DOE/EIA-0529(92)

Distribution Category UC-98

U.S. Coal Reserves:

An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

February 1993

Energy Information Administration

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585
ii Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent statistical

and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. The information contained herein

should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy position of the Department of

Energy or of any other organization.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content iii

Contacts

This report was prepared by the staff of the Energy Systems Division (202/254-5392); or Dr. Z.D. (Dan)

Resources Assessment Branch, Analysis and Systems Nikodem, Chief, Energy Resources Assessment Branch

Division, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate (202/254-5550). Specific questions regarding the prepFuels. General information regarding this publication may aration and content of the report should be directed to

be obtained from John Geidl, Director, Office of Coal, Taesin Chung (202/254-5556) or Rich Bonskowski

Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels (202/254-5570); (202/254-5383).

Robert M. Schnapp, Director, Analysis and
iv Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Preface

Section 205(a)(2) of the Department of Energy Organ- of future coal supply. This report provides technical

ization Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-91) requires the documentation for specific revisions and adjustments to

Administrator of the Energy Information Administration the demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal in the United

(EIA) to carry out a central, comprehensive, and unified States and for coal quality and reserve allocations and

energy data information program that will collect, makes the resulting data available for general use by the

evaluate, assemble, analyze, and disseminate data and public.

information relevant to energy resources, reserves,

production, demand, technology, and related economic

and statistical information.

As part of the EIA program to provide information on

coal, this report, U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and

Sulfur Content, presents detailed estimates of U.S. coal

reserves, as well as descriptions of the data, methods, and

assumptions used to develop such estimates, which are

basic to the analysis and forecasting

The legislation that created the EIA vested the organization with an element of statutory independence. EIA's

responsibility is to provide timely, high-quality

information and to perform objective, credible analyses in

support of deliberations by both public and private

decisionmakers. EIA does not take positions on policy

questions. Accordingly, this report does not purport to

represent the policy positions of the U.S. Department of

Energy or the Administration.
vi Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Contents

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 1

EIA Coal Reserve Data ............................................................................. 1

History ........................................................................................... 2

Recent Developments .............................................................................. 2

2. The Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimates of Coal Reserves ......................................... 5

Defining the Demonstrated Reserve Base ............................................................. 5

Coal Quality and Reserve Applications ............................................................... 9

3. New Coal Resource Data Derivations and National Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Coal Reserves Data Base Cooperative Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Coal Reserves Data Base Revisions by EIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Estimates of U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves by Heat and Sulfur Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Demonstrated Reserve Base by Heat and Sulfur Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Accessible Reserve Base of Coal and Recoverable Coal Reserves by Heat and Sulfur Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Glossary of Selected Coal Classification Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appendices

A. The Coal Reserves Data Base Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

B. Prior Development of EIA Coal Reserves Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

 Data Inputs to the Resource Allocation and Mine Costing Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

 Reliance on the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

 Distribution of the Demonstrated Reserve Base by Btu and Sulfur Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

 Estimation of Accessible Reserve Base of Coal and Recoverable Coal Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

C. Detailed Estimates of Demonstrated Reserve Base, Accessible Reserve Base, 

 and Recoverable Reserves of U.S. Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content vii

Tables Page

ES1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Btu/Sulfur Ranges

and Regions ..................................................................................... viii

1. EIA Updates and Revisions, by Year, to the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States ........ 3

2. Comparison of 1987 and Revised 1991 Ohio Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal and Recoverable Coal 

Reserve Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Comparison of 1987 and Revised 1991 Wyoming Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal and Recoverable 

Coal Reserve Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Total Inventory of Coal Sample Analyses Available for Coal Resource Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Region, Coal Rank, and Potential Method of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Btu/Sulfur Ranges 

and Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Btu/Sulfur Ranges and Regions . . . . 23

8. Estimates of Recoverable Coal Reserves in the United States by Btu/Sulfur Ranges and Regions . . . . . . . . . . . 24

A1. Categories for Classifying Resource/Reserve Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

A2. EIA Coal Reserves Data Base—Data Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

B1. Summary of 1992 Status of Data Base Updates for EIA Coal Resource and Reserve Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

B2. EIA Coal Rank/Btu Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

B3. EIA Sulfur Content Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

B4. Inaccessible and Recoverable Coal Resource Factors by Supply Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State,

and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State,

and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State,

and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figures Page

ES1. Estimates of Recoverable Coal Reserves in the United States by Sulfur Content and Region as of 

January 1, 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1. Diagram of Coal Resource Reliability Categories Based on Distances from Points of Measurement ........... 6

2. USGS Format and Classification of Coal Resources by Reserves and Inferred Reserve Bases and

Subeconomic and Inferred Subeconomic Resources Categories .......................................... 7

3. Delineation of U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves ....................................................... 9

4. Identified Coal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

A1. CRDB Procedural Diagram for Coal Resources and Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
viii Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Executive Summary

Coal currently satisfies 23 percent of domestic energy of Btu and sulfur content have previously been

demand and fuels 55 percent of the Nation's electric estimated by indirect methods.

power generation. Nevertheless, there is continuing

debate over the future contributions of coal to the U.S.

economy due to the possible impacts of continued coal

production and use on the environment. It is essential that

a comprehensive data base that characterizes U.S. coal

reserves be available for use in evaluating the advantages

and disadvantages of future coal mining and coal

consumption. To that end, this report provides new data

on coal resources and reserves in the United States, with

estimates of its heat content—measured in British thermal

units (Btu)—and sulfur content— measured in pounds per

million Btu.

Because of the technical nature of this subject, it is

important to understand several geological terms. Coal

resources are naturally occurring deposits of coal in the

Earth in forms and amounts for which economic extraction is potentially feasible. That portion of known inground coal resources that meets certain geologic

reliability and economic minability criteria is called the

demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal. “Recoverable

coal reserves,” also known as “coal reserves,” is the

portion of the DRB that can be economically recovered

after considering environmental, legal, and technologic

constraints.

The DRB is the starting point for most coal supply

analyses and forecasts of future cost and availability of

coal in the United States. Estimates of the DRB aggregated

at State and national levels, are updated and published

annually by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

To arrive at its DRB estimates, the EIA selects and

compiles, from publicly available resource studies, the

most reliable estimates of the quantities of coal that are

generally well suited for commercial mining, based on

standard coalbed thickness and depth ranges. Because the

DRB is traditionally based on sources that do not include

precise information on the variable heat and sulfur

content of the component coal deposits in the field, ranges
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content ix

 The ranges of sulfur contents for low-, medium-, and high sulfur coals are discussed in Appendix B, “Coal Quality,” and Table B3. 1

Sulfur content values of coal are considered low, medium, or high in relation to the potential of the coal, when burned, to produce sulfur

dioxide emissions below, near, or above increments allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act, New

Source Performance Standards for fossil-fueled boilers.

Resource estimates were correlated with coal quality data

from other sources, then statistically allocated to Btu and

sulfur categories, and these results were then modified

with supplementary information, using professional

judgment.

This publication reports on the first results of the EIA's

new Coal Reserves Data Base (CRDB) program, which is

intended to bring together the best available coal resource

data and coal quality data, and to use the skills of

appropriate experts to analyze the data and develop

internally correlated data bases. As part of the CRDB

program, pilot studies have been completed under two

cooperative agreements, one between the EIA and the

Ohio Geological Survey, the other between the EIA and

the Geological Survey of Wyoming.

The Ohio study produced a new State DRB estimate of

23.9 billion short tons—5.4 billion short tons more than the

previous estimate. Almost all of the increase was in coal

resources that are potentially exploitable by underground

mining methods. The resulting new estimate of Ohio's

recoverable coal reserves (the portion of in-ground coal

resources that can be economically extracted or produced)

is 11.8 billion short tons. Of this quantity, 10.2 billion short

tons, or 86 percent, is high-sulfur coal (containing 1.68 1

pounds or more sulfur per million Btu).

Wyoming surface mining is currently the Nation's leading

source of inexpensive, low-sulfur coal. The Wyoming

study was designed to reevaluate the fundamental coal

quality allocations for the State's coal resources that are

exploitable by surface mining. The study resulted in an

increase of 6.0 billion short tons, or 32 percent, in the

estimate of Wyoming's low-sulfur recoverable coal

reserves. The increase resulted primarily from a

reallocation of previous coal resource estimates to lower

sulfur ranges and an upward revi-sion of the assumed net

recovery of the resources.

In addition to the data from the Ohio and Wyoming

studies, this report presents revised EIA estimates of
x Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

in-ground resources and of reserves that could be re- The detailed estimates of U.S. coal resources and

covered from Pennsylvania anthracite. Also, allocations recoverable coal reserves presented in this report by State,

are presented for Btu and sulfur content for coal in 11 method of mining, Btu content, and sulfur content should

areas not previously analyzed by the EIA. Finally, data for be useful for analyses of issues related to the coal industry

all States included in the DRB have been further analyzed and coal consumers, especially in evaluating various coal

and adjusted for production and mining losses through use scenarios evolving from the Clean Air Act

January 1, 1992, and are presented in this report. Amendments of 1990. These estimates are the result of the

The estimates presented in this report are inherently information on U.S. coal resources and reserves on a

uncertain. Although the EIA and others have under-taken uniform, nationwide basis. The data, methodologies, and

to improve the accuracy of the estimates, there are still assumptions used to develop these estimates will be

limitations to both the procedures used and the data updated as new information becomes available. 

available for much of the estimation, attributable to the

age of many of the geological estimates of coal resource Highlights of the current EIA estimates are as follows:

quantities and to the paucity of available information on

coal quality for many of the resource areas included in the ! Nearly 169 billion short tons, or more than one-third

DRB. Many economic factors, such as coal ash contents, of all in-ground coal resources included in the DRB,

ash melting temperatures, and sodium contents, along consist of low-sulfur coal, containing 0.6 pounds or

with regulatory constraints, land-use conflicts, and less sulfur per million Btu of heat content (Table

spoiling of reserves by nearby mining, may curtail coal ES1). Low-sulfur coal emits 1.2 pounds of sulfur

reserve development in the long term. Therefore, the EIA dioxide or less per million Btu of heat produced

cautions against projecting the number of years of future when it is burned, thus meeting the 1971 New

production for which these estimated reserves will last. Source Performance Standards for power plants

EIA's best efforts to compile, from available data,

without scrubbers.2
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content xi

 This assumes that 100 percent of the sulfur in the coal is converted to sulfur dioxide and none is retained in the ash. 2

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

Regionb

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Total

# 0.60

(Low Sulfur) 

0.61-1.67

(Medium Sulfur

$ 1.68

(High Sulfur)

Appalachia ....... 26,916.8 (16.0) 37,136.2 (26.6) 43,533.6 (26.0) 107,586.6 (22.6)

Interior .......... 1,162.2 (0.7) 21,338.7 (15.3) 111,049. 0 (66.4) 133,549.9 (28.1)

West ............ 140,459.0 (83.3) 81,315.8 (59.2) 12,686.4 (7.6) 234,461.2 (49.3)

U.S. Total ........ 168,538.0 (100.0) 139,790.6 (100.0) 167,269. (100.0) 475,597.7 (100.0)

 For detailed analyses, the EIA uses six sulfur content ranges. For general discussion and summary data, however, those six a

ranges are combined into the three qualitative ratings of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content coal presented here. See also

Appendix B, Table B3.

 States with qualified resource or reserve data in each region: Appalachia—Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, b

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Interior—Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

western Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas. West—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North

Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the U.S. totals. Btu = British thermal units.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.

Table ES1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Btu/Sulfur

Ranges and Regions
xii Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 ! Most of the low-sulfur coal included in the DRB (83 1.68 pounds or more sulfur per million Btu. Twopercent of the total) is in the West, 16 percent of the thirds of this amount is in the Interior Region.

total is in Appalachia, and less than 1 percent is in

the Interior Region (Table ES1). ! After accounting for coal that is inaccessible or

 ! About 140 billion short tons, or 29 percent of the recoverable coal reserves in the United States

total DRB, are medium-sulfur coal, containing amount to 265 billion short tons, or 56 percent of the

between 0.61 and 1.67 pounds of sulfur per million total DRB (Figure ES1).

Btu. Of this amount, approximately 59 percent is in

the West, nearly 27 percent in Appalachia, and 15 ! Low-sulfur recoverable coal reserves in the Uni-ted

percent in the Interior Region. States are estimated at 100 billion short tons, 87

 ! About 167 billion short tons, or 35 percent of the Appalachia, and less than 1 percent in the Interior

total DRB, consists of high-sulfur coal, containing Region.

illegal to mine, and for expected recovery rates,

percent of which is in the West, 12 percent in
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

23

49

9

80

20

12

52

84

12

1

87

100

High-Sulfur

Medium-Sulfur

Low-Sulfur

Appalachia Interior West U.S. Total

(Billion Short Tons)

Region

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content xiii

Figure ES1. Estimates of Recoverable Coal Reserves in the United States by Sulfur Content and Region as

of January 1, 1992

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 1

1. Introduction

EIA Coal Reserve Data

The coal industry is currently the largest energyproducing industry in the United States, accounting for

about 32 percent of U.S. energy production. Coal also 1

accounts for about 23 percent of all energy consumed

domestically; it is the Nation's third largest source of

energy. (Although coal's share of domestic energy production is the largest, its share of total consumption is not.

This is because net imports account for 43 percent of the

petroleum consumed domestically, while about 13 percent

of domestic coal production is exported.) Due to the

prominent role of coal in domestic energy markets, it is

essential for the Federal Government, coal-producing and

consuming industries, the public, and other interested

parties to know, with some degree of certainty, the

quantity and quality of the coal avail-able use in the

future.

Detailed information on coal supplies is needed because:

(1) coal is not a homogeneous commodity—it varies

considerably in characteristics that affect its use and value;

(2) the cost of extracting coal depends on how it is

deposited and what mining method can be used to extract

it; and (3) coal is widely distributed geographically.

To varying degrees, those factors are accounted for in the

EIA's estimates of recoverable coal reserves. These data

are the estimated quantities of coal in known coal deposits

in the ground that could be economically recovered,

considering environmental, legal, and tech-nologic

constraints. Estimates of recoverable coal reserves are

based on the EIA's demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of inground coal resources in the United States.

The DRB represents known coal resources that meet accurate estimate of the quality of coal (such as heat or

certain criteria of geologic reliability and economic sulfur content, or other constituents or characteristics), is

minability. The criteria for geologic reliability are not inherent in the DRB.

relatively uniform; they conform to standards defined and

agreed upon by the Department of the Interior's U.S. The derived information on coal quality and a descripGeological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Bureau of tion of the methodology used to develop it were

Mines. The geologic reliability criteria are based on the

relative abundance of coal field data, including measurements of coalbed thickness and elevation. The criteria

for economic minability are also relatively uniform.

Because much of the DRB is based on resource studies that

may encompass entire coalfields, typically aggregated at

the county level, potential economic minability of the coal

resources included in the DRB is generally based on

standard ranges of coalbed thickness and estimated

depths of resources beneath the surface. Actual access for

mining and specific physical constraints, coal quality, and

recoverability, however, will determine whether coal is

profitable to mine.

As the only nationwide data file of the quantities of

potentially minable coal available under a unified set of

criteria, the DRB provides the basic input for numerous

coal and energy analysis and forecasting models—both

government and private. One of these models is the EIA's

Resource Allocation and Mine Costing (RAMC) model,

which provides input to other EIA models and to the

National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), the EIA's new

integrated energy forecasting system. The DRB is also

used in commercial models, such as ICF, Incorporated's

Coal and Electric Utility Model (CEUM).

The DRB fulfills the key requirement—to apply consistent

resource criteria in a national data base—because it is the

single most comprehensive source of information on

potentially minable in-ground coal resources in the

United States that is publicly available. The DRB,

however, provides only estimates of the quantity of coal

resources in the ground, one of two critical types of

information usually needed to properly conduct analyses

of coal. The other requisite piece of information, an
2 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 Based on British thermal units (Btu) of energy produced. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 1991, DOE/EIA-0384(91) 1

(Washington, DC, June 1992).

 Energy Information Administration, Estimation of U.S. Coal Reserves by Coal Type: Heat and Sulfur Content, DOE/EIA-0529 (Washington, DC, October 2

1989). 

published in 1989 in the EIA report, Estimation of U.S. Coal

Reserves by Coal Type: Heat and Sulfur Content.

