).... 

Colorado (unc) .... 

Colorado (unc) .... Colorado (uric).... 

Colorado (uric).... 

Colorado (unc). . . . Colorado (unc) .... Colorado (uric).... 

Colorado (unc).... 

Colorado (unc). ... 

Colorado (unc).... 

Colorado (unc) .... 

State 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

101 

168 

311 

484 

501 

584 

648 

677 

718 

724 

733 

775 

807 

811 

813 

825 

829 

873 

898 

963 

966 

992 

1,006 

1,009 

1,014 

1,017 

1,030 

1,032 

1,054 

1,064 

1,076 

1,142 

1,692 

1,793 

County 

Las Animas.. 

Mesa........ 

Moffat...... 

Huerfuno.... 

Las Animas.. 

Moffat...... 

Las Animas.. 

Floffat...... 

Las Animas.. 

Huerfano.... 

Las Animas.. 

1lesa........ 

Las Animas.. 

Huerfano.... 

Las Animas.. 

Huerfano.... 

Las Animas.. 

Huerfano.... 

Las Animas.. 

Lost 

gas, 

cm3 

170 

800 

170 

890 

1,110 

0 

20 

300 

52 

0 

3,300 

50 

40 

370 

115 

65 

130 

70 

370 

130 

70 

0 

130 

300 

170 

30 

9 0 

160 

480 

850 

9 0 

550 

3,400 

8,300 

Desorbed 

ga;, 

cm 

158 

1,057 

3,390 

2,031 

2,719 

0 

51 

185 

88 

0 

10,176 

334 

56 

3,086 

74 

56 

755 

505 

157 

260 

270 

24 

74 5 

32 

44 5 

54 

320 

335 

4,731 

9,448 

48 

134 

14,255 

18,098 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3 /g 

0.7 

3.6 

2.7 

2.8 

5.0 

.O 

-1 

1.6 

1.6 

.O 

7.9 

.5 

-1 

1.6 

-2 

-1 

.8 

1.2 

1.5 

1.1 

1.0 

.5 

1.2 

.9 

2.7 

. 1 

1.7 

1.6 

2.3 

6.0 

.5 

2.0 

11.0 

15.3 

Gas content, 

crn3Ig 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

0.4 

3.4 

2.5 

2.8 

5.0 

.o 

-1 

1.5 

.2 

.O 

7.6 

. 5 

-1 

1.5 

-2 

-1 

.8 

.6 

1.5 

. 5 

-3 

. 1 

.8 

.9 

. 8 

-1 

-5 

.5 

2.3 

6.0 

.5 

1.2 

11.0 

15.3 

Apparrent 

rank 

MV 

MV 

LV 

MV 

MV 

HV-C 

HV-C 

MV-A 

HV-A 

HV-C 

MV 

HV-C 

HV-C 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-C 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

MV 

MV 

Residual 

Ras, 

cm3Ig,and 

method of 

calculation 

0.3 RM 

.2 BM 

.2 BM 

.O BM 

.O BM 

.O RM 

.O BM 

.1 BM 

1.4 RM 

.O BM 

.3 BM 

.O BM 

.O BIl 

.1 BM 

.O BM 

. O Bli 

.O BTl 

.6 BTI 

.O BM 

.6 BM 

.7 BM 

.4 RM 

-4 BII 

.O BM 

1.9 RM 

.O BM 

1.2RM 

1.1 BM 

. 0 WI 

.O BM 

.O BM 

.8 BM 

.O BM 

.O BM 

P

a

r
Cook or Wall...... 

Danville (No. 7). . 

Dietz............. 

...... Elkorn No. 3 

Ferron............ 

...... Ferron (U).. 

Ferron (L).. ...... 

Fish Creek........ 

Flat Canyon... .... 

Freeport.......... 

..... Freeport (1J). 

Freeport (U). ..... Freeoirt (U). ..... 

Wyo . 

Ill. 

?Ion t . 

KY 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

1Jtah 

Utah 

Utah 

Pa. 

Pa. 

, Pa. 

Pa. 

I 

Campbell.... 

Clay. ....... 

Rosebud..... 

Perry....... 

Garfield.... 

Emery. ...... 

Sevier...... 

Sevier.. .... 

Carbon...... 

Emery.. ..... 

Allegheny.. . 

Allegheny.. . 

Westmoreland 

Greene...... 

Sub-C 

HV-R 

HV-R 

Sub-C 

- 

- 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-R 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method eas content determinations on U.S. coal sam~les--Continued 

Coalbed 

Fruitland......... 

.... Fruitland (IJ). 

.... Fruitland (L). 

Gillespie......... 

Gilson............ 

Gilson............ 

Harrisburg (No. 5) 

Harrisburg (NO. 5) 

Harrisburg (No. 5) 

Harrisburg (No. 5) 

... Hartshorne (U). 

.... Hartshorne (L) 

State 

N.Mex. 

N.Mex. 

N-flex. 

Ala. 

Utah 

Utah 

111. 

Ill. 

111. 

Ill. 

Okla. 

Okla. 

County 

San Juan.... 

.. San Juan.. 

.. San Juan.. 

Pickens..... 

Carbon...... 

... Emery.... 

Jefferson... 

..... White.. 

....... Wayne 

...... Clay.. 

.. Le Flore.. 

.... Le Flore 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

399 

399 

1,475 

1,485 

280 

295 

318 

465 

642 

587 

589 

736 

1,663 

476 

483 

2,340 

793 

909 

1,013 

1,069 

1,090 

823 

175 

252 

318 

356 

488 

489 

516 

553 

Lost 

ga;, 

cm 

92 

20 

368 

208 

0 

130 

95 

40 

62 

47 

0 

58 

160 

0 

0 

68 

360 

260 

122 

185 

200 

1,554 

185 

500 

806 

1,050 

6,500 

1,850 

2,700 

1,150 

Desorbed 

ga;, 

cm 

640 

163 

2,320 

1,849 

32 

275 

237 

1,525 

2,068 

1,755 

0 

1,609 

1,955 

0 

0 

653 

94 3 

3,470 

3,387 

2,140 

97 4 

15,903 

8,625 

15,960 

8,212 

23,310 

54,300 

16,670 

36,665 

8,117 

Gas content, 

cm3Ig 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

1.4 

-3 

3.3 

2.1 

.1 

-5 

-3 

3.9 

2.2 

2.5 

-0 

1.9 

4.6 

.O 

-0 

-8 

-8 

2.4 

2.4 

1.6 

-9 

14.9 

2.3 

4.8 

8.0 

10.1 

10.5 

10.2 

11.1 

12.8 

Residual 

gas, 

cm31g, and 

method of 

calculation 

0.0 BM 

-0 BM 

-9 BM 

1.7 RM 

.O RM 

-0 RM 

.O BFI 

.O BM 

-0 RM 

.O RM 

-3 RM 

. 1 BF4 

4.8 RM 

1.6 RM 

-5 BM 

-0 G 

-2 CB 

-5 BM 

-9 G 

-7 G 

-3 RM 

-6 G 

-2 G 

.9 G 

-7 BM 

-7 G 

-7 G 

-7 G 

-7 G 

.3 G 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm31g 

1.4 

.3 

4.2 

3.8 

-1 

-5 

-3 

3.9 

2.2 

2.5 

-3 

2.0 

9.4 

1.6 

-5 

.8 

1.0 

2.9 

3.3 

2.3 

1.2 

15.5 

2.5 

5.7 

8.7 

10.8 

11.2 

10.9 

11.8 

13.1 

Apparrent 

rank 

HV-R 

HV-B 

HV-A 

- 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-B 

HV-R 

HV-C 

HV-A 

HV-B 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-R 

- 

- 

HV-R 

- 

- 

- 

LV 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Pe

as

re
P2 m P2 I I1 7 777 

111111 I>II>> >I111 I I Ill1 2 %% ? ll>>> 

x xx x x x xxx 

000a00 000000 Odoom m 0 cows 0 mo 0 chlomo oom*mo wmwawa wmww m 4 

d d 

mhl m hlm W *W mu2 oowmam dewwdd 4 wcn Q\ m m 

*** 

000 0 ZZZ z www w cd 

cdcd *P a c c *- b c cdcd* a 0 al-ll-l d*daQ) M P W .d d '~'~dd %ICE 

GG33 25 map) xxx x x HHHH 5 5 599 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal samples--Continued 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3/g 

2.6 

4. 4 

6.2 

5.1 

7.3 

3.3 

6.6 

2. 4 

5.8 

6.4 

5.8 

2.6 

3.6 

. 4 

3.4 

1.3 

2.8 

3.4 

3.7 

5.0 

2.3 

2.5 

2.3 

. 5 

.8 

.8 

. 4 

.9 

1.0 

.2 

.1 

-3 

.6 

.2 

Lost 

gas, 

cm 

198 

216 

520 

114 

396 

534 

300 

168 

58 

50 

46 

118 

260 

30 

160 

4 3 

155 

155 

110 

500 

135 

132 

95 

48 

104 

67 

6 0 

59 

77 

56 

45 

79 

89 

13 

Coalbed 

Kittanning (U).... 