2
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 3

 U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content: Part 1, The Eastern States, Information Circular 8680 (Washington, DC) and U.S. 3

Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content: Part 2, The Western States, Information Circular 8693 (Washington, D.C., 1975). The first

DRB determined by the BOM was improperly labeled as the 1974 DRB; however, it was estimated for 1971, and subsequent DRB updates by the EIA reflect

depletion adjustments from 1971.

The purpose of the present report, U.S. Coal Reserves: An

Update by Heat and Sulfur Content, is to present and discuss

the EIA's efforts to update the data and the methods

developed since the previous publication was released.

History

To understand why the DRB exists as it does today, it is

important to understand how and why it has changed

over time. The DRB grew out of work performed by the

Bureau of Mines, mostly in the 1960's, and was published

in 1975 as Information Circulars 8680 and 8693. The

purpose of that work, stated by the Bureau, was “. . . to

identify the Nation's reserve base of coal . . . primarily

because of concern over the inadequacy of reserves of

low-sulfur coal in the eastern United States.” The Bureau 3

sought to define the amount of coal that was known to

exist with a relatively high degree of assurance, and that

was assumed to be minable under then current or nearterm future market conditions. The Bureau's intent was to

provide data on the amount of coal contained in each area,

for use in analyses of coal availability and costs and of the

environmental consequences associated with coal production and use. The Bureau published estimates of the

DRB tonnage remaining as of January 1, 1971, by county

and coalbed, and by sulfur range. EIA assumed

responsibility and authority for maintaining the DRB

under the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977

(P.L. 95-91).

The first EIA update of the DRB was an estimate as of

January 1, 1979, which included detailed documentation

of the coal resource data for each State and definitions and

background information for the DRB. All EIA updates 4

and revisions of the DRB between 1977 and 1992 included

results at the State level or coal-producing region level

only; they did not include new assessments of sulfur or

other coal quality factors.

The EIA has updated the DRB annually from 1979 to 1992,

making one or more of the following adjustments

(Table 1):

 ! Depletion updates (depletions of the DRB due to

production and mining losses)

 ! Data revisions (revisions based on new data sources

determined to be suitable under existing DRB

criteria) 

 ! Data adjustments (revisions based on existing data

sources due to changes in DRB criteria or basic data

analysis). 

These updates are published as an appendix to EIA's

annual publication, Coal Production.

5

Recent Developments

In June 1987, acting in its advisory role to the Secretary of

Energy, the National Coal Council (NCC) examined the

DRB and identified numerous data needs for improving

the Nation's coal reserve data base. In its report the NCC 6

emphasized the need for (1) better information on

availability, accessibility, and recoverability of coal

resources, (2) more reliable coal quality data, and (3) a

better understanding of the impacts of competing land

uses and regulations. The NCC stressed the need for

improvement in coal reserve data. This need is especially

important if these data are to be used to address critical

national issues such as acid rain, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, and global climate change. The

NCC also pointed to a possible solution when it declared

that the resolution of many of the problems with coal

resource and reserve data lies “with the State agencies

which make the initial and revised reserve estimates.”7

Taking into account the NCC's recommendations and the

status of new coal resource data programs, the EIA

explored possible short-term actions to obtain improved

coal resource and reserve data. The EIA's objective was to

integrate coal quality information at levels of aggregation

appropriate for national energy planning and policy

analyses. EIA's actions included analyzing alternative

sources of coal quality data and distribution

methodologies, holding a conference on coal reserves

assessment, and examining various alternative strategies

to improve resource and reserves data. In 1989,
4 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 Energy Information Administration, Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States on January 1, 1979, DOE/EIA-0280(74) (Washington, DC, May 4

1981).

 Energy Information Administration, Coal Production, DOE/EIA-0118 (Washington, DC, various years). 5

 National Coal Council, Reserve Data Base: Report of the National Coal Council (Arlington, VA, June 1987), p. 4. 6

 Ibid, p. 4. 7
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 5

State or

 Producing Area

Type of Update or Revisiona

New

Resource

Data

Update of

DRB Criteria

Reanalysis

of Resource

Data

New or

Revised

Depletion

Data

Reanalysis

of Depletion

Data on File

Corrections

to Resource

Derivations

Corrections

to Depletion

Adjustments

Alabama ........... 1979 1979, 1982 1979 1980

Arizona ............ 1979 1979 1979 1992 1992

Arkansas .......... 1982 1979, 1982 1992 1992

Colorado ........... 1980 1980

E. Kentucky ........ 1983 1983 1983 1985

Georgia ............ 1979 1979 1992

Illinois ............. 1982, 1983 1982, 1983

Louisiana .......... 1987 1987

Maryland ........... 1979 1979

Michigan ........... 1979 1979 1979

Missouri ........... 1979 1979

New Mexico ........ 1982 1982

North Carolina ...... 1979 1979

Ohio .............. 1980, 1992 1992 1980, 1992

Oklahoma .......... 1979 1979 1979

Pennsylvania (Anth) . . 1992 1992 1992 1992 1985 1984, 1985

Pennsylvania (Bit) . . . 1983

South Dakota ....... 1979 1979 1984

Tennessee ......... 1979 1979 1979 1979 1979

Texas ............. 1979, 1982, 1979, 1982, 1979 1979 1979, 1982 1983 1983

1983 1983 1983

Virginia ............ 1979 1979

Washington ........ 1980 1980 1980

W. Kentucky ........ 1979 1979

West Virginia ....... 1979

Wyoming .......... 1979, 1992 1979, 1992 1979, 1992 1979, 1992

Table 1. EIA Updates and Revisions, by Year, to the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States
6 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

the EIA report, Estimation of U.S. Coal Reserves by Coal Type,

provided a summary of the DRB and coal reserve

estimates as of January 1, 1987, delineated by Btu and

sulfur ranges. By publishing and disseminating that 8

report, the EIA sought to: (1) inform the coal community,

exactly what coal resource and reserve information was

driving many of the U.S. Government's analyses; (2)

document the adjustments and analyses performed using

the DRB and other data to derive Btu/sulfur range

distributions and reserve allocations; and (3) obtain

critiques and suggestions for improvements. That

publication, in effect, served as a baseline to help assess

the status of the current knowledge on coal resources and

to establish priorities for improvements.

In 1990, the EIA held the Coal Reserves Assessment

Conference, which led to a plan for improving coal

reserves data. That plan was embodied in the Coal

Reserves Data Base (CRDB) program, initiated later that

year to help meet the growing need for updated data on

U.S. coal reserves. The EIA's CRDB program has

encouraged the strong participation of State agencies in

revising resource and reserve estimates and allocations by

coal quality. In particular, through CRDB funding by the

EIA, Ohio and Wyoming have provided significantly

revised estimates of coal reserves in those States.

Kentucky is also currently in the process of revising its

coal reserves data as part of the CRDB program.

The role of the DRB in coal supply analysis and in the

estimation of coal reserves is described in Chapter 2 of

this report. The CRDB projects in Ohio and Wyoming and

their results are summarized in Chapter 3. Pennsylvania

anthracite tonnages have also been revised and allocated

by estimated sulfur and heat content, based on

information from a 1984 resource study and coal quality

data from the EIA Coal Analysis File and other sources.

This revision includes the calculation of reserves by

Btu/sulfur ranges for Pennsylvania anthra-cite resources,

which had not been estimated previously by the EIA. New

estimates of sulfur and heat content distributions and

recoverable coal reserve allocations have also been

developed by the EIA for existing DRB estimates in all or

parts of 10 States. These results are also included in

Chapter 3 of this report. Chapter 4 presents data

summaries and a discussion of the updated DRB and

estimates of coal reserves, which incorporate depletion

adjustments for all States through January 1, 1992,

including States not involved in specific coal resource or

recoverable coal reserve data revisions.

Finally, this report includes three appendices: Appendix

A describes the CRDB Program; Appendix B provides a

synopsis of the methodology used to develop coal quality

and reserve estimates prior to the CRDB, and still in effect

for many States; and Appendix C presents detailed data

tables for the DRB, the estimated accessible portions of the

DRB, and the estimates of recoverable coal reserves by

Btu/sulfur ranges.
8 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

2. The Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimates of

Coal Reserves

Defining the Demonstrated

Reserve Base

A number of principal agencies are involved in resource

and/or reserve estimation. These include the Energy

Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS), the Bureau of Mines (BOM), the Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), and State

geological surveys and mining research agencies.

The USGS, BOM, and EIA have agreed upon explicit

standard definitions, which relate to the degree of

geologic assurance and the disposition of quantified

resources. These definitions are widely accepted or

referenced by State, industry, and academic resource

specialists. Terms such as “resources” and “reserves” 9

have precise meanings in the context of natural mineral

endowments; but the terms have meanings in other

contexts as well, and so are frequently misunderstood or

used loosely.

“Resources” are defined as naturally occurring concentrations or deposits of coal in the Earth's crust, in such

forms and amounts that economic extraction is potentially

feasible. “Identified resources” consist of inferred,

indicated, and measured resources (Figure 1 and Figure

2), which are differentiated on the basis of their distance

from the nearest measurement or observation point (e.g.,

drillhole, mine exposure, or surface outcrop).

“Undiscovered resources,” the existence of which is only

postulated, include “speculative” and “hypothetical”

resources. Speculative resources com-prise virgin deposits

that are separate from identified resources; hypothetical

resources are virgin deposits that are extensions of

identified resources. Undiscovered resources may be

imputed in deposits of such quality, rank, quantity, and

physical location as to be economic, marginally economic,

or subeconomic. “Total resources” are the sum of

“identified” resources and “undiscovered” resources. In

the context of these basic definitions, the terms most

important to the DRB are
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 9

 A glossary of selected coal classification terms is included at the end of this report. 9

defined in the following box, “Important Terminology:

Resources, Reserves, and the DRB.”

The box on Important Terminology summarizes a much

more detailed set of criteria that was published by the

USGS after extensive consultation and coordination

among coal assessment professionals in the United States.

A simplified depiction (Figure 3) can indicate the

quantitative relationships among coal resource data. It

should be noted, however, that each category is composed

of coal resources in a myriad of locations and of various

depths and coalbed characteristics. Further, the coal

resources and reserves depicted are drawn from an

information base that is continuously evolving, with many

Federal and State agencies contributing in various areas.

Thus, the size and quantities represented by any of the

areas depicted in Figure 3 are based on the best available

qualified data and are certain to change (either higher or

lower) from time to time, as the level of knowledge

improves.

The DRB has, in general, been compiled conservatively

from data on in-place coal resources in only the measured

and indicated categories of reliability, which meet general

minability criteria as of a specified date. The current DRB

employs standard seam thickness and depth criteria to

approximate economic criteria for minability, taking into

account the limits of technological and economic

minability at the time the estimate was made (Figure 4).

The DRB is not reestimated when economic conditions,

such as coal prices, change. Changing economic

conditions, as well as laws and regulations governing coal

supply, are analytical variables to be evaluated for a

particular issue, and are not directly related to the criteria

for the DRB. The geologic reliability and economic

minability criteria have, in general, been applied

uniformly nationwide in order to maintain compatibility

of data and objectivity. 

The DRB criteria are intentionally flexible to allow for

changes in mining practice, technology, and economics.

The DRB also makes allowances to incorporate the best
0 12 3

0 1 23

Miles

Kilometers

Coal Bed Outcrop

Point of thickness

measurement

Measured coal

0- to 1/4-mile

(0- to .4-km) radii

Indicated coal

1/4- to 3/4-mile

(0.4- to 1.2-km) radii

Inferred coal

3/4- to 3-mile

(1.2- to 4.8-km) radii

Drill hole

Measured coal

0- to 1/4-mile

(0- to .4-km) radii

Indicated coal

1/4- to 3/4-mile

(0.4- to 1.2-km) radii

Inferred coal

3/4- to 3-mile

(Point of thickness measurement)

(1.2- to 4.8-km) radii

*

*

*

*

*

Measured and indicated

resources can be summed

to demonstrated coal

Hypothetical coal

beyond 3 miles

(4.8 km)

Line

resources.

10 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Figure 1. Diagram of Coal Resource Reliability Categories Based on Distances from Points of Measurement

 Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of the Interior, Coal Resource Classification System of the U.S. Geological Survey, Geological

Survey Circular 891 (1983).
CUMULATIVE

PRODUCTION

IDENTIFIED RESOURCES UNDISCOVERED RESOURCES

DEMONSTRATED

MEASURED INDICATED

INFERRED

ECONOMIC

MARGINALLY

ECONOMIC

SUBECONOMIC

SUBECONOMIC

RESOURCES

INFERRED

SUBECONOMIC

RESOURCES

OTHER

OCCURRENCES INCLUDES NONCONVENTIONAL MATERIALS

HYPOTHETICAL SPECULATIVE

PROBABILITY RANGE

( or )

RESERVE

BASE

AREA: (MINE, DISTRICT, FIELD, STATE) UNITS: (SHORT TONS)

RESOURCES OF COAL

INFERRED RESERVE

BASE

BY: (AUTHOR) DATE:

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 11

Figure 2. USGS Format and Classification of Coal Resources by Reserve and Inferred Reserve Bases and

Subeconomic and Inferred Subeconomic Resources Categories

 Note: A portion of reserves of any category may be restricted by laws or regulations from extraction.

 Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Coal Resource Classification System of the U.S. Geological Survey, Geological Survey Circular

891 (1983).

available data, even where nonstandard methodologies Neither the inclusion of measured and indicated resources

were employed, as long as only highly reliable data are nor the accommodation of regional mining

included.10
12 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 For example, some important allowances are: for surface-minable DRB, the acceptance of bituminous coal of 14- to 28-inch thickness in the Appalachian 10

and Interior regions and of less than 14-inch thickness in Alabama, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and the acceptance of lignite resources of 30- to 60-

inch thickness in Texas; the inclusion of certain thick-bedded coal seams lying at depths greater than 1,000 and 2,000 feet in Jefferson and Tuscaloosa

counties in Alabama, and of the Pocahontas No. 3 seam at depths greater than 1,000 feet in Virginia; and the acceptance of non-standard geologic assurance

categories for coal resources in Illinois, New Mexico, and Texas, where mapping criteria were judged to equal or exceed measured and indicated standard

criteria.

variations necessarily implies that those resources will be

legally available, economically marketable, or technologically minable. Detailed local evaluations are

normally required to determine ownership and regulatory

limitations that may apply to the coal, to evaluate the

quality of the coal and its value in current markets,
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 13

Important Terminology: Resources, Reserves, and the DRB

“Measured resources” refers to coal for which estimates of the rank and quantity have been computed to a high degree

of geologic assurance, from sample analyses and measurements from closely spaced and geologically well-known

sample sites. Under the USGS criteria, the points of observation are no greater than 1/2 mile apart (Figure 1). 

Measured coal is projected to extend as a 1/4-mile-wide belt from the outcrop or points of observation or measurement.

“Indicated resources” refers to coal for which estimates of the rank, quality, and quantity have been computed to a

moderate degree of geologic assurance, partly from sample analyses and measurements and partly from reasonable

geologic projections. Under the USGS criteria, the points of observation are 1/2 to 1-1/2 miles apart (Figure 1). 

Indicated coal is projected to extend as a 1/2-mile-wide belt that lies more than 1/4 mile from the outcrop or points of

observation or measurement.

 

“Demonstrated resources” are the sum of measured resources and indicated resources.

“Demonstrated reserve base,” (or just “reserve base” according to USGS usage) refers, in its broadest sense, to those

parts of the identified resources that meet specified minimum physical and chemical criteria related to current mining

and production practices, including those for quality, depth, thickness, rank, and distance from points of measurement. 

The “reserve base” is the in-place demonstrated (measured plus indicated) resource from which reserves are

estimated. The reserve base in the USGS classification may encompass those parts of a resource that have a

reasonable potential for becoming economically available within planning horizons that extend beyond those which

assume proven technology and current economics.

“Inferred resources” refers to coal of a low degree of geologic assurance in unexplored extensions of demonstrated

resources for which estimates of the quality and size are based on geologic evidence and projection. Quantitative

estimates are based on broad knowledge of the geologic character of the bed or region where few measurements or

sampling points are available, and on assumed continuation from demonstrated coal for which there is geologic

evidence. The points of measurement are 1-1/2 to 6 miles apart (Figure 1). Inferred coal is projected to extend as a 2-

1/4-mile-wide belt that lies more than 3/4 mile from the outcrop or points of observation or measurement. Inferred

resources are not part of the DRB.