Kittanning (U) .... 

Kittanning (U). . . . Kittanning (TI) 

Kittanning (M).... 

Kittanning (M).... 

Kittanning (L). . . . 

Apparrent 

rank 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV -A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

Residual 

Ras, 

crn3/g, and 

method of 

calculation 

1.9 RM 

2.2 BM 

2.8 BM 

2.7 BM 

1.9 RM 

2.0 BM 

2.5 RM 

.6 R7.I 

1.2 RM 

1.7 BM 

1.5 BM 

.2 CR 

.1 CB 

.1 CR 

.1 CR 

.5 CB 

1.3 BM 

1.7 BM 

1.7 BM 

- 

0.9 CB 

1.0 CR 

.9 CB 

-3 RM 

.4 RM 

.6 BM 

. 3 RM 

.7 BM 

.7 BM 

.O BM 

.O BM 

.0 BM 

.4 RM 

-1 RM 

Desorbed 

ga;, 

cm 

800 

3,560 

5,395 

1,960 

5,590 

1,530 

3,895 

1,875 

5,175 

3,435 

4,905 

2,389 

4,321 

289 

2,472 

71 3 

1,788 

1,752 

1,523 

11,066 

1,578 

1,646 

1,529 

170 

430 

60 

120 

215 

200 

40 

30 

32 5 

13 0 

125 

Gas content, 

crn3Ig 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

0.7 

2.2 

3.4 

2.4 

5.4 

1.3 

4.1 

1.8 

4.6 

4.7 

4.3 

2.4 

3.5 

.3 

3.3 

.8 

1.5 

1.7 

2.0 

5.0 

1.4 

1.5 

1.4 

. 2 

. 4 

.2 

. 1 

. 2 

.3 

. 2 

. 1 

. 3 

.2 

. 1 

State 

W.Va.. 

Pa. 

W.Va. 

Ohio 

Pa. 

W.Va. 

W.Va. 

Per

as

re

County 

Barbour..... 

Allegheny... 

Upshur.. . . . . Harrison.. . . 

Allegheny... 

Upshur... ... 

Rraxton.. . . . 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

486 

487 

489 

490 

546 

547 

548 

549 

610 

611 

612 

708 

834 

834 

834 

840 

585 

586 

587 

801 

909 

911 

912 

76 

77 

78 

92 

93 

94 

146 

149 

151 

154 

405 
Kittanning (L).... 

Kittanning (L).... 

Kittanning (L).... 

Kittanning (L).... 

Kittanning (L).... 

Mahoning (?)...... 

Mammoth........... 

Mary Lee (U)...... 

Mary Lee (U)...... 

Mary Lee (U)...... 

Mary Lee (U)...... 

W.Va.. 

W.Va. 

Pa. 

W. Va. 

Pa. 

Pa. 

Pa. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Braxton..... 

Barbour..... 

Indiana..... 

Rarbour..... 

Westmoreland 

Allegheny... 

Schuylkill.. 

Walker.. . . . . Jefferson... 

Tuscaloosa.. 

Pickens.. ... 

MV 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

LV 

- 

Ant 

- 

- 

LV 

LV 

LV 

- 

LV 

- 

HV-A 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal sam~les--Contin

Coalbed 

Mary Lee (L). . . . . . 

Mary Lee (L).. . . . . 

Mary Lee (L). . . . . . Mary Lee (L)...... 

County 

Jefferson.. . 

Tuscaloosa.. 

Pickens.. . . . Tuscaloosa.. 

State 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

1,053 

1,056 

1,057 

1,073 

1,074 

1,076 

1,076 

1,078 

1,080 

1,082 

1,086 

1,089 

1,092 

1,099 

1,099 

1,099 

1,102 

1,103 

1,120 

1,123 

1,125 

1,126 

1,127 

1,130 

1,704 

1,705 

1,706 

1,913 

1,935 

2,185 

2,231 

2,285 

Lost 

gas, 

cm3 

270 

5,110 

3,170 

1,010 

1,010 

1,670 

830 

640 

1,380 

1,200 

4,480 

2,270 

2,160 

390 

240 

725 

600 

470 

680 

900 

1,540 

520 

1,990 

1,400 

760 

270 

260 

240 

770 

1,800 

240 

1,270 

Residual 

Ras, 

cm3/g, and 

method of 

calculation 

0.2 BM 

.1 BM 

.0 BM 

.2 RM 

.1 RM 

.O RM 

.3 RM 

.5 BM 

.5 RM 

.2 BM 

.4 BEI 

.1 RM 

.1 BM 

.7 RM 

.5 BPI 

.7 CB 

.4 RM 

.5 RM 

.3 RM 

.3 RM 

.3 BM 

.2 BM 

.1 BM 

.1 RM 

.7 G 

.4 C, 

.4 G 

.6 G 

.1 CR 

1.6 CR 

3.3 BM 

1.4 RM 

nesorbed 

ga;, 

cm 

5,519 

14,283 

5,687 

18,503 

17,055 

19,817 

16,997 

9,874 

12,640 

9,680 

45,923 

15,171 

19,961 

13,989 

3,464 

8,448 

10,654 

14,404 

15,194 

15,757 

14,457 

6,279 

16,599 

15,300 

13,955 

9,085 

7,661 

10,647 

15,331 

15,986 

3,513 

14,669 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3 lg 

13.6 

15.3 

5.1 

15.0 

14.2 

15.7 

14.8 

11.3 

10.4 

10.8 

13.2 

17.0 

15.1 

10.3 

8.1 

13.6 

11.1 

10.9 

16.3 

13.7 

11.9 

15.3 

15.0 

15.6 

14.8 

11 . 1 

11.7 

9.8 

15.6 

17.4 

5.9 

13.9 

Gas content, 

cm3/g 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

13.4 

15.2 

5.1 

14.8 

14.1 

15.7 

14.5 

10.8 

9.9 

10.6 

12.8 

16.9 

15.0 

9.6 

7.6 

12.9 

10.7 

10.4 

16.0 

13.4 

11.6 

15.1 

14.9 

15.5 

14.1 

10.7 

11.3 

9.2 

15.5 

15.8 

2.6 

12.5 

Apparrent 

rank 

LV 

LV 

MV 

LV 

LV 

LV 

LV 

- 

MV 

MY 

MY 

LV 

LV 

MY 

- 

- 

MY 

LV 

LV 

MY 

MY 

LV 

LV 

LV 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV -A 

- 
...... Plenefee Fm.. 

Mercer............ 

Mesa Verde Fm..... 

Milldale.......... 

Morley............ 

New Castle (?).... 

New Castle........ 

O'Connor (L)...... 

O'Connor (U).. ..em 

Ohio No. 5 or 6... 

Orchard........... 

Colo. 

Pa. 

Colo. 

Ala. 

Colo. 

Ala. 

Ala. 

Utah 

Utah 

Ohio 

Pa. 

Allegheny... 

Rio Rlanco.. 

Pickens.. ... Las Animas.. 

Jefferson.. . Tuscaloosa.. 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

Harrison.. .. 

Schuylkill.. 

-1 G 

el G 

- 

0.1 BM 

.8 RM 

.8 RM 

.0 RM 

. 0 R?l 

.6 RM 

.2 RM 

1.2 RM 

.1 RM 

.0 RM 

2.9 BM 

.5 RM 

.4 RM 

.5 BM 

.6 RN 

1.9 Rfl 

.o C, 

.O G 

.O G 

.0 C, 

1.2 RM 

1.3 RM 

1.9 RM 

.O RM 

.5 RM 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-R 

- 

- 

HV-R 

- 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV -A 

Ant 

Ant 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal samples--Continued 

P

Coalhed 

Palisade.......... 

Palisade Zone.. . . . 

Peach Mountain.... 

Pittsburgh........ 

Pittsburgh.. . . . . . . 

Lost 

gas, 

cm3 

0 

12 

23 

20 

0 

0 

45 

70 

9,400 

5,850 

950 

195 

194 

134 

94 

157 

168 

164 

117 

192 

122 

240 

289 

318 

300 

132 

340 

256 

276 

273 

189 

147 

23 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

409 

493 

618 

624 

627 

6 54 

813 

1,290 

685 

685 

427 

581 

582 

590 

593 

610 

612 

622 

624 

626 

666 

67 5 

678 

6 80 

680 

6 8 1 

682 

7 0 1 

703 

705 

716 

720 

749 

State 

Utah 

Colo. 