“Reserves” relates to that portion of demonstrated resources that can be recovered economically with the application of

extraction technology available currently or in the foreseeable future. Reserves include only recoverable coal; thus,

terms such as “minable reserves,” “recoverable reserves,” or “economic reserves,” are redundant. Although

“recoverable reserves“ is redundant and implies recoverability in both words, the EIA prefers to use the term

selectively, in contexts where it is essential to distinguish recoverable coal from in-ground resources.

Sources: U.S. Department of the Interior, Coal Resource Classification System of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological

Survey, Geological Survey Bulletin 1450-B (1976). U.S. Department of the Interior, Coal Resource Classification Systems of the U.S.

Geological Survey, Geological Survey Circular 891 (1983).

and to detect impediments from natural geologic on the cumulative experience of mine operators and

conditions (for example, proximity to alluvial valleys) or government geologists and mining engineers, sufficed

societal restrictions (for example, in national parks). (especially in the eastern half of the United States).

The actual amount of coal recoverable from the DRB is recoverable. In the late 1970's, separate evaluations were

speculative. For many years, engineering judgment, based developed for the legal-to-mine fraction and the

Roughly 50 percent of the DRB was thought to be
14 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

recoverable fraction of the surface-minable and deepminable DRB for the different coal supply regions (States

or distinctive coalfield areas of States) for use in coal 

supply analyses. These evaluations were
Demonstrated Reserve

Base (Measured and

Indicated, Specified

Depths and Thicknesses)

Recoverable

Reserves

475.6

1,730.9

3,968.3

Identified Resources

(Measured, Indicated,

and Inferred)

Total Resources

(Indentified and

Undiscovered)

261.2

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 15

Figure 3. Delineation of U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves

(Billion Short Tons)

 Notes: Resources and reserves data are in million short tons. Darker shading in the diagram corresponds to greater relative data

relability. The recoverable reserves depicted at the top of the diagram include 22 million short tons of recoverable coal reserves at mines

producing 10,000 tons or more as reported by mine operators to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). This diagram portrays the

theoretical relationships of data magnitude and reliability among coal resource data. All figures are subject to revison with changes in

knowledge of coal resource data.

 Sources: The DRB estimate was compiled by the Energy Information Administration as of January 1, 1992, and published in Coal

Production 1991. Recoverable reserves were estimated by EIA's Resource Allocation and Mine Costing Model (RAMC), and Coal

Reserves Data Base (CRDB) Program. Identified resources and total resources are estimates as of January 1, 1974, compiled and

published by the U.S. Geological Survey in Coal Resources of the United States, January 1, 1974.

generalized and are still used largely unchanged. They

resulted in about 57 percent of the DRB being designated

as recoverable—with regional variations.

Coal Quality and Reserve

Applications

The DRB has served a useful purpose, but the demands on

it as a data base have grown. As the United States has

found itself dealing with growing environmental concerns

and in a more internationally competitive
16 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

position, the questions being asked have become complex.

The issues for analysis require data on coal quality,

characteristics, quantities, availability, and economic

recoverability—data which the DRB alone was not

designed to provide. The EIA has been challenged to

address those issues at the same time that the adequacy of

the knowledge base is being examined.

The criteria for the DRB were formulated two decades

ago. Newer coal resource assessments often provide more

detailed information on coalbed thickness and depth;

some use criteria more directly related to economic

recovery. In light of both new mining
Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Categories

Anthracite and Bituminous Coal

Subbituminous Coal and Lignite

Rank and Thickness

(inches)

Mining Method

and Depth

(feet)

Surface

Underground

0

to

200

200

to

1,000

1,000

to

2,000

2,000

to

3,000

Under

14

14 to

28

28 to

42

Over

42

Under

30

30 to

60

60 to

120

Over

120

b

b

a

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 17

Figure 4. Identified Coal Resources

 The three categories denote degrees of geologic assurance and collectively make up the identified resource category. Excludes less a

than 0.02 percent of identified coal resources not classifiable under current criteria.

 Current surface-minable coal is predominantly within the depth range of 0 to 200 feet. Some surface mines exceed this depth range; b

conversely, some coal resources less than 200 feet deep can be mined only by underground methods.

 Notes: Blocks represent combinations of rank, thickness, and depth that define essential parameters for minability evaluations. 

Nonshaded blocks represent combinations for which measured and indicated resources are included in the DRB. Nonshaded partial

blocks represent exceptions (combinations for which measured and indicated resources are included in the DRB in specified locations

only). Fully shaded blocks and partially shaded areas represent coalbed rank, thickness, and depth combinations for which measured and

indicated resources are too thin and/or too deep to be included currently in the DRB.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels.

technologies in use today and the proliferation of societal In an effort to compensate for the recognized deficiencies

constraints on coal production, the DRB would benefit in availability and quality of data in DRB, the EIA has

from these types of data. Better information is needed initiated the Coal Reserves Data Base (CRDB) program.

now, but such data are scattered and costly to develop. The CRDB program was designed to engage the

Although they contain recognized deficiencies, the data expertise of State geological surveys and to coordimaintained by the EIA, including the DRB and associated

information on coal quality, compose the most complete

and comprehensive data base available on U.S. coal

reserves.
18 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

nate with other Federal agencies and the coal industry to

revise the estimates of coal resources and reserves. The

evolution of the CRDB program is described more fully in

Appendix A.

Two pilot studies have been conducted under the CRDB

program, one each in Ohio and Wyoming. These two

studies, performed in Fiscal Year 1991, were executed as

cooperative agreements between the EIA and the States

involved. These studies and their results are explained in

the next chapter. The CRDB program has continued to

progress; a 15-month study of eastern Kentucky coal

resources and reserves, which began in September 1992,

is scheduled to be completed in December 1993.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 19

3. New Coal Resource Data Derivations and

National Data Base

Under the CRDB Program, revisions and/or new distributions and allocations of coal resource and reserve data

have been performed in 13 coal resource areas, which 11

were grouped into 5 program categories:

 ! Ohio and Wyoming—for which revisions to their

State DRB and recoverable coal reserves were

completed in 1991 under the EIA-sponsored projects

 ! Pennsylvania (anthracite region)—for which

revisions to the State DRB and recoverable coal

reserves were made by the EIA in 1992 using data

from published sources and file data

 ! Alaska (northern region)—for which allocations to

Btu/sulfur ranges, accessible DRB, and recoverable

coal reserves were made by the EIA in 1992 through

the analysis of existing DRB data and coal quality

data from EIA files and other sources

 ! Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia

(anthracite resources)—for which allocations to

Btu/sulfur ranges, accessible DRB, and recover-able

coal reserves were made by the EIA in 1992 through

the analysis of existing DRB data and coal quality

data from EIA files and other sources

 ! Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, North Carolina, and

Oregon (all resources)—for which allocations to

Btu/sulfur ranges, accessible DRB, and recover-able

coal reserves were made by the EIA in 1992 through

the analysis of existing DRB data and coal quality

data from EIA files and other sources.

The analyses and methodologies used for these DRB

updates are described in this chapter.

Coal Reserves Data Base

Cooperative Agreements

The coal resources of Ohio and Wyoming were revised

between September 1990 and September 1991, in pilot

studies under the CRDB program. The selection of Ohio

and Wyoming was based on: (1) their relative national

importance as major coal-producing States, (2) the fact

that important existing data (coal resource quantities

and/or quality) in EIA files were out of date, (3) the

availability of significant new data in State files with

which to carry out the needed revisions, and (4) the

capability and readiness of the geological surveys of these

two States to perform the needed analytical tasks under

the scheduling and funding terms of cooperative

agreements with the EIA. Beyond these criteria, the

selection of an Eastern high-sulfur coal State and a

Western low-sulfur coal State for pilot studies afforded

the opportunity to assess the CRDB guidelines in geographically and geologically different contexts. It also was

used to evaluate the possible benefits of improved data

bases in two areas expected to experience contrasting

economic effects and adaptations to the requirements of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

Ohio Cooperative Agreement

The Ohio Geological Survey (OGS) cooperative agreement was designed to revise the DRB of coal in Ohio, to

incorporate data and locations of coal quality analyses in

OGS files, and to make adjustments for resource

depletion, accessibility, and recoverability in order to

calculate estimates of remaining recoverable coal reserves.

The agreement required that State-level totals of DRB,

accessible reserve base of coal, and recoverable reserves

of coal be allocated to specific
20 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 Three States contain distinct and significant coal-producing areas that are reported separately. They include the eastern and western Kentucky 11

regions and the Pennsylvania bituminous and anthracite regions, which have traditionally been reported separately. Also, the southern, mostly

sub-Arctic, coalfields of Alaska and the northern Arctic region of Alaska are considered separately by EIA because northern Alaska, which is

remote from markets and has severe climatic, environmental, and recoverability restrictions, should be distinguishable for coal supply analysis.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 21

Btu/sulfur content ranges. According to the agreement, inaccessible to mining because of land-use and environresources and reserves were also to be reported by mental restrictions and regulations were delineated for

potential method of mining (surface or underground). surface and for underground coal mining, and the

Details of the OGS procedures are contained in the affected DRB tonnages were calculated. After delivery of

project's final report. the final report, the EIA, in consultation with the OGS and 12

Procedures

During the study, priority was assigned to the coalbearing counties of Ohio, first on the basis of the amount

of new resource data available and, secondly, on the basis

of recent production levels. To a large degree the counties

identified under the two criteria were the same. In the

highest priority category, Group 1 counties, with

abundant new resource data and relatively high

production, the resources of all economically significant

coalbeds were recalculated. In Group 2 counties, with new

resource data for certain coalbeds and moderate

production, coal resources were recalculated for selected

coalbeds—usually those that are most important for

future mining—while the remaining coalbeds were

updated from the 1971 DRB using detailed coalbed

depletion estimates. In Group 3 counties, with little or no

new resource data and little or no recent production, the

EIA 1971 DRB coalbed data were updated for coalbed

depletion to January 1, 1991. The base year of 1991,

therefore, represents the common date to which all the

coal resource data were adjusted at specified levels of

detail. Adjustments using the delineation of mined-out

areas, and statistical depletions in Group 3 counties and

Group 2 coalbeds that were not remapped, were carried

out at the scale of Ohio civil townships and prorated for

county data.

New DRB resources in Groups 1 and 2 were calculated on

the basis of USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, using

new information on coal locations, thicknesses, and

elevations. These data were merged with information on

the areal extent of coalbeds at the surface and to specified

subsurface limits (croplines and subcrops), average bed

thicknesses (isopachs), and extent of mined-out areas. The

limits of surface- and underground-minable DRB areas for

this study were defined on the basis of the loci of 100-foot

overburden measurements and on geologic structure and

isopach contours. In these areas, the estimated remaining

coal resources were calculated directly by deducting

mined-out areas from coal resource areas. Similarly,

areas

other branches of the Ohio Department of Natural

Resources, performed additional map measurements and

calculations. This work was undertaken to estimate the

portions of the DRB that are inaccessible to mining due to

land-use conflicts in national forests, in areas of oil-well

development, and under Interstate and U.S. highway and

major State and county road rights-of-way and buffer

areas.

The distribution of the DRB by Btu and sulfur content was

based on the evaluation of 1,700 coal sample analyses in

OGS files. The coal resource quantities were distributed

statistically for 7.5-minute quadrangle areas, using a

methodology similar to the county/coalbed DRB

distributions used by the EIA in the past (described in

Appendix B). The OGS coal quality data include only

carefully sampled coals of known locations, representing

whole beds, production benches, or run of mine.13

Results

The Ohio pilot study produced a new DRB estimate of

23.9 billion short tons as of January 1, 1991. This is 28

percent higher than the published EIA estimate of 18.7

billion short tons for the 1987 DRB (Table 2). Almost all of

this increase related to coal minable by underground

mining methods. Many of the new coal measurement data

points used in the revisions came from published and

unpublished studies of deep coal resources not previously

in the DRB.

Although the Ohio DRB increased by 28 percent, the

estimated recoverable portion of the DRB's in-ground

resources (Table 2) increased by only 11 percent. The

difference is due to the fact that the OGS geologists used

a 50-percent underground recovery factor, whereas the

EIA had assumed 60-percent recovery for underground

mining in its 1987 estimates. Further, although the

surface-minable resource data changed measurably in

several counties (due to new mapping data), there was

little net change in the State-level data,
22 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Modernization of Ohio's Coal Reserves, Phase I, by Richard W. Carlton under Cooperative Agreement DE-FC01- 12

90EI21951 between the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (Columbus, OH,

September 1991).

 A production bench is one of two or more divisions of a coal seam, separated by a layer of rock, or simply separated in the process of cutting the coal, 13

one bench being cut before the adjacent one. Run of mine is the raw coal as it is delivered by the mine cars, conveyors, or trucks, prior to treatment of any

sort; it may include coal from whole beds and/or benches from more than one active section of the mine.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 23

(Million Short Tons)

Year

Demonstrated Reserve Base Recoverable Reserves

Mining Method

Total Underground Surface Total Underground Surface

1991 .................... 23,940 17,943 5,996 11,819 7,894 3,925

1987 .................... 18,670 12,889 5,781 10,614 6,960 3,654

Difference ................ 5,269 5,054 215 1,205 934 271

Percentage Change . . . . . . . . 28 39 4 11 13 7

Summary Sulfur Content Categories (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu) a

Low

(# 0.60)

Medium

(0.61–1.67)

High

($ 1.68)

Low

(# 0.60)

Medium

(0.61–1.67)

High

($ 1.68)

1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 2,764 20,693 253 1,398 10,168

1987 .................... 0 2,496 16,175 0 1,403 9,211

Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482 268 4,519 253 -5 957

Percentage Change ........ n.a. 11 28 n.a. 0 10

 For detailed analyses, the EIA uses six sulfur content ranges. For general discussion and summary data, however, those six ranges are combined into a

the three qualitative ratings of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content coal presented here. See also Appendix B, Table B3.

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

 Sources: 1987—Energy Information Administration, Estimation of U.S. Coal Reserves by Coal Type: Heat and Sulfur Content, DOE/EIA-0529 (1989). 

1991—Ohio Division of Geological Survey, Modernization of Ohio's Coal Reserves, Phase I, 1991 data (1991), with additional reserves analysis by Energy

Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels (1992).

Table 2. Comparison of 1987 and Revised 1991 Ohio Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal and Recoverable 

Coal Reserve Data

because not much unmined near-surface coal resource reserve estimates, which the EIA adjusted for depletion

remains to be assessed. In the long term, future mining in from the base year 1991 to

Ohio, if economically competitive, will be increasingly

deep mined. 

Compared with the 1987 reserve distributions, the OGS

evaluations of coal quality data for 1991 reserves and the

EIA supplemental adjustments resulted in an increase in

the percentage of Ohio coal reserves in the highest EIA

sulfur content category ($ 2.50 pounds of sulfur per

million Btu), from 57 percent to 64 percent of the State's

recoverable coal reserves. Conversely, the OGS and the

EIA allocated 253 million short tons to the two lowest EIA

sulfur categories (# 0.40 and 0.41-0.60 pounds of sulfur

per million Btu) compared with none before, but this

amounts to only 2 percent of Ohio's recoverable coal

reserves. Detailed distributions of the revised DRB,

accessible reserve base of coal, and recoverable coal
24 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 The Geological Survey of Wyoming, Coal Reserves Data Base Report: Final Report on the Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) of Coal in Wyoming, prepared by 14

Richard W. Jones and Gary B. Glass, for U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, under Cooperative Agreement DE-FG01-

90EI21952 (Laramie, WY, December 1991).

January 1, 1992, can be found in Appendix C, Tables C1,

C2, and C3.

Wyoming Cooperative Agreement

The objective of the Wyoming study was to revise the

distributions of coal resources and reserves by coal quality

categories. Resource quantity revisions, not a goal of the

study, were made with existing data on file at the

Geological Survey of Wyoming (GSW), but only when

incidental to the quality allocations. The revisions

calculated in the Wyoming Cooperative Agreement were

for potentially surface-minable resources because that is

the area of immediate and foreseeable economic

importance. There was a vast amount of new data to be

analyzed, the preponderance of which, both for recent

coal resource mapping data and for coal quality data, was

associated with coal at surface-minable depths. Details of

the GSW procedures, criteria, and results are documented

in the project's final report.14
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 25

Although numerous sources of new coal resource data Distribution of the coal quality data values was based on

throughout the coalfields would reportedly result in still the selected analytical data, located on coal resource base

larger resource quantity assessments, these leads were not maps, following one of two general methods. In some coal

pursued in the Wyoming pilot study for several reasons. deposits, the variation in Btu and sulfur values was

First, the data are in various formats and locations, and determined by constructing iso-Btu and iso-sulfur contour

more time than was available would be necessary to maps and calculating the total coal resources in each

analyze and compile these data in a unified DRB- category. This method was best suited for deposits with

grounded data base. Second, and just as importantly, the large numbers of coal quality data points and a wide

greatest needs for data improvement were for the Btu and range of Btu and sulfur values. In areas with very little

sulfur characterizations of coal resources in the areas variation in coal quality data, the Btu and sulfur values

currently being mined—areas contributing to the largest were assigned on the basis of aggregated data from

tonnage of coal production of any U.S. State. Third, the detailed industry development projects (based on

addition of new quantities of coal to the already huge hundreds or thousands of drillhole, production, and/or

DRB of Wyoming would have little impact on coal supply delivery data), analyses from regional coal exploration

analyses, because much of the coal would be located in programs, and reconnaissance samples. The average or

areas (for example, those adjacent to or beneath 30- to 60- weighted average Btu and sul-fur values were determined

year reserve blocks currently being mined) where for each coalbed (or coal zone), and the corresponding

develop-ment should logically be postponed into the coal resources were assigned to Btu/sulfur ranges.

long-term future.

Procedures

With minor exceptions, existing GSW coal resource

calculations of surface-minable coal were used to compile

the new State DRB. Coal resource data were compiled by

coalbed at the coalfield level, for areas delineated on

previously completed coal resource maps. Because the

EIA sources used for the 1990 estimate of the Wyoming

DRB were largely the same as those used by the GSW, the

size of the revised DRB would not be expected to differ

significantly from the EIA's estimate. In some coalfields,

however, the GSW included more recent coal resource

data compilations. Using State mine-level reports of

production since the base years of resource studies, the

GSW also reevaluated depletion. All of the data used by

the GSW in their State DRB compilations conform to the

standard USGS criteria for measured and indicated

degrees of reliability.

The GSW evaluated 15,000 coal-quality samples on file

and incorporated several thousand analyses of coal

samples delivered to electric power plants. Comparative

analysis allowed questionable or unreliable data to be

eliminated. In the end, the GSW selected more than 5,230

basic samples, including channel samples from mines or

exposures, tipple samples from mines, and core samples.

In addition, more than 1,500 delivered samples were

selected to supplement the basic data.

The GSW evaluated the accessible reserve base and

recoverable reserves of surface-minable coal by using map

measurements, field observations, and land use plans for

individual coal deposits. From this information, the GSW

developed percentages inaccessible for potentially

surface-minable DRB and coal reserves by Btu/sulfur

ranges. Similarly, recovery factors were first determined

for individual coal deposits, using published and

confidential, unpublished data. Weighted averages were

then calculated to determine area-wide recovery factors.

For underground-minable coal, the GSW did no

independent analysis, but included the DRB, accessible

reserve base of coal, and recoverable coal reserves data

from EIA files to present a complete data base. The GSW

applied minor depletion adjustments to the underground

data and updated them to the 1991 base year. 

Results

As of January 1, 1991, the revised DRB estimate of

Wyoming surface-minable coal was 27.0 billion short tons.

The new distributions to Btu/sulfur ranges place 5.2

billion short tons, or 19 percent, of the surface-minable

DRB in Wyoming in the lowest EIA sulfur category of no

more than 0.40 pounds of sulfur per million Btu; 2.6

billion short tons, or 10 percent, of the surface-minable

DRB in the State were assigned to the highest EIA sulfur

category of more than 2.50 pounds of sulfur per million

Btu.
26 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

The 1991 estimate of Wyoming's surface-minable DRB

increased by only 0.7 billion short tons compared with the

latest published EIA data (1987) allocated to Btu/sulfur

ranges. By contrast, the State's surface-minable

recoverable coal reserves increased by 3.0 billion short

tons (or 15 percent) due to the use of significantly less

restrictive percentages inaccessible in the GSW derivation

(Table 3). The GSW assumed that
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 27

(Million Short Tons)

Year

Demonstrated Reserve Base Recoverable Reserves

Mining Method

Total Underground Surface Total Underground Surface

1991 ........................ 69,542 42,545 26,998 46,288 22,974 23,314

1987 ........................ 68,843 42,553 26,291 43,327 22,978 20,349

Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699 -9 707 2,961 -4 2,965

Percentage Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 3 7 0 15

Summary Sulfur Content Categories (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu) a

Low

(# 0.60)

Medium

(0.61–1.67)

High

($ 1.68)

Low

(# 0.60)

Medium

(0.61–1.67)

High

($ 1.68)

1991 ........................ 36,393 28,580 4,569 24,906 17,925 3,457

1987 ........................ 30,646 34,751 3,446 18,900 22,052 2,375

Difference .................... 5,746 -6,171 1,013 6,006 -4,127 1,082

Percentage Change . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 -18 29 32 -19 46

 For detailed analyses, the EIA uses six sulfur content ranges. For general discussion and summary data, however, those six ranges are combined into the a

three qualitative ratings of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content coal presented here. See also Appendix B, Table B3.

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding.

 Sources: 1987—Energy Information Administration, Estimation of U.S. Coal Reserves by Coal Type: Heat and Sulfur Content, DOE/EIA-0529 (1989).

1991—The Geological Survey of Wyoming, Coal Reserves Data Report: Final Report on the Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) of Coal in Wyoming, 1991

data (1991). 

Table 3. Comparison of 1987 and Revised 1991 Wyoming Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal and

Recoverable Coal Reserve Data

only 2 percent of the surface-minable coal was inac- in the Powder River Basin. The details of the revised data

cessible, while the EIA had assumed 14 percent base are shown in Tables C1, C2, and C3.

previously. The GSW and EIA used similar surface

mining recovery rates—a weighted average of 88 percent

in the GSW project versus 90 percent previously used by

the EIA.

Underground-minable coal data showed no significant

changes, because the underground-minable DRB and the

allocations used existing EIA data and, except for

depletion updates, were not revised by the GSW. The

increase of 6.0 billion short tons, or 32 percent, in the

recoverable coal reserve data for 1991 low-sulfur ranges

of coal quality (Table 3) was based primarily on the

analysis of several thousand new coal quality data points
28 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Coal Reserves Data Base Revisions

by EIA

The remaining 11 coal resource projects described in this

chapter were completed by EIA for the primary purpose

of bringing into the data base the areas and coal ranks in

the DRB that had not previously been assessed for coal

quality (including Btu/sulfur ranges).

These data were developed for Btu and sulfur levels based

on data selected from the EIA's Coal Analysis File, using

data from other sources as a supplement. Although the

Coal Analysis File holds more than 60,000 samples, for

most of the remaining States in this chapter that file

includes few, if any, samples in the areas or ranks being

studied, because the study areas have not recently been

important coal-producing areas.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 29

Region/State

Number of

Coal

Analyses

East ........................... 48,376

Alabama ........................ 1,988

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Illinois .......................... 4,230

Indiana ......................... 1,680

Kentucky, Eastern ................ 3,911

Kentucky, Western ............... 2,528

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Ohio ........................... 2,654

Pennsylvania, Anthracite .......... 6,860

Pennsylvania, Bituminous .......... 6,381

Tennessee ...................... 1,662

Virginia ......................... 2,573

West Virginia .................... 13,161

West ........................... 15,602

North Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

South Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

California ....................... 1

Colorado ....................... 3,795

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 569

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 791

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613

Nebraska ....................... 7

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

New Mexico ..................... 1,001

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988

Oklahoma ...................... 1,173

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Utah ........................... 2,117

Washington ..................... 1,025

Wyoming ....................... 2,145

 Total ......................... 63,978

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal,

Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels, 1992 data (1992).

Table 4. Total Inventory of Coal Sample Analyses

Available for Coal Resource Distribution

To bolster the data in these areas, the EIA added

data—from published sources and State geological survey

files—from nearly 500 coal samples in the general areas

under consideration, along with more than 3,200 coal

analyses throughout the United States from the

computerized USGS USCHEM File. The result is an 15

inventory of nearly 64,000 coal analyses on file, including

the EIA Coal Analysis File and other qualified sources

(Table 4).

Pennsylvania Anthracite Project

The Pennsylvania anthracite project entailed both revising

the basic resource data and analyzing the resulting DRB

to make coal quality distributions and reserve allocations.

The area of study consisted of the 10 counties of eastern

and northeastern Pennsylvania that include the principal

areas of the State's major anthracite coalfields, plus a

minor area in Sullivan County. The new resource data for

the 10-county area were based on a study sponsored by

the BOM and prepared by the Resources Technology 16

Corporation (RTC). The Sullivan County area is based on

data from the EIA files used to develop the 1979 DRB for

Pennsylvania anthracite.

Using the RTC report, the EIA compiled, by individual

coalfield and type of mining, demonstrated coal resources

greater than 24 inches thick. The RTC methodology used

a multi-parameter grid of 4-acre basic data units, or cells,

to assess and characterize the remaining coal resources

throughout the four major coalfields. One benefit of this

detailed approach was that it permitted the RTC to

evaluate both the coal resource potential and the

accessibility of the coal-bearing areas on a cell-by-cell

basis. Using this technique, the study included

accessibility character-istics based on detailed evaluations

of land-use conflicts equated with a population density

threshold of 10 persons per 40 acres, and on the

equilibrium water elevations, or pool levels, of subsurface

flooding that is a long-term impediment to mining access.

Much of the mine flooding is related to past surface water

floods that broke into mines and is aggravated by

multiple breaches among the abandoned underground

mines. There is no likely prospect for these areas to be

drained for coal mining.

The classification of type of mining in the RTC report

combined conventional surface-minable DRB data with
30 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, USCHEM—Computer File of Chemical Analysis of Coals Sampled in the United States 15

(Reston, Virginia, 1991).

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Defining the Anthracite Resources of Northeastern Pennsylvania, by Ronald W. Stingelin and 16

others, Resource Technologies Corporation, Final Report under Contract J033932 (Pittsburgh, PA, October 1984).
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 31

resources attainable by deep-pit mining, sometimes resources as of 1981, the revised DRB totals 7.3 billion

reaching depths of 1,000 feet. As no new open-pit mines short tons, which is slightly higher than the 7.2 billion

have been started in the past 15 years and none are short tons of the previous (1991) published DRB estiplanned, EIA allocated these coal resources to the mate. However, because of the high inaccessibility

potentially underground-minable DRB. An allocation factors that were calculated—ranging from 11 percent to

technique was devised by which the coal resources 57 percent—the accessible reserve base of coal was

available for conventional surface mining could be estimated to be only 1.2 billion short tons, and recoverable

reestimated on the basis of map information and depth coal reserves were estimated to be 769 million short tons.

and pool level data. The allocation factors developed for Since correlations among EIA annual coal production data

surface coal mining were applied at the coalfield level of and the coalfield DRB estimates are not currently

aggregation. available, the 1981 data were adjusted proportionally to

The resulting DRB estimate was allocated to the accessible

DRB on the basis of average accessibility factors for each

Pennsylvania anthracite coalfield. The accessible DRB was

further adjusted to estimate recoverable coal reserves,

assuming recovery factors of 50 percent for underground

mining and 90 percent for surface mining in the

Pennsylvania anthracite region. The newly developed

inaccessible factors and the recovery rates used are shown

in Appendix B, Table B4.

As indicated earlier, data from the Coal Analysis File and

the USCHEM File were used to develop estimates for the

DRB by Btu and sulfur categories. For Pennsylvania

anthracite, the Coal Analysis File contains 6,700 samples,

which were supplemented with more than 100 additional

USCHEM samples. All samples were evaluated for

reliability. Only tipple, run of mine, and mine or core

samples were judged to be valid to characterize the coal;

delivered and refuse samples were not used. Both raw

and prepared coal samples were considered, because

mining in this region can easily pick up surrounding rock

impurities, and both types of production are potentially

representative of the coal in the ground. Whether raw and

prepared mine samples are representative of the coal in

the ground depends on the care used in mining and

processing. On the other hand, because many of the

breakers, or preparation plants, in this region have, over

the years, processed and blended refuse pile material

along with freshly mined coal, sample data with ash

content of 20 percent or more were considered to contain

excessive refuse and were not used.

The revised DRB estimate, representing a base year of

1981, was supplemented with data from the EIA 1971

DRB for Sullivan County (in the Western Middle Field of

the Pennsylvania anthracite region), which was not

covered in the RTC study. For the remaining coal

17

1992 by applying production-related depletion to the

Btu/sulfur range tonnages of all coalfields in the region.

The detailed 1992 DRB, accessible reserve base of coal,

and recoverable coal reserves data are presented in

Appendix C.

Coal Quality Distributions to Existing

Reserve Base

No new coal resource data were used for the remaining

States. The objective of the analysis in these States was

merely to allocate the DRB by Btu and sulfur categories.

The enhanced coal sample analyses data on file (Table 4)

were reviewed to identify samples that were applicable to

the coal resource areas. Sample data were selected on the

basis of coalbed/county matches, mapped locations of

sample points relative to the coal resource areas, and use

of uncorrelated samples, where necessary, that most

closely matched the coal in the DRB area. The data were

screened for improper coal rank or inordinately high

levels of ash or other contaminants. The allocation of coal

to the Btu and sulfur categories was based on the number

of qualified samples representing each Btu and sulfur

value. The data were converted to the as received basis18

as the best available approximation of the values of coal

resources in the ground.

Coal resource quantity revisions using new data for the 10

coal resource areas, by State, described below were

beyond the scope of this work. Therefore, the brief

discussions that follow are presented primarily to

document the data sources used and to discuss any minor

modifications or unusual circumstances that were

encountered. The data for anthracite in Arkansas,

Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia represent relatively

minor quantities and have been incorporated with

existing distributions of bituminous coals in those States

(Tables C1, C2, and C3).
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 33

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Coal Resources of Alaska, Bulletin 1242-B (Washington, DC, 1967). 19

 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base of the United States on January, 1, 1976, Mineral Industry Surveys 20

(Washington, DC, 1977).

 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Surface Mining Coal Deposits, North Slope of Alaska: Phase I, Technical and Economic Feasibility, Report No. 21

76-91-RE, prepared by Kaiser Engineers under USBM Contract No. JO265051 (Denver, CO, December 1976).

 U.S. Department of Energy, Characterization and Evaluation of Washability of Alaskan Coals, Final Technical Report for Phase II, by P. Dharma Rao and 22

Ernest N. Wolff, Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, University of Alaska, under Contract No. ET-78-G-01-8969, (Pittsburgh, PA, October 1980).

 Haley, B.R., Coal Resources of Arkansas, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1072-P (Washington, DC, 1954). 23

Alaska

The analysis of data on Alaska's coal resources focused on

the northern Alaska DRB. The known coal resources of

this vast area lie north of the 68th parallel, well within the

Arctic Circle. Only a few isolated and undeveloped

locations where coal has been detected or sampled in

“southern” Alaska lie just within the Arctic Circle. For

purposes of identification, then, the area that was studied

is referred to in this report as “northern Alaska,” or

“Arctic Alaska.” It includes the oil-producing and

pipeline area commonly known as the North Slope, which

is located north of the Brooks Range. The major portion of

the State, to the south, is referred to in this report as

“southern” or “sub-Arctic” Alaska. No new analyses were

done for southern Alaska except for reevaluating historic

data on coal depletion.