Pa. 

Pa. 

Pa. 

Desorbed 

ga;, 

cm 

0 

48 

56 5 

85 

0 

0 

1,085 

5,113 

37,430 

36,480 

2,450 

3,712 

3,895 

3,127 

2,465 

5,505 

5,650 

3,410 

3,570 

4,755 

3,860 

3,603 

5,652 

6,647 

3,836 

5,986 

5,297 

3,853 

4,278 

3,271 

2,085 

2,430 

734 

County 

Grand....... 

Mesa.. . . . . . . 

Schuylkill.. 

Washington.. 

Greene.. . . . . 

Residual 

Ras, 

cm3/p, and 

method of 

calculation 

0.0 R12 

.0 RH 

.3 BM 

.O RH 

.O B11 

.O BM 

1.1 BM 

.5 RM 

.4 RM 

1.1 BM 

1.6 CB 

3.7 RM 

3.5 BM 

3.9 BM 

4.3 RM 

1.7 R12 

2.6 BM 

3.4 RM 

3.5 RM 

3.5 BM 

2.2 RM 

1.2 CB 

-6 BM 

1.2 R11 

3.2 CB 

1.7 BM 

1.6 BM 

3.6 BM 

4.0 BM 

4.4 BM 

3.7 BM 

3.4 BM 

3.1 BM 

Gas content, 

cm3Ig 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

0.0 

.o 

.8 

.I 

.0 

.O 

1.3 

6.5 

18.4 

20.5 

2.2 

3.3 

3.7 

3.0 

3.0 

4.5 

4.9 

3.8 

3.5 

3.5 

3.4 

2.8 

4.1 

4.7 

3.3 

5.5 

3.6 

3.8 

3.8 

3.9 

4.0 

2.1 

1.5 

Total 

gas 

content, 

crn3Ig 

0.0 

.o 

1.1 

.I 

.0 

.O 

2.4 

7.0 

18.8 

21.6 

3.8 

7.0 

7.2 

6.9 

7.3 

6.2 

7.5 

7.2 

7.0 

7.0 

5.6 

4.0 

4.7 

5.9 

6.5 

7.2 

5.2 

7.4 

7.8 

8.3 

7.7 

5.5 

4.6 

Apparrent 

rank 

HV-B 

HV-R 

HV-B 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

Ant 

Ant 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

HV -A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 
Pittsburgh........ 

Pittsburgh........ 

Pittsburgh Rider.. 

Pocahontas No. 3.. 

Pocahontas No. 3. . 

W.Va. 

Pa. 

Pa. 

W.Va. 

Va. 

Marion...... 

Greene...... 

Greene...... 

Wyoming..... 

Buchanan. . . 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
TABLE A.1 . . Results of direct method gas content determinations on U.S. coal samples.. Continued 

Coalbed 

........ Pond Creek 

........ Pond Creek 

........ Pond Creek 

.. Pond Creek Rider 

............. Pratt 

............. Pratt 

Primrose .......... 

.......... Redstone 

.......... Redstone 

.......... Redstone 

.............. Rees 

....... Rock Canyon 

... Rock Canyon (U) 

... Rock Canyon (L) 

....... Seeleyville 

....... Seeleyville 

............ Sewell 

Sewell ............ 

Sewickley ......... 

......... Sewickley 

Sewickley ......... 

State 

. Ky . Ky . Ky 

. . W Va 

. Ala 

. Ala 

. Pa 

W.Va. 

IJ.Va. 

W.Va. 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

. Ill 

. Ill 

W.Va. 

W.Va. 

W.Va. 

. Pa 

. Pa 

County 

........ Pike 

...... Martin 

........ Pike 

....... Mingo 

.. Tuscaloosa 

..... Pickens 

.. Schuylkill 

.. Monongalia 

...... Marion 

...... Wetzel 

.... Garfield 

...... Carbon 

....... Emery 

....... Emery 

....... Wayne 

........ Clay 

..... Raleigh 

..... Braxton 

.. Monongalia 

.. Washington 

Greene ...... 

Sample 

depth. 

feet 

125 

400 

500 

1. 070 

1. 365 

1. 428 

1. 541 

738 

746 

836 

1. 099 

607 

620 

436 

1. 706 

2. 340 

2. 353 

1. 293 

1. 295 

1. 352 

680 

700 

981 

60 

450 

589 

590 

592 

Lost 

ga;. 

cm 

240 

51 

85 

30 

2. 200 

180 

0 

768 

378 

110 

110 

0 

28 

7 2 

690 

61 

55 

114 

400 

21 5 

960 

220 

250 

278 

42 

150 

167 

128 

Gas content. 

crn31g 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

1.4 

1.4 

. 9 

. 6 

14.1 

2.8 

. 4 

3.6 

3.9 

2.0 

. 7 

. 0 

. 1 

. 4 

2.6 

1.7 

3.3 

1.3 

1.9 

1 . 1 

8.8 

2.8 

2.6 

. 3 

-1 

3.5 

3.6 

4.1 

Apparrent 

rank 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

- 

HV-A 

Ant 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-R 

HV-R 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-B 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

Desorbed 

ga;. 

cm 

1. 210 

1. 134 

1. 097 

296 

8. 163 

1. 925 

779 

4. 360 

3. 421 

2. 320 

495 

0 

39 

251 

1. 756 

1. 813 

3. 277 

1. 485 

2. 552 

775 

8. 987 

3. 196 

2. 780 

22 7 

103 

4. 332 

5. 571 

4. 038 

Residual 

gas. 

cm3/g. and 

method of 

calculation 

0.7 CR 

. 4 G 

. 3 CB 

2.6 BM 

1.0 CB 

. 2 RFI 

. 0 RM 

. 3 CR 

. 2 CR 

-4 CB 

. 1 CB 

. 0 BM 

. 0 BM 

. 9 RM 

. 4 RM 

. 5 G 

1.4 G 

. 4 G 

. 6 G 

-4 RM 

. 5 CR 

1.3 CR 

. 2 G 

. 4 CR 

1.0 BM 

1.4 BM 

1.8 BM 

1.3 BM 

Pe

ash

re

Total 

gas 

content. 

cm31g 

2.1 

1.8 

1.2 

3.2 

15.1 

3.0 

. 4 

3.9 

4.1 

2.4 

. 8 

. 0 

-1 

1.3 

3.0 

2.2 

4.7 

1.7 

2.5 

1.5 

9.3 

4.1 

2.8 

. 7 

1.1 

4.9 

5.4 

5.4 
Sewickley......... 

Sewickley......... 

Smirl (?) ......... Smirl............. 

Sunnyside......... 

Sunnyside......... 

Sunnyside (L)..... 

Tunnel............ 

Utah A............ 

Utah K. (U)....... 

Utah K (L)....... 

........... Utah M 

........... Utah El 

Utah N............ 

........ Utah P (U) 

Utah Subseam...... 

Utah Subseam l.... 

W. Va. 

Pa. 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

IJtah 

Utah 

Pa. 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

TJtah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Monongalia.. 

Greene...... 

Garfield.... 

Kane........ 

Carbon...... 

Emery,. ..... 

Emery.. ..... 

Schuylkill.. 

Emery.. ..... 

Kane........ 

Kane ........ Kane........ 

Kane........ 

Kane........ 

Kane........ 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

3.0 BII 

1.8 RM 

2.5 BM 

1.8 RM 

1.0 CR 

.3 CB 

2.6 RM 

.O G 

00 G 

.9 BM 

.3 BM 

.O BM 

.O RM 

.0 G 

.7 BM 

.7 BM 

1.9 RFI 

.O G 

.O BM 

.0 RM 

.O BII 

.0 BII 

.O RM 

I 

.O BE1 

2.2 BM 

.8RM 

.7 RM 

1 1.2 RM 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

HV-R 

HV -A 

HV -A 

HV -A 

- 

Ant 

Ant 

Ant 

- 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C I 

1 HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

1 HV-A 
TABLE A-1. - Results of direct method eas content determinations on U.S. coal sam~les--Continue

Coalbed 

Utah Subseam 2.... 

Utah Subseam 3.... 

Utah (uric)........ ...... Utah (unc).. 

Vermejo Fm........ 

Vermejo Fm........ 

Wadge............. 

Wall (?).......... 

Washington........ 

Watkins E......... 

State 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Utah 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Wyo. 

Pa. 

Colo. 

County 

Carbon...... 

Carbon...... 

Emery....... 

Carbon...... 

Huerfano.... 

Las Animas.. 

Routt....... 

Campbell.... 

Greene...... 

.. Arapahoe.. 