The DRB of northern Alaska contains an estimated 1.4

billion short tons of coal resources. The estimate is based

on data in the USGS Bulletin 1242-B, with allocations for 19

depth of mining by the BOM in the 1970's. The very 20

limited known coal production and test mining that has

been done in the region occurred prior to the development

of the 1979 DRB, and all depletion adjustments had been

made previously. An estimate of the percentage

inaccessible was made following a review of available

information, including an engineering assessment by

Kaiser Engineers. In view of the numerous, but 21

economically unquantified, climatic and environmental

restrictions to commercial mining, the EIA assumed that

50 percent of both the surface and underground DRB

were inaccessible. The EIA also considered the absence of

commercial mining in the past, the remoteness of the

region, the fact that formation of ice packs allows ocean

shipping for only 2 or 3 months per year, and the extreme

costs of carrying out activities in the region. In view of

these economic deterrents, the EIA assumed that there

would be no current or foreseeable economic recovery of

the North Slope coal resources.

The coal quality sample data used to analyze northern

Alaska coal came from the USCHEM file and from a series

of coal washability projects sponsored by the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE), with data from fewer than 22

10 additional samples in the area gleaned from various

published sources. The EIA took care to ensure that the

selected sample data were located in, and could be

considered representative of, the DRB resource areas. In

the process of delineating the DRB areas as defined in the

USGS Bulletin 1242-B, the EIA determined that some of

the coal resources of northern Alaska had been included

previously in the southern Alaska DRB. This correction

yielded a 5.8-million- short-ton shift, or reassignment, of

the southern Alaska DRB to the northern Alaska DRB.

Arkansas

The DRB estimates for bituminous coal and anthracite in

Arkansas are based on data developed in the USGS

Bulletin 1072-P. The 1992 DRB includes two minor 23

depletion adjustments: the first, a reevaluation of thinbedded, potentially surface-minable DRB, yielded an

increase of 250,000 short tons in bituminous DRB, which

was partially offset by the second, a reassign-ment of

anthracite depletion in Johnson County that had

previously been recorded as bituminous coal depletion.

The reassigned Johnson County depletion was

counterbalanced by restoring an equivalent amount of

bituminous resources. The final result was an increase in

the Arkansas DRB from 416.9 to 417.2 mil-lion short tons

between 1991 and 1992, based on net increases in the

States' anthracite and bituminous coal DRB.

Colorado

Colorado's DRB for anthracite is based on USGS data in 24

Gunnison County. The DRB files show slightly more than

1 million short tons of Gunnison County anthracite

production through 1975. The coalbeds are not known. To

allocate this total to appropriate beds, the EIA examined

 cumulative production data (1860
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 35

 Colorado School of Mines, Colorado Coal Mine Information, Open File Report, Depletion Study, by Coalfield, completed for U.S. Department of Energy 25

(Golden, CO, 1977).

 Uncorrelated coalbeds are coalbeds for which the knowledge of regional geology is insufficient to determine either the physical or chronological 26

congruity of nonadjacent beds, or for which the geologic environment is such that physical continuity of coalbeds is limited in area. In many cases, however

(and Colorado is one of them), the geologic age or relative positions of the coalbeds in the surrounding rock strata can be used to identify within certain

bounds the corresponding resource areas and production areas of uncorrelated coalbeds.

 Johnson, V.H., Coal Deposits on Sand and Lookout Mountains Dade and Walker Counties, Georgia Preliminary Coal Inventory Map, U.S. Geological Survey 27

(Washington, DC, 1946).

 Butts, C., and Guildersleeve, B., Section on coal in Geology and Mineral Resources of the Paleozoic Area in Northwest Georgia, Georgia Geological Survey 28

Bulletin 54 (Washington, DC, 1958).

 Coleman and others, Analyses of Coal from Northwest Georgia, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Geological Survey Information Circular 76 29

(Washington, DC, 1977).

 Kiilsgaard, Thor H., The Geology and Coal of the Horseshoe Creek District, Teton County, Idaho, Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology, Pamphlet (June 1951). 30

through 1977) compiled independently by the Colorado Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology that serves as the

School of Mines (CSM). Based on the CSM data, the EIA basis of the State's DRB. Using information on historical 25

allocated the production among uncorrelated beds, the mining activity appearing in that report, the EIA assigned 26

Floresta bed, and the No. 3 bed and depleted each depletion associated with 100,000 short tons of cumulative

accordingly. No anthracite production was recorded from underground coal production to the three coalbeds in

1976 through 1991. The Colorado anthracite DRB was Idaho's DRB. The Brown Bear Bed was allotted slightly

estimated to be 25.5 million short tons. The allocation of more than two-thirds of the total production. The

these data to Btu/sulfur ranges caused no changes in net Progressive bed accounted for the rest. Production figures

DRB tonnages in Colorado. for the Boise bed were deemed negligible. The reallocation

Georgia

The 1992 DRB for Georgia incorporates changes in both

surface and underground coal resources resulting from a

detailed (county/coalbed) reallocation of depletion in the Except for one small mine that operated briefly in 1975,

three most recent years of production—1979, 1983, and coal production in Michigan ceased in 1951, yielding to

1984. The reallocation indicated that more coal was mined competition from nearby States. The State's DRB is based

from two coalbeds than was in the DRB, based on on the USGS Circular 77 and on modifications made by

available resource mapping for those beds. To rectify this the EIA using the results of additional drilling data

discrepancy in data currency, the EIA increased the summarized in a 1976 BOM report. All of the coal in the

Georgia DRB by 330,000 short tons by restoring the DRB is in uncorrelated beds underlying seven counties in

coalbed-level DRB tonnages depleted in past State-level eastern central Michigan. Of the 128 million short tons of

adjustments. The resulting 1992 DRB estimate for Georgia bituminous coal resources in the DRB, less than 5 million

totals 3.6 million short tons, compared with the 1991 short tons are accessible by surface mining. No new

estimate of 3.2 million short tons. resource data were utilized, and no new depletion has

The DRB for the State is based on a USGS Coal Inven-tory

Map for Dade and Walker counties, and on adjustments 27

to data in Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 54 and 28

information in a Georgia Department of Natural

Resources report. These sources were used to derive the 29

1979 DRB. No new resource data were included in the

1992 update.

Idaho

Commercial coal mining in Idaho was discontinued in the coal of the White Ash bed as being “by far the most

1950, shortly before the publication of the report by the valuable coal in the district,”

30

of depletion data did not result in any change in the State

DRB, which totals 4.4 million short tons.

Michigan

31

32

occurred since 1975. 

New Mexico

The DRB for New Mexico anthracite lies entirely within

the Cerrillos coal field in the Madrid Gulch near Santa Fe.

The New Mexico anthracite DRB is based on re-source

data compiled by the USGS. New Mexico's anthracite is 33

attributed to various underground-minable beds of 28

inches or greater average thickness and totals 2.3 million

short tons. The New Mexico Geological Society refers to
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 37

 “Geology of the Cerrillos Coal Field, Santa Fe County, New Mexico,” by Edward C. Beaumont, New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook, (Santa Fe 34

County) (Sante Fe, NM, 1979).

 Reinemund, John A., Geology of the Deep River Coal Field North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 246 (Washington, DC, 1955). 35

noting that the coal in various locations has been 17.5 million short tons. The underground DRB is based on

converted to anthracite by extreme heating caused by the resources remaining as of 1945, documented in the USGS

proximity of molten rock in the geologic past, where the Bulletin 982-B. It includes depletion adjust-ments related

coalbed underlies an igneous intrusion along a distance of to approximately 35,000 short tons of underground coal

nearly 2 miles. production from the Beaver Hill bed between 1945 and 34

North Carolina

North Carolina's coal resources are located in the Deep

River Coal Field, an area of 26 square miles, overlapping

the boundary of Chatham and Lee Counties. All of the

State's demonstrated resources occur in two coalbeds—the

Cumnock and the Gulf—and total 10.7 million short tons.

The USGS data provide the original source for the EIA's 35

estimate of the DRB. Based on a study of maps, geologic

factors, and mining history, the EIA concluded that no

coal resources are surface-minable in the State's Deep Data from a USGS report provided the basis for calRiver coalfield. The coal is bituminous in rank, but 17 culating Virginia's DRB for anthracite, which is estimated

percent of the State's bituminous DRB is estimated to to be 125.5 million short tons. The Valley Coal Fields in

occur in various locations along igneous dikes and sills Montgomery, Pulaski, and Wythe counties were mined

where the coal has been metamorphosed to for anthracite during the Civil War and for nearly a

semianthracite, anthracite, and natural coke. The USGS century thereafter. Of the 12 million short tons of historical

resource data were allocated to the EIA categories for depletion estimated from EIA files, 9.6 million short tons

thickness (14 to 28 inches, 28 to 42 inches, and greater than were from Montgomery County. Anthracite production in

42 inches) and were adjusted for depletion on the basis of Wythe County was deemed negligible. The remaining 2.4

local production data compiled by the USGS for the million short tons were assigned to Pulaski County. Of the

period from 1852 through 1949. Between 1950 and 1952, total, 9 million short tons were identified with the Brushy

North Carolina production was estimated from combined Mountain bed in Montgomery County, and the remaining

Georgia-North Carolina data from the BOM. Since 1952, 3 million short tons came from various (unidentified)

there has been no recorded production (although a few beds.

test pits were initiated).

Oregon

The Oregon DRB consists of subbituminous coal that is

located entirely in Coos County and estimated to total

36

1952. Approximately 20 percent of the State's DRB is

known to be at depths expected to be minable through

surface techniques. The surface-minable DRB is based on

Beaver Hill coalbed resources in Bulletin 982-B,

supplemented with data from another USGS report on

Oregon coal resources published 2 years later. Oregon 37

coal deposits are typically scattered and are generally of

poor quality.

Virginia

38
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 39

4. Estimates of U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves

by Heat and Sulfur Content

In addition to the specific revisions described in the The quantities of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur coal in

preceding chapter, the EIA has developed detailed the DRB are relatively even, with each type accounting

estimates of coal resources and reserves by Btu/sulfur for about one-third of the total (Table 6).

range and mining method for each State included in the

DRB. The detailed estimates were updated to January 1,

1992 (Appendix C). This chapter describes highlights of

those estimates at the national level and for the three U.S.

coal-producing regions—Appalachia, Interior, and West.

In the discussion that follows, three qualitative ratings are

used for sulfur content: low-, medium-, and high-sulfur

coal. In this grouping, low-sulfur coal contains 0.6 pounds

or less sulfur per million Btu. Low-sulfur coal nominally

emits l.2 pounds of sulfur dioxide or less per million Btu

of heat input, thus meeting the 1971 New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for power plants without

scrubbers. In addition, some low-sulfur coal can be 39

blended with medium-sulfur coal to meet the NSPS. Coal

that contains between 0.61 and 1.67 pounds of sulfur per

million Btu is classified as medium-sulfur coal, and coal

containing 1.68 pounds of sulfur or more per million Btu

is classified as high-sulfur coal.

The Demonstrated Reserve Base by

Heat and Sulfur Content

The demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal as of

January 1, 1992, totals 475.6 billion short tons. Almost onethird of the DRB is presently classified as surface minable

(Table 5). About one-half of the DRB is bituminous coal,

which is concentrated in Appalachia and the Interior

Region. Another 38 percent of the DRB is subbituminous

coal, which is located entirely in the West, and 9 percent

is lignite, which is located predominantly in States west of

the Mississippi, including Texas, North Dakota, South

Dakota, Montana, Colorado, Louisiana, and Alaska.

Nationwide, low-sulfur coal is estimated to amount to in the DRB. Medium-sulfur coal totals 139.8 billion short

168.5 billion short tons, or 35 percent of all coal included
40 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 That each unit of sulfur in the coal becomes one unit of sulfur dioxide assumes that 100 percent of the sulfur is converted to sulfur dioxide and none is 39

retained in the ash.

tons, or 29 percent of the DRB, and high-sulfur coal

amounts to 167.3 billion short tons, or 35 percent. 

The regional distribution of each coal type is uneven. Most

of the low-sulfur coal included in the DRB (83 percent) is

in the West. Appalachia contains 16 percent of the lowsulfur DRB, and the Interior is estimated to have only

about 1 billion short tons of low-sulfur resources (less than

1 percent of the total low-sulfur DRB coal), which are

located entirely in Indiana and Oklahoma. Similarly, an

estimated 81 billion short tons (58 percent) of the mediumsulfur DRB coal is in the West, about 27 percent of the

total is estimated to be in Appalachia, and 15 percent is in

the Interior Region. Conversely, most of the high-sulfur

DRB coal is in the Interior Region. EIA estimates that the

Interior contains 66 percent of the total high-sulfur DRB

coal in the United States, Appalachia 26 percent, and the

West just 8 percent.

Considering the coal profile of each region, Appalachia

contains 108 billion short tons, or 23 percent, of the DRB

coal in the United States. Coal resources in the region are

almost entirely bituminous coal. Low-sulfur coal accounts

for 25 percent of the region's DRB, medium-sulfur coal for

nearly 35 percent, and high-sulfur coal for more than 40

percent. Low-sulfur coal in Appalachia is concentrated in

eastern Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia, and in the

Pennsylvania anthracite fields.

The Interior Region is estimated to contain 133.5 billion

short tons, or 28 percent, of the DRB of U.S. coal. All of the

DRB coal in the region is bituminous, except for 14 billion

short tons of lignite deposits, primarily in Texas, and 0.1

billion short tons of anthracite in Arkansas. More than 83

percent of the region's DRB is high-sulfur coal and less

than 1 percent is low-sulfur coal.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 41

(Millions of Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

Region and Method of Mining a

Coal Rank

Anthracite Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Total

Appalachia

 Surface ........................ 3,380.8 16,790.1 - 1,083.0 21,253.9

 Underground .................... 3,977.8 82,354.9 - - 86,332.7

 Total ........................... 7,358.6 99,145.0 - 1,083.0 107,586.6

Interior

 Surface ........................ 15.6 26,800.4 - 13,775.0 40,590.9

 Underground .................... 88.6 92,870.4 - - 92,959.0

 Total ........................... 104.2 119,670.8 - 13,775.0 133,549.9

West

 Surface ........................ - 2,273.5 61,812.4 29,929.6 94,015.5

 Underground .................... 27.8 21,605.4 118,812.5 - 140,445.7

 Total ........................... 27.8 23,878.9 180,624.9 29,929.6 234,461.2

East of the Mississippi River ....... 7,358.6 207,773.5 - 1,083.0 216,215.1

West of the Mississippi River ....... 132.0 34,921.1 180,624.9 43,704.5 259,382.5

U.S. Total

 Surface ........................ 3,396.4 45,864.0 61,812.4 44,787.5 155,860.3

 Undergound ..................... 4,094.2 196,830.6 118,812.5 - 319,737.3

 Total ........................... 7,490.6 242,694.6 180,624.9 44,787.5 475,597.7

 States with qualified resource or reserve data in each region: Appalachia—Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, a

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Interior—Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, western Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Texas. West—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1991, DOE/EIA-0118(91) (1992). 

Table 5. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Region, Coal Rank, and Potential Method of Mining
42 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

Regionb

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Total

# 0.60

(Low Sulfur) 

0.61-1.67

(Medium Sulfur)

$ 1.68

(High Sulfur)

Appalachia ........... 26,916.8 (16.0) 37,136.2 (26.6) 43,533.6 (26.0) 107,586.6 (22.6)

Interior .............. 1,162.2 (0.7) 21,338.7 (15.3) 111,049.0 (66.4) 133,549.9 (28.1)

West ................ 140,459.0 (83.3) 81,315.8 (59.2) 12,686.4 (7.6) 234,461.2 (49.3)

U.S. Total ............ 168,538.0 (100.0) 139,790.6 (100.0) 167,269.1 (100.0) 475,597.7 (100.0)

 For detailed analyses, the EIA uses six sulfur content ranges. For general discussion and summary data, however, those six ranges are combined into the a

three qualitative ratings of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content coal presented here. See also Appendix B, Table B3.

 States with qualified resource or reserve data in each region: Appalachia—Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, b

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Interior—Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, western Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Texas. West—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the U.S. totals. Btu = British thermal units.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.

Table 6. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Btu/Sulfur

Ranges and Regions
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 43

The DRB in the Western Region is estimated to total 234.5 subsurface sources for groundwater wells in arid regions),

billion short tons, or 49 percent of the total DRB in the then surface mining will usually be denied access.

United States. Seventy-seven percent of the region's DRB Underground mining, on the other hand, can be carried

is subbituminous coal. About 13 percent is lignite, which out safely and profitably under some of these surfaceis found mostly in Montana, North Dakota, and Colorado. related features, and it involves less use of surface

The rest (about 10 percent) consists of bituminous coal acreage.

(with small areas of anthracite), primarily in Colorado,

Utah, and Wyoming. The EIA estimates that 60 percent of Taking into account the fact that not all of the accessible

the DRB in the West is low-sulfur coal, 35 percent is reserve base of coal can be recovered, recoverable reserves

medium-sulfur coal, and 5 percent is high-sulfur coal. of coal in the United States (that is, coal which can actually

Accessible Reserve Base of Coal

and

Recoverable Coal Reserves by Heat

and Sulfur Content

Nationwide, nearly 85 percent of the DRB is estimated to

be accessible for mining (Table 7). A slightly higher

percentage of underground than surface-minable

resources is considered accessible. In general, accessibility

is less contested for underground resources because deep

mining causes impacts on smaller areas than does surface

mining. If competing human values in those areas include

economically significant surface developments, sensitive

environments or aesthetic values, historically significant

features, or natural resources of higher relative economic

value than coal (e.g., oil and gas wells, prime farm lands,

or important

be extracted economically by mining) are estimated to

total 265 billion short tons, representing 56 percent of the

DRB (Table 8). Overall, 48 percent of underground DRB

coal is estimated to be recoverable, and 71 percent of

surface-minable DRB coal is estimated to be recoverable.

Reflecting the relatively low recovery rate for underground mining, recoverable coal reserves in Appalachia

are estimated to be 55.1 billion short tons, or 21 percent of

the total recoverable coal reserves in the United States.

Recoverable coal reserves in the Interior Region are

estimated to be 61.2 billion short tons, or about 23 percent

of the total. Similarly, reflecting the relatively high

recovery rate expected for surface mines in the West,

recoverable coal reserves there are estimated to amount to

148.4 billion short tons, or 56 percent of the total

recoverable coal reserves in the United States (a somewhat

higher national share than the West holds for the total

DRB).
44 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

Regionb

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Total

# 0.60

(Low Sulfur) 

0.61-1.67

(Medium Sulfur

$ 1.68

(High Sulfur)

Appalachia ........... 19,308.8 (13.1) 31,915.3 (26.1) 38,336.4 (28.6) 89,560.4 (22.2)

Interior .............. 958.5 (0.7) 17,709.0 (14.5) 84,055.4 (62.8) 102,722.9 (25.5)

West ................ 126,720.4 (86.2) 72,644.2 (59.4) 11,480.2 (8.6) 210,844.9 (52.3)

U.S. Total ............ 146,987.7 (100.0) 122,268.5 (100.0) 133,872.0 (100.0) 403,128.2 (100.0)

 For detailed analyses, the EIA uses six sulfur content ranges. For general discussion and summary data, however, those six ranges are combined into the a

three qualitative ratings of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content coal presented here. See also Appendix B, Table B3.

 States with qualified resource or reserve data in each region: Appalachia—Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, b

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Interior—Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, western Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Texas. West—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the U.S. totals. Btu = British thermal unit.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.

Table 7. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Btu/Sulfur 

Ranges and Regions
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 45

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

Regionb

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Total

# 0.60

(Low Sulfur) 

0.61-1.67

(Medium Sulfur

$ 1.68

(High Sulfur)

Appalachia ........... 12,291.2 (12.3) 20,237.4 (24.0) 22,557.5 (28.1) 55,086.2 (20.8)

Interior .............. 547.5 (0.5) 11,969.9 (14.2) 48,692.7 (60.2) 61,210.1 (23.1)

West ................ 87,331.8 (87.2) 52,097.7 (61.8) 8,956.2 (11.2) 148,385.7 (56.1)

U.S. Total ............ 100,170.5 (100.0) 84,305.1 (100.0) 80,206.4 (100.0) 264,682.0 (100.0)

 For detailed analyses, the EIA uses six sulfur content ranges. For general discussion and summary data, however, those six ranges are combined into the a

three qualitative ratings of low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content coal presented here. See also Appendix B, Table B3.

 States with qualified resource or reserve data in each region: Appalachia—Alabama, Georgia, eastern Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, b

Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. Interior—Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, western Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma,

Texas. West—Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

 Notes: Numbers in parentheses are percentages of the U.S. totals. Btu = British thermal unit.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.

Table 8. Estimates of Recoverable Coal Reserves in the United States by Btu/Sulfur Ranges and Regions 

Low-sulfur recoverable coal reserves in the United States content) should be useful in analyzing the many issues

are estimated to total almost 100.2 billion short tons, 87 related to the coal industry and coal consumers, especially

percent of which is concentrated in the West. Low-sulfur in evaluating various scenarios evolving from the Clean

recoverable coal reserves in Appalachia are estimated to Air Act Amendments of 1990. These estimates are the

amount to 12.3 billion short tons, whereas those in the results of the EIA's best efforts, with available data, to

Interior Region are estimated at only 0.5 billion short tons, compile information on U.S. coal resources on a uniform,

or less than 1 percent of the U.S. total. nationwide basis. The data, methodologies, and assumpConclusion

The detailed estimates of the U.S. coal reserve base and

recoverable coal reserves presented in this report (i.e., by

State, method of mining, Btu content, and sulfur

tions used to develop such estimates should be updated

continuously as new information becomes available. The

emergence of the Coal Reserves Data Base program

represents a renewed effort to effect revisions and updates

as soon as feasible. The program will also involve the use

of more complete data and work with State and regional

experts through a targeted program of coordination and

support.
46 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Bibliography

Averitt, Paul, Coal Resources of the United States, January 1, Energy Information Administration, Documentation of the

1974, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1412 (Washington, Resource Allocation and Mine Costing (RAMC) Model,

DC, 1975).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1991,

DOE/EIA-0118(91), Appendix D, “Explanatory Notes” Trade Model: Executive Summary, DOE/EIA-0444(EX)

(Washington, DC, November 1992). (Washington, DC, May 1984).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1990, Energy Information Administration, International Coal

DOE/EIA-0118(90) (Washington, DC, September 1991).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1987,

DOE/EIA-0118(87), Appendix E, “Explanatory Notes”

(Washington, DC, December 1988).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1986,

DOE/EIA-0118(86) (Washington, DC, January 1988).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1984,

DOE/EIA-0118(84), Appendix C (Washington, DC,

November 1985).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1980,

DOE/EIA-0118(80) (Washington, DC, May 1982).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Supply and

Transportation Model (CSTM) Description, DOE/EIA-M022

(Washington, DC, June 1987).

Energy Information Administration, Demonstrated Reserve

Base of Coal in the United States on January 1, 1979,

DOE/EIA-0280(79) (Washington, DC, May 1981).

Energy Information Administration, Documentation of the

Inputs to the Resource Allocation and Mine Costing (RAMC) Science Applications International Corporation, DevelModel, DOE/EIA-M024 (Washington, DC, June 1987).

Energy Information Administration, Documentation of the for the Energy Information Administration, U.S.

Reserve Related Data Inputs to the Resource Allocation and

Mine Costing Model, DOE/NBB-0026 (Washington, DC,

September 1982). Science Applications International Corporation, Selected

DOE/EIA-M021 (Washington, DC, May 1987).

Energy Information Administration, International Coal

Trade Model, Version 2 (ICTM-2) Users Guide, DOE/ EIAM026 (Washington, DC, March 1987).

Energy Information Administration, National Coal Model,

Model Description and Formulation, DOE/EIA-0428

(Washington, DC, September 1983).

ICF, Inc., Coal and Electric Utilities Model Documentation,

draft report (Washington, DC, May 1980).

ICF, Inc., Coal and Electric Utilities Model Documentation

(Washington, DC, July 1977).

ICF, Inc., Effects of Alternative New Source Performance

Standards for Coal-Fired Electric Utility Boilers on the Coal

Markets and on Utility Expansion Plans, draft report

submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency

(Washington, DC, September 1978).

Science Applications International Corporation, Development of Revised Reserve Inputs to the Resource Allocation and

Mine Costing Model, unpublished final report prepared for

the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department

of Energy (Norristown, PA, May 1986).

opment of a Revised Methodology to Estimate the Distribution

of the Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) by Quality, prepared

Department of Energy (Norristown, PA, August 1988).

Modifications to the Resource Allocation and Mine Costing
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 47

(RAMC) Model, prepared for the Energy Information Ad- U.S. Department of the Interior, Coal Resource Classification

ministration, U.S. Department of Energy (Norristown, PA,

April 1988).

Synergic Resources Corporation, Documentation of the

Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States, Vols.

1 and 2, SRC Report No. 7098-R1 (Bala-Cynwyd, PA,

March 1982).

U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by

Sulfur Content, Part 1, “The Eastern States,” Information

Circular 8680 (Washington, DC, 1975).

U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by

Sulfur Content, Part 2, “The Western States,” Information

Circular 8693 (Washington, DC, 1975).

System of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1450-B (Washington,

DC, 1976).
48 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Glossary of Selected Coal Classification Terms

demonstrated reserve base (DRB)—A collective term for identified resources—Specific bodies of coal whose

the sum of coal in both Measured and Indicated Resource location, rank, quality, and quantity are known from

categories of reliability; and the DRB represents 100 geologic evidence supported by engineering measurepercent of coal in place as of a certain date. Includes beds ments. Included are beds of bituminous coal and

of bituminous coal and anthracite 28 inches or more thick

and beds of subbituminous coal 60 inches or more thick

that can be surface mined. Includes also thinner and/or

deeper beds that presently are being mined or for which

there is evidence that they could be mined commercially

at this time. Represents that portion of the identified

resources of coal from which reserves are calculated.

demonstrated resource—(see identified resources) Same

qualifications as identified resources, but includes

measured and indicated degrees of geologic assurance

and excludes the inferred.

depletion —The subtraction of both the tonnage a

produced and the tonnage lost to mining from the

demonstrated reserve base and identified resources to

determine the remaining tonnage as of a certain time.

depletion factor —The multiplier of the tonnage a

produced that takes into account both the tonnage

recovered and the tonnage lost due to mining. The

Depletion Factor is the reciprocal of the recovery factor in

relation to a given quantity of production.

hypothetical resource—undiscovered coal resources in

beds that may reasonably be expected to exist in known

mining districts under known geologic conditions. In

general, hypothetical resources are in broad areas of

coalfields where points of observation are absent and

evidence is from distant outcrops, drill holes, or wells.

Exploration that confirms their existence and better

defines their quantity and quality would permit their

reclassification as identified resources. Quantitative

estimates are based on a broad knowledge of the geologic

character of coalbed or region. Measurements of coal

thickness are more than 6 miles apart. The assumption of

continuity of coalbed is supported only by geologic

evidence.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 49

anthracite 14 inches or more thick and beds of

subbituminous coal and lignite 30 inches or more thick

that occur at depths to 6,000 feet and whose existence and

quantity have been delineated within specified degrees of

geologic assurance as measured, indicated, or inferred.

indicated resources—Coal for which estimates of the special purposes as metallurgical, gas, petrochemical, and

rank, quality, and quantity have been computed partly blending usages.

from sample analyses and measurements and partly from

reasonable geologic projections. Indicated resources are rank—The classification of coal relative to other coals,

computed partly from specified measurements and partly according to their degree of metamorphism, or progresfrom projection of visible data for a reasonable distance on sive alteration, in the natural series from lignite to

the basis of geologic evidence. The points of observation anthracite (Standard Classification of Coal by Rank, 1992

are 0.5 to 1.5 miles apart. Indicated coal is projected to

extend as a 0.5-mile wide belt that lies more than 0.25

miles from the outcrop or points of observation or

measurement. recovery factor —The percentage of total tons of coal

inferred resources—Coal in unexplored extensions of to the total tonnage estimated to be in the demonstrated

demonstrated resources for which estimates of the quality reserve base. For the purpose of calculating depletion

and size are based on geologic evidence and projection.

Quantitative estimates are based largely on broad

knowledge of the geologic character of the bed or region

and where few measurements of bed thickness are

available. The estimates are based primarily on an

assumed continuation from demonstrated coal for which

there is geologic evidence. The points of observation are

1.5 to 6 miles apart. Inferred coal is projected to extend as

a 2.25-mile wide belt that lies more than 0.75 miles from

the outcrop or points of observation or measurement.

measured resources—Coal for which estimates of the

rank, quality, and quantity have been computed, within

a high degree of geologic assurance, from sample analyses

and measurements from closely spaced and geologically

well-known sample sites. Measured resources are

computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops,

trenches, mine workings, and drill holes. The points of

observation and measurement are so closely spaced and

the thickness and extent of coals are so well defined that

for older estimates the tonnage was judged to be accurate

within 20 percent of true tonnage (statistical measures of

error are currently not considered reliable). Although the

spacing of the points of observation necessary to

demonstrate continuity of the coal differs from region to

region according to the character of the coalbeds, the

points of observation are not greater than 0.5 mile apart.

Measured coal is projected to extend as a 0.25-mile belt

from the outcrop or points of observation or measurement.

quality or grade—Refers to individual measurements

such as heat value, fixed carbon, moisture, ash, sulfur,

phosphorus, major, minor, and trace elements, coking

properties, petrologic properties, and particular organic

constituents. The individual quality elements may be

aggregated in various ways to classify coal for such

draft), American Society for Testing Materials, ASTM

Designation D-388-91a.

a

estimated to be recoverable from a given area in relation

factors only, the estimated recovery factors for the

demonstrated reserve base, generally are 50 percent for

underground mining methods and 80 percent for

surface mining methods. More precise
50 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

recovery factors can be computed by determining the

total coal in place and the total recoverable in any specific

locale.

reserve —That portion of the demonstrated reserve base a

that is estimated to be recoverable at the time of

determination. The reserve is derived by applying a

recovery factor to that component of the identified

resources of coal designated as the demonstrated reserve

base.

speculative resources—undiscovered coal in beds that

may occur either in known types of deposits in a favorable

geologic setting where no discoveries have been made, or

in deposits that remain to be recognized. Exploration that

confirms their existence and better defines their quantity

and quality would permit their reclassification as

identified resources.

undiscovered resources—Unspecified bodies of coal

surmised to exist on the basis of broad geologic

knowledge and theory. Undiscovered resources include

beds of bituminous coal and anthracite 14 inches or more

thick and beds of subbituminous coal and lignite 30 inches

or more thick that are presumed to occur in unmapped

and unexplored areas to depths of 6,000 feet. The

speculative and hypothetical resource categories

comprise undiscovered resources.
Appendix A

The Coal Reserves

Data Base Program
54 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Appendix A

The Coal Reserves Data Base Program

The Coal Reserves Assessment Conference was held in levels of confidence in the estimates (95 percent, 50

February 1990 to assemble State coal geologists, coal percent, and 5 percent). With access to

industry representatives, trade associations, private

companies, and Federal Government officials. The objective of the conference was to identify the issues and

review the guidelines for the emerging Coal Reserves

Data Base (CRDB) program. Other information on the 40

status of State-specific data needs and funding

requirements was also provided at the conference, and

later refined. Based on recommendations from the

attendees at the conference and from the conference

Steering Committee, the EIA defined the following major 41

needs and issues:

 ! The basic resource needed for coal forecasting is a

comprehensive data base that includes all coal

resources and the associated reserves that could be

exploited by current mining technologies and

mining technologies foreseeable over a 30-year

horizon. To meet this need, it may be necessary to

allow variations to the USGS classification system

for demonstrated resources where alternative

methodologies are capable of producing resource

estimates of reliability equivalent to or better than

“demonstrated.” Also, current mining practices may

indicate that resources following either more or less

restrictive inability criteria could be exploited over

the technology horizon.

 ! In an ideal fiscal environment, to address all of the

clean air, acid rain, and coal leasing issues, and to

satisfy all known forecasting requirements,

underlying bed-level resource estimates would need

to be developed by coal quality characteristics (at

least by sulfur, Btu, and ash content) and at three
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 55

 Energy Information Administration, Coal Reserves Assessment Conference: Background, Results and Future, Open File Report, Analysis and Systems 40

Division, Contract No. DE-AC01-87EI19801, Task 88 (Washington, DC, September 1990).

 The CRDB Steering Committee advises EIA on technical aspects of the program and reviews criteria and reports produced. It comprises eight coal 41

specialists—five from geological surveys of coal States, one from USGS, one from a major coal company, and one from the National Coal Association.

much more extensive data, the USGS has developed

reserve estimates for petroleum and natural gas,

expressed at those three levels of confidence, but the

funding and time expenditures required to capture

the same level of detail for coal would be

prohibitive.