Sample 

depth, 

feet 

937 

1,437 

1,514 

1,742 

2,110 

2,187 

963 

1,552 

1,762 

2,222 

130 

285 

355 

504 

2,058 

2,081 

111 

155 

859 

874 

1,032 

336 

1,284 

1,393 

424 

369 

135 

145 

Lost 

gas, 

cm3 

40 

187 

92 

0 

115 

150 

55 

1 

0 

55 

73 

41 

28 

91 

870 

168 

553 

73 1 

280 

10 

200 

62 

0 

31 2 

76 

17 

40 

6 0 

Desorbed 

ga:, 

cm 

96 

5,643 

1,035 

0 

460 

1,202 

1,501 

13 

0 

11 4 

497 

1,820 

1,285 

1,557 

5,869 

5,349 

5 1 

82 

4,409 

280 

84 7 

165 

0 

49 

29 

1,350 

25 

35 

Total 

gas 

content, 

cm3Ig 

1.9 

8.4 

2.4 

1.5 

2.1 

2.5 

1.8 

. 5 

2.3 

. 4 

.8 

2.9 

2.2 

2.0 

8.1 

6.1 

1 . 0 

1.1 

4.8 

. 5 

2.8 

. 2 

. 0 

. 5 

.2 

1.9 

.1 

.2 

Gas content, 

cm3/g 

excluding 

residual 

gas 

0.1 

6.4 

. 9 

. 0 

1.0 

1.5 

1.2 

. O 

. O 

. 2 

. 7 

2.4 

1.3 

1.7 

6.7 

5.7 

.6 

. 7 

4.2 

. 3 

2.2 

. 2 

. 0 

. 3 

. 2 

1.0 

. 1 

. 2 

Apparrent 

rank 

HV -R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV -A 

HV-A 

- 

HV -A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-R 

HV-R 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV -R 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

Sub-R 

HV-A 

Lig-A 

Lig-A 

Residual 

gas, 

cm3/g, and 

method of 

calculation 

1.8 RM 

2.0 BM 

1.5 RM 

1.5 BM 

1.1 BM 

1.0 G 

.6 RM 

.5 BM 

2.3 BM 

.2 G 

.1 G 

.5 BM 

. 9 BI? 

.3 BM 

1.4 BM 

.4 RM 

.4 G 

.4 G 

.6 BM 

.2 BM 

.6 RM 

.O G 

.O G 

.2 G 

.O BM 

.9 BM 

.O BM 

.O RM 

Pe

as

re
Waynesburg........ 

Waynesburg........ 

Waynesburg........ 

Waynesburg Rider.. 

Williams Fork Fm.. 

Williams Fork Fm.. 

Williams Fork Fm.. 

Wolf Creek (17) . . 

Wolf Creek (L) . 

Pa. 

W.Va. 

Pa. 

Pa. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Colo. 

Plonongalia.. 

Greene...... 

Delta....... 

Rio Rlanco.. 

Routt....... 

Routt.. . . . . . 

HV-A 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-A 

- 

- 

- 

HV-A 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

HV-C 

- 

HV -C 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 
SECTIONAL 

DESORBING CANISTER 

ASSEMBLY 

FIGURE B-1. - Standard direct method test sample container. - 
SECTIONAL BALL MILL ASSEMBLY 

All dimensions in inches 

Clearance between ~d and od 

FIGURE 8-2. - Ball mill used to crush coal for new residual gas determination procedure. 
APPENDIX C.--FIELD DATA COLLECTION FORM FOR DIRECT METHOD TEST 

Sample No. Date 

Company Person collecting core 

Drilling Company Hole No. 

Hole location 

State County 

Coalbed Core size Barrel length 

Coalbed thickness Type of core retrieval 

Depth to base of coalbed Surface elevation 

Roof rock Drilling media 

Floor rock Air temperature 

Condition of sample, type of coal 

Seam description 

Sample interval 

Cylinder No. Cylinder wt. Coal sample wt. (grams) 

Time coalbed encountered (A) Time coring started 

Time core started out of hole (B) Time coring completed 

Time core reached surface (C) 

Time core sealed in canister (D) 

RESULTS 

Lost gas time: (D-A) if air or mist is used 

(D-C) + (y) if water is used 

~ost gas (cm3) 

Gas from canister (cm3) 

Residual gas from crushing (cm5/g) 

6U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980-603-1021146 INT.-BU.OF MINES,PGH.,PA. 25068