 ! Most of the pressing energy and environmental

issues can be addressed with an integrated coal

reserves and coal quality data base containing Statelevel data. An integrated quantity/quality coal

reserves data base at the State level would: (1) be a

significant improvement over the existing data; (2)

be responsive to criticisms of the data; and (3) better

satisfy known uses of the DRB.

 ! Statistical measures, such as those used in petroleum and natural gas reserves, are not currently

feasible for the less studied U.S. coal reserves.

However, they are less important than obtaining

better resolution of other reserve-related factors,

such as economic inability using known technology,

accessibility adjustments, and mine recovery factors.

Consequently, carefully derived and critiqued data

representing the investigators' best estimate of

reserves are acceptable in the CRDB program.

Taking account of these major needs and issues, the new

EIA data base was defined to consist of estimates of Statelevel resources and economic reserves, categorized by

quality type and representing the best estimates of the

quantity of resources/reserves judged to be attainable. In

other words, delineation of economically recoverable

reserves was requested of the State geologists, who could

draw on their knowledge of local conditions.
56 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 The technical Steering Committee comprises eight members—representing five State geological surveys, USGS, one coal company, and the National Coal 42

Association.

The CRDB program was influenced by the experience of A Steering Committee was established to provide peer

the EIA and the U.S. Bureau of Mines in attempting to review and to validate nonstandard procedures. The EIA

incorporate new resource data into the DRB. State and developed a complex set of procedural guidelines for

industry experts would sometimes indicate that a current CRDB participants and some new nomenclature so that

estimate of the resources of a State or coalfield was out of data calculated by alternative methodologies could be

date. The problem with using this information was that distinguished from data compiled under the standard

the estimate either was based on proprietary company DRB and USGS criteria. As it has turned out, procedures

data that could not be released or on rough calculations followed in the two pilot studies and those being used in

using State file data that had not been fully processed and the eastern Kentucky cooperative agreement do not vary

would need further review. In many cases involving from standard criteria.

State-held data, the data had been collected under a

program that received some Federal, State, or industry The Procedural Diagram (Figure A1) depicts the data flow

support, but a source of funding to complete the data and procedures developed for the CRDB. Since

processing and publication could not be secured in tight nonstandard procedures have not been used in the CRDB

State budgets. In cases of proprietary data in State files, projects to date, Figure A1 includes only standard data

aggregated or “sanitized” resource compilations might be nomenclature. Alternative data sources or procedures

releasable but, again, funding was not available for the would be introduced primarily early in the

task. Since these State problems were impinging on EIA's “Augmentation Process” and would be unified in the

efforts to assemble a national data base, freeing these “Integration Process.” The alternative sources or proalready-mapped data became a principal goal of the cedures are retained in the diagram to maintain its

CRDB program. integrity, but are not currently in use. The classification

The evaluation and acquisition of State data is sometimes Program are summarized in Table A1. The State or

complicated when investigators have used alternative regional experts conducting a study determine the

methodologies involving geologic models to calculate coal appropriate base level of aggregation (for example,

resources. Also, geographic information systems (GIS) and property, quadrangle, or county level) needed to compile

computer software that have become available for mining the new resource estimates with coal quality allocations.

applications facilitate volumetric calculations of resource

deposits. Not always clear is how these applications, The procedural guidelines were developed in the context

maintained in various agency computer systems, relate to of the basic USGS criteria. As indicated at the top of

the standard criteria on which the DRB is based. But since Figure A1, the CRDB takes into account the USGS basic

the criteria are well understood by State geological survey criteria. These criteria govern resource reliability, data

resource analysts and most industry geologists and reliability, inability, and coal rank, with minor variations,

engineers (the regional or State experts who participate in as follows:

the CRDB program), they are permitted to submit coal

resource estimates that they certify as equivalent to the ! Resource reliability: the standard is measured and

standard USGS measured and indicated reliability indicated or their equivalents for resource estimates

categories. (demonstrated resources).

Further, to obtain the best available estimates from ! Data reliability for resource quality estimates: If

existing data, the CRDB could accept documented available, areal resource estimates or bed maps with

estimates based on inferred data (less reliable than quality value distributions can be used as control

measured and indicated) if the investigator has other areas. For point source data, proximate analyses on

evidence to enhance data dependability (such as past, an as-received or inherent-moisture basis are

recent, or planned mining, geologic field observations in preferred, from channel or core samples. For raw

areas where mapping programs were not available, or run-of-mine samples, either whole seam or minable

confidential data that could not be released from its files). bench, can be used.

42

criteria for coal resource and reserve data in the CRDB

43
Basic Criteria

USGS or Equivalent Original Resources

Measured & Indicated

Augmentation

Process

Original Resources

Remaining Resources

as of Base Year

Remaining DRB as

of Base Year

Depletion via

Historical Production

Mined-Out Resource

Area Adjustments

Accessibility

Adjustment

Manmade/Societal

Restrictions (Legal,

Regulatory, or

Proprietary) & Assoc.

Block-Size Limitations

Selection by Minability/

Economic Criteria

Allocations

Select by Seam Thickness Range

Select by Overburden Range

(Alt. Overburden Ratios)

Minimum Quality Criteria

Block-Size Economic Criteria

Physical/Geological Limitations

(splits in seams, weathering, roof

rock, faults, size of deposit, etc.)

Surface and Underground

Btu & Sulfur

Ash Groups (Broad, e.g., < 5%, 5 -

10%, > 10%) for Bituminous Coal

Rank Groups (High Vol. A Bit,

Subbit B, etc.)

Inaccessible

DRB Minable DRB

(preliminary compilation)

Inaccessible Reserves

Accessible DRB

Mine Recovery Factors

Recoverable Reserves

Losses in Preparation

Clean Coal Yields

Legend

Reported Program Data

Alternate Path; Interrelated Factors

Integration Process

(Optional)

(Resource Data Base)

(Optional)

(Optional)

58 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Figure A1. Coal Reserves Data Base (CRDB) Procedural Diagram for Coal Resources and Reserves

Note: “DRB” = demonstrated reserve base of coal.

 ! Minability/economic criteria: apply standard ! Coal rank: apply coal rank class and rank group

physical criteria for seam thickness and overburden criteria as described in Circular 891 and summarized

thickness, as detailed in the USGS Circular 891 and in Table A1.

summarized in Table A1.

The CRDB procedures include an “augmentation process,” which provides for variations in the basic criteria
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 59

when they would produce incomplete or outdated

resource estimates or where mining is fully expected to

exploit further categories of resources within the

technology horizon. The augmentation process permits

the use of additional resource data than would otherwise

make up demonstrated resources under the standard

criteria alone, such as the following:

 ! Data judged to be equal to or exceed the basic USGS

coal resource estimation criteria
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 60Table A1. Categories for Classifying Resource/Reserve Data ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________ BASIC CRITERIA: RANK OF COAL OUTPUT DATA CRITERIA: QUALITY CATEGORIES Class Rank Group Abbrev. Million Btu/ 

1 Ash (% Anthracite Meta-anthracite ma Short Ton 

by Weight)1 " Anthracite an " Semianthracite sa 26 or higher less than 5.00 Bituminous Coal Low-volatile bituminous lvb 23-25.99 

10.00" Medium-volatile bituminous lvb 20-22.99 than 10.00 " High-volatile A bituminous hvAb 15-19.99 

" High-volatile B bituminous hvBb lower than 15 " High-volatile C bituminous hvCb Subbituminous Coal Subbituminous A coal subA " Subbituminous B coal subB " Subbituminous C coal subC Lignite Lignite A ligA " Lignite B ligB _______________________________________________________________________________

_______ BASIC CRITERIA: MINING CATEGORIES Coal Seam Thickness (Underground or Surface Mining) Overburden Thickness (Depth from Surface

2 Anthracite and Bituminous Subbituminous and Lignite Underground Mining Categories 

Categories 10-14 inches 10-30 inches (2.5 feet) 0 to 500 feet 

3 14-28 inches 2.5-5 feet 500 to 1,000 feet 

28-42 inches 5-10 feet 1,000 to 2,000 feet  > 42 inches, or... > 10 feet, or... 2,000 to 3,000 feet 

 42-84 inches 10-20 feet 

3 3 

 84-168 inches 20-40 feet 3 3 >168 inches >40 feet 3 3

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 61

 ! Data of the “inferred” reliability class, used require the use of extremely detailed data relating to

selectively where supplementary information land use, ownership, and regulatory constraints (pos-sibly

enhances reliability in limited areas, extrapolated to analogous areas).

 ! Proprietary data available in aggregated forms only experience, regional planning information, mine operator

 ! Quality estimates available for a related group of resources amounts to an impact analysis of societal

seams, in whole basin, system-wide statistical constraints on the otherwise minable and economic coal

analyses resources in each State.

 ! In the absence of other data, judicious use of reliable The investigators also assess coal quality distribution

tipple or delivered sample data. procedures to be employed. These procedures may

This augmentation process, if applicable, results in the ficient data are available, and geostatistical distribution

CRDB original resource estimate. When an original techniques. Expert judgment is the final arbiter of the best

resource estimate is available, adjustments for coal mined estimate and technique for each resource category. The

and lost in previous mining are made to obtain estimates objective of these analyses is to determine the modal or

of remaining resources as of a specified base year (Figure central tendency of each variable (quantity or quality

A1). If assessments can be made of coal resources resource estimate). At this stage in the reserve estimation,

rendered unminable by extraction of over-lying or the Procedural Guidelines include an “inte-gration

underlying beds (sterilization), those adjustments would process.” This integration process may not always be

be made at this point. needed, but in most cases would be used to evaluate and

The remaining coal resource data are then allocated by estimate a unified set judged to represent the best

several inherent characteristics. These include allocations available State-wide adjusted data. The results are a

by mining type (surface and underground), rank class, division of the DRB into: (1) inaccessible resources and (2)

Btu content, and sulfur content. In addition, optional the accessible DRB.

allocations by coal rank groups and ash con-tent could be

included in future analyses (Table A1). In situations Finally, recoverable coal reserves are calculated using

where the basic criteria cannot properly define economic estimates of losses in the accessible DRB caused by the

inability, more detailed or localized criteria, such as a mining process—losses that vary depending on the

deeper or more detailed set of overburden criteria or a mining methods and techniques anticipated. Given sufthinner or more detailed set of seam thickness criteria, ficient data and funding, the State investigators may infer

properly documented, may be used. Economic inability expected mining methods and techniques on the basis of

should be constrained by present and foreseeable coalbed geology, recent mining activity, relative economic

technologic limits over a 30-year period. value of the coal, and knowledge of local adaptability

The DRB has been calculated by this point in the deri- Alternately, recoverable coal reserve estimates may be

vation. Some of the DRB resources will not actually be compiled using standard recovery factors when local

developed due to societal restrictions, including legal analysis is not feasible.

and/or regulatory constraints or property ownership. The

estimated DRB is divided into coal resources that are Table A2 provides an example of the results of the CRDB

inaccessible and those that are truly minable when resource/reserves estimation process. State-level data are

societal constraints are taken into account. This may captured for the remaining DRB, the accessible DRB (after

Alternatively, these estimates might be based on field

experience, or some combination. This division of coal

include statistical probability distributions where sufresolve differences in disparate data sources in order to

toward regulations affecting changes in mining practices.

non-accessible constraints are factored in), and

recoverable coal reserves. 
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 62Table A2. EIA Coal Reserves Data Base — Data Matrix (Sample) State: Carbonia Region: Remaining as of: 1-1

____________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ (if applicable) Coal Rank: Bituminous _____________________________ Std. Btu Range Std. Sulfur Range Demonstrated Reserve Base Accessible* Reserve Base Recoverable Reserves (millions of short tons) 

(Remaining) Total 23 – 25.99 0.41 – 0.60 1,710.9 1,487.2 793.1 

 Underground 1,459.7 1,272.9 611.0 Underg

 Surface 251.2 214.3 182.2 S(Remaining) Total 23 – 25.99 0.61 – 0.83 5,685.2 4,936.5 2,877.1 Underground 4,583.4 3,996.7 2,078.3 Surface 1,101.8 939.8 798.8 (Remaining) Total 23 – 25.99 0.84 – 1.67 36,025.3 31,193.8 18,563.8 Underground 24,431.2 21,304.0 10,652.0 Surface 11,594.1 9,889.8 7,911.8 (Remaining) Total 20 – 22.99 0.40 or less 570.1 497.1 238.6 Underground 570.1 497.1 238.6 Notes: Surface 0 0 0 (Remaining) Total 20 – 22.99 0.41 – 0.60 2,287.6 1,990.9 1,047.2 Underground 2,085.0 1,818.1 909.0 Surface 202.6 172.8 138.2 (Remaining) Total 20 – 22.99 0.61 – 0.83 2,611.0 2,266.5 1,270.8 Underground 2,073.1 1,807.7 903.8 Surface 537.9 458.8 367.0 (Remaining) Total 20 – 22.99 0.84 – 1.67 4,180.7 3,623.6 2,107.8 Underground 3,024.2 2,637.1 1,318.6 Surface 1,156.5 986.5 789.2 (Remaining) Total Underground Surface (Remaining) Total All Ranges All Ranges 53,070.8 45,995.6 26,898.5 Underground 38,226.7 33,333.6 16,711.3 Surface 14,844.1 12,662.0 10,187.2
Appendix B

Prior Development

of EIA Coal

Reserves Data
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 65

Appendix B

Prior Development of EIA Coal Reserves Data

The CRDB program is intended to be the vehicle for future and Mine Costing (RAMC) model (Table B1). The DRB

revisions of the DRB and recoverable coal reserves data covers all States for which there are sufficient coal

with coal quality allocations. The CRDB data benefit from resource data to compute a reserve base. However, the

the use of coal quality analyses sampled in, and selected RAMC model selects certain coal ranks and supply areas

for their applicability to, the coal resource areas involved. from the DRB, depending on the end-use sectors under

On the other hand, for the many States and areas for consideration, for use in coal supply analyses. The RAMC

which the CRDB projects still lie ahead, the EIA continues model, in turn, provides input to the new National Energy

periodic updates to account for resource depletion. This is Modeling System (NEMS), the EIA's integrated energy

done to maintain a unified national data base of the forecasting system.

remaining DRB and recoverable coal reserves adjusted to

the latest common effective date. In this appendix, the A “base year” (Table B1) is the effective date of the

procedures that were applied to derive the DRB and detailed resource assessment for a DRB resource area,

recoverable coal reserve allocations in the States and areas including adjustments for all known coal mined out

analyzed prior to the CRDB program are summarized. and/or lost to mining (as of the base year). The latest

A significant number of important coal-producing States year data are adjusted to account for subsequent

are based on 1971 base year DRB data and on allocations production and coal lost in mining and to maintain data

performed for the EIA's Resource Allocation base compatibility.

common effective date is the date to which various base
66 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Program Lead Agency State or Producing Area Base Year

CRDB Ohio Geological Survey Ohio 1991

Geological Survey of Wyoming Wyoming 1991

EIA Pennsylvania (anthracite) 1981

EIA Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia

(anthracite fields); Alaska (northern); Georgia; Idaho;

Michigan; North Carolina; Oregon

1992

RAMC EIA (core RAMC file) Alabama, Alaska (southern), Arizona, Arkansas,

Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky

(eastern), Kentucky (western), Louisiana, Maryland,

Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (bituminous), South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West

Virginia

1971

Table B1. Summary of 1992 Status of Data Base Updates for EIA Coal Resource and Reserve Data
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 67

Rank of Coal Million Btu per Short Tona

Bituminous > 26

Bituminous > 23 but < 26

Bituminous > 20 but < 23

Subbituminous > 15 but < 20

Lignite < 15

 As received basis. a

Table B2. EIA Coal Rank/Btu Categories Data Inputs to the Resource

Allocation and Mine Costing Model

Although the EIA coal resource and recoverable coal

reserves data are publicly available, current criteria for

distribution of the DRB data to Btu/sulfur ranges and

allocation to estimated reserves support the RAMC and

NEMS analysis requirements. The accuracy of information

on recoverable coal reserves affects the accuracy both of

EIA coal supply curves and of the equilibrium production

and prices determined by coal supply and transportation

models, such as EIA's Coal Supply and Transportation

Model (CSTM) and the International Coal Trade Model

(ICTM). These models are expected to be replaced in 1993

with modules of the NEMS, which will be used in future

analyses for the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook.

Coal Quality

The EIA's CRDB and the earlier RAMC data files classify

coal resources along two measures: heat content and

sulfur content. Heat content is expressed on the as

received basis in millions of Btu per short ton of coal. The 44

EIA's heat content ranges offer a rough approximation of

the rank of bituminous, subbitumi-nous, and lignitic coals

(Table B2). (Anthracite heat content ranges coincide with

those of bituminous coals.) Because the Btu content of

bituminous coal has a wide range, three of the five Btu

categories relate to different subgroups of bituminous

rank.

Sulfur content is important in determining the usability

and value of different coal types and in identifying cleanburning coal. The EIA classifies coal into three qualitative

ratings, or six sulfur content categories, measured on the

“as received” basis in pounds of sulfur per million Btu of

heat content (Table B3). The six sulfur content categories

are defined to offer approximate correlations with

potential sulfur dioxide emissions regulated by the Clean

Air Act and with sulfur content, expressed in percentages

by weight of coal. Because sulfur dioxide emissions are

expressed as a function of the heating potential of the coal,

the exact emission values vary within the expected ranges

of heat content of the coal, expressed in Btu.

Consequently, the approximate correlations of coal sulfur

content and emissions produced are based on the

midpoint values of a range of Btu contents of U.S. coals

(Table B3)
68 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

 The “as received” basis applies to coal in the moisture condition as received at the laboratory, before any conditioning or preparation. 44

Qualitative Rating

Pounds of Sulfur per

Million Btua

Approximate Correlation with Sulfur Criteria for

Coal

Low Sulfur ............................ # 0.40 Exceeds NSPS Requirementsb

 0.41-0.60 Meets NSPS Requirementsb

Medium Sulfur ......................... 0.61-0.83 Low-sulfur Coal; Fails NSPS Requirementsc

 0.84-1.67 Sulfur Content Approximately 1-2 Percent

High Sulfur ............................ 1.68-2.50 Sulfur Content Approximately 2-3 Percent

 > 2.50 Sulfur Content Approximately > 3 Percent

 As received basis. a

 NSPS = New Source Performance Standards of 1.2 pounds of emissions of sulfur dioxide per million Btu of coal burned. b

 Coal in this category contains less than 1 percent sulfur by weight; although it does not meet emission requirements by itself, if blended c

with lower-sulfur coals, it may meet them.

Table C1. EIA Sulfur Content Categories for Coal
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 69

Mining Methods and Coal Supply Regions

Mining costs depend on many factors, including what

mining method is used—surface or underground.

Therefore, the EIA considers separately coal reserves that

are amenable to each type of mining. The geographic

distribution of coal in the EIA coal supply models is

portrayed by 32 coal supply regions, most of which

correspond to States. Five States—West Virginia,

Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado—are split

into two coal-producing regions each, to deal with significant differences in the type of coal produced or

transportation distances to coal markets. The coal supply

regions in Pennsylvania and Alaska had included only the

western Pennsylvania bituminous region and the

subarctic southern Alaska region; however, the new

CRDB Program has developed DRB and reserve

allocations by Btu/sulfur ranges for the Pennsylvania

anthracite region, Arctic Alaska, and other areas

previously not allocated.

Reliance on the Demonstrated

Reserve Base of Coal

The basic data on coal resources that support the EIA

recoverable coal reserve estimates are the DRB of coal in

the United States. With the exception of new CRDB

allocations, most recoverable coal reserve estimates used

in EIA analyses are based on coal quality distributions

compiled from the 1971 DRB, which provided data at the

coalbed and county level, by mining method and coal

rank, and included estimates of sulfur content. The

following paragraphs summarize briefly the derivation of

coal quality and recoverable coal reserve allocations under

the earlier procedures.

Distribution of the Demonstrated

Reserve Base by Btu and Sulfur

Content

With the exception of some of the new data being

developed under the CRDB program, the DRB source

studies did not include integrated point source data on

quality when they were performed. Furthermore, only

once—at the time of the original 1971 DRB—were the staff

mining specialists and field representatives, along with

multi-year funding, available to develop resource

estimates for each DRB State at the county and coalbed

level. Since that time, the DRB depletion adjustments and

data revisions have been incorporated at the State level

only. For States not updated through the CRDB Program,

the adjustments of the DRB data to the latest common

effective date have followed the procedures described

below.

Estimation Procedures

For non-CRDB data, the following estimation procedures

were used for the latest update:

 1. The 1992 State-level DRB by mining method were

allocated into coalbed/county combinations on the

basis of the bed/county distributions of the 1971

DRB.

 2. The resulting 1992 bed/county-level DRB estimates

were assigned to Btu/sulfur ranges. This procedure

entailed the following steps:

 a. The beds and county locations of the coal

quality analyses were matched with the DRB by

bed/county combinations.

b. The estimates of the 1992 DRB in each

bed/county/mining method combination were

divided into equal shares according to the

number of analyses corresponding to the

bed/county combination. For example, if there

were 10 analyses, the recoverable coal reserves

in that particular combination were divided into

10 equal shares.

c. Each share of the DRB was assigned a

Btu/sulfur range on the basis of the Btu and

sulfur content of its corresponding quality

analysis.

The assembled coal quality analysis data did not

cover all bed/county/mining method combinations that were contained in the 1971 DRB.

Therefore, the DRB data that were not assigned

Btu/sulfur ranges at the bed/county/miningmethod level were summed at the county/min-ing

method level and assigned on the basis of all

quality analyses available for the county. The
70 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

procedure used for matching shares with

Btu/sulfur ranges at this level was the same as that

used at the bed/county/mining-method level.

Even at the county level, coal quality data were not

always available; in some cases matches were made

at the bed/region/mining-method level or at the

region/mining- method level.

 3. The DRB estimates by coal type at the bed/county,

county, and bed/region levels were summed to

yield DRB by Btu/sulfur range, mining method,

and coal supply region.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 71

 U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content, Part 1, “The Eastern States,” Information Circular 8680 (Washington, DC, 45

1975).

 U.S. Bureau of Mines, The Reserve Base of U.S. Coals by Sulfur Content, Part 2, “The Western States,” Information Circular 8693 46

(Washington, DC, 1975).

 Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1984, DOE/EIA-0118(84), Appendix C (Washington, DC, November 1985). 47

 For details see Science Applications International Corporation, Selected Modifications to the Resource Allocation and Mine Costing (RAMC) Model, 48

prepared for the Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy (Norristown, PA, April 1988).

Coal Quality Data Sources

The coal quality information used in the non-CRDB

distribution of DRB data by Btu and sulfur content was

obtained primarily from the Coal Analysis File, which

originated with the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM) and is

currently maintained and updated by the EIA. The Coal

Analysis File contains data from proximate and ultimate

analyses of approximately 60,000 coal samples, collected

from all coal-producing States. The file has been updated

whenever qualified sample data have become available.

Data from the Coal Analysis File do not cover all the

bed/county combinations in the DRB, so supplementary

sources of coal quality data have also been used. The

supplementary sources include the BOM Information

Circulars 8680 and 8693, and Form EIA-7A, 1983 45 46

Supplement. 47

Most of the samples in the Coal Analysis File were taken

from coal purchases by U.S. Government facilities,

sampled either at tipples (coal transfer structures) or at the

place of delivery. The file also includes 1,500 analyses of

mine samples, taken from channel cuts in the mine walls

(or “face”), in seams exposed in underground workings,

or in surface mine pits. A distinction is made between

cleaned, partially cleaned, and raw (uncleaned) samples.

Although the majority of the samples were taken during

the 1940's and 1950's, the file includes samples from the

first decade of the century up through the mid-1980's.

In 1988, a review of the results found that in some Eastern

States the distribution of the DRB by Btu/sulfur ranges

appeared to be biased toward low-sulfur coal. Additional

information from the USGS and State geological surveys

was reviewed and used as a basis for modifying the

results for Illinois, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The 48

distribution of the 1992 DRB estimates by Btu/sulfur

ranges, mining method, and State or region is presented

in Appendix C, Table C1.

Estimation of Accessible Reserve

Base of Coal and Recoverable

Coal Reserves

Accessible Reserve Base of Coal

The DRB is determined under broad geologic reliability,

economic and inability criteria, and some of the coal in the

DRB may not be accessible for mining under currently

foreseeable conditions. A part of the DRB is inaccessible

for mining because of both known and indeterminable

factors, such as natural and manmade obstructions and

environmental and other legal restrictions. The illegal or

inaccessible resources include, for example, those

rendered not minable because they are near alluvial

valleys, national parks, historic and archeological sites, or

under towns or properties where subsidence (sinking and

shifting of the ground surface) is a concern. Some

resources are currently not minable due to geologic

impediments such as faults, extreme dips, and other

structural complications. Some potentially surfaceminable resources are considered not exploitable because

the mining areas cannot be properly reclaimed.

The factors affecting accessibility may be considered as

part of the set of factors controlling recoverability of coal

in mining. In the estimates provided here, however,

accessibility is considered separately from recoverability,

and inaccessible resources are factored out from the DRB

before recoverable coal reserves are estimated.

Inaccessible resource factors are used to estimate the

accessible reserve base, or quantity of the DRB available

for mining. The inaccessible factors were originally

estimated in the late 1970's by ICF, Inc. Both inaccessible 49

resource factors and recovery factors were derived by

mining method and coal supply region (Table B4). Table

B4 includes new inaccessible factors that were estimated

for some of the coal resources revised under the CRDB

Program.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content 73

Region/State

Inaccessible Percentage Recoverable Percentage

Surface Underground Surface Underground

Appalachia

 Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10 86 56

 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 80 50

 Kentucky, Eastern . . . . . . . . . 23 10 79 62

 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 80 61

 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 80 50

 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12 80 50

 Pennsylvania, Anth . . . . . . . . 86 82 90 50

 Pennsylvania, Bit . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 82 59

 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 80 61

 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10 80 62

 West Virginia, Northern . . . . . 25 10 79 59

 West Virginia, Southern 18 10 79 59

Interior

 Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 82 51

 Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 20 74 51

 Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 20 82 52

 Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 82 52

 Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 82 60

 Kentucky, Western . . . . . . . . 25 20 83 53

 Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 82 60

 Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 80 50

 Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 82 52

 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 82 52

 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 86 60

Western

 Alaska, Northern . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 00 00

 Alaska, Southern . . . . . . . . . 10 10 88 56

 Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 88 56

 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 88 58

 Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10 80 50

 Montana, Eastern . . . . . . . . . 14 10 91 56

 Montana, Western . . . . . . . . . 30 10 91 56

 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 88 56

 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 90 50

 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 80 50

 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10 90 60

 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 88 54

 Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 88 56

 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02 10 88 60

Table D1. Inaccessible and Recoverable Coal Resource Factors By Supply Region
74 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Recoverable Coal Reserves

In coal mining, it is never possible to extract and recover

all of the coal from accessible resources. For example, in

most underground mining, some coal is left in place as

roof coal, pillars, or barrier pillars to support the strata

lying above the coal seam; in some mines, coal from the

bottom of the seam is left to create a competent workbase.

In surface mining, mining of thicker or better-quality

upper seams often results in serious impediments to

future mining of lower seams. Recoverability of coal

resources also varies depending on the characteristics of

the coalbed and the mining method used. In general,

recoverability is higher for surface-minable resources than

for underground resources.

The tonnage of coal recoverable from accessible resources (Appendix C, Table C2) portray the 1992 DRB by

constitutes the reserves. For the estimates of recoverable Btu/sulfur range, allocated using percentages inaccessible

coal reserves used in the EIA models, a specific recovery for each coal supply region and type of mining. The

factor is used to represent the percentage of the accessible estimates of recoverable coal reserves (Appendix C, Table

reserve base that might be extracted from a given type of C3) use the 1992 accessible reserve base by Btu/sulfur

mine. The recovery factors used in the 1992 estimates are range and allocate the data using the recovery factors for

based on recovery each coal supply region and type of mining.

rates submitted by mine operators on Form EIA-7A for

1991. In some areas, recovery factors from the EIA-7A 50

survey cannot be made public, to protect the

confidentiality of individual mine operators. In those

cases, average recovery factors for the geographic region

(i.e., Appalachia, Interior, or West) are used. In areas

revised under the CRDB Program, recovery rates may

have been estimated or assumed in the context of the

study, and are not based on the EIA-7A survey. Many of

the recovery factors shown in Table B4 are higher than

those used for annual depletion adjustments of DRB

resources. However, the recovery factors in Table B4 are

applied to the accessible DRB, whereas the recovery

factors used in the DRB depletion adjustments are applied

directly to the DRB itself.

The estimates of the accessible reserve base of coal
Appendix C

Detailed Estimates

of Demonstrated

Reserve Base,

Accessible Reserve

Base, and

Recoverable

Reserves

of U.S. Coal
78 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content

Appendix C

Detailed Estimates of Demonstrated Reserve Base,

Accessible Reserve Base, and Recoverable Reserves of U.S.

Coal
48 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Alabama - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,083.0 0 0 1,083.0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 165.5 243.7 616.8 195.2 0 1,221.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 198.2 140.2 665.4 0 0 1,003.7 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 363.7 383.9 2,365.1 195.2 0 3,307.9 

Alabama - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 156.0 222.8 307.4 121.4 0 807.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 178.5 0 467.6 0 0 646.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 334.5 222.8 775 121.4 0 1,453.8 

Alabama - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,083.0 0 0 1,083.0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 321.5 466.6 924.2 316.6 0 2,028.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 376.6 140.2 1,133.0 0 0 1,649.8 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 698.2 606.7 3,140.2 316.6 0 4,761.7 

Alaska, Southern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 493.1 52.6 0 0 0 0 545.7 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 493.1 52.6 0 0 0 0 545.7 

Alaska, Southern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 4,083.2 87.2 0 0 0 0 4,170.4 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 17.6 0 0 0 0 17.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 4,083.2 104.7 0 0 0 0 4,188.0 

Alaska, Southern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 4,576.3 139.7 0 0 0 0 4,716.1 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 17.6 0 0 0 0 17.6 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 4,576.3 157.3 0 0 0 0 4,733.6 

Alaska, Northern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 17.4 4.9 3.9 2.4 0 0 28.5 

20-22.99 ....................... 77.2 39.1 0 0 0 0 116.3 

23-25.99 ....................... 16.7 5.7 0 0 0 0 22.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 111.3 49.6 3.9 2.4 0 0 167.2 

Alaska, Northern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 129.4 36.1 28.3 17.9 0 0 211.7 

20-22.99 ....................... 569.4 286.5 0 0 0 0 855.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 125.6 41.9 0 0 0 0 167.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 824.3 364.4 28.3 17.9 0 0 1,235.0 

Alaska, Northern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 146.7 40.9 32.2 20.3 0 0 240.1 

 20-22.99 ..................... 646.6 325.5 0 0 0 0 972.2 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 49

 23-25.99 ..................... 142.2 47.6 0 0 0 0 189.8 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 935.6 414.0 32.2 20.3 0 0 1,402.2 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

50 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Arizona - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 134.5 0 0 0 0 134.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 134.5 0 0 0 0 134.5 

Arizona - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 101.6 0 0 0 0 101.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 101.6 0 0 0 0 101.6 

Arizona - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 236.0 0 0 0 0 236.0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 236.0 0 0 0 0 236.0 

Arkansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 25.4 0 0 25.4 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.2 104.3 9.2 1.5 1.5 118.8 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.2 104.3 34.6 1.5 2.0 144.6 

Arkansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 1.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14.2 192.7 43.5 10.1 10.1 270.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14.2 192.7 43.5 10.1 12.0 272.5 

Arkansas - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 25.4 0 0 25.4 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 2.4 2.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16.3 297.0 52.8 11.7 11.7 389.4 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16.3 297.0 78.1 11.7 14.1 417.2 

Colorado - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4,189.9 0 0 0 4,189.9 

15-19.99 ....................... 30.1 12.0 1.0 0 0 0 43.1 

20-22.99 ....................... 146.0 0 10.6 12.6 0 0 169.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 194.1 145.4 25.5 39.7 17.8 0 422.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3.7 0 0 0 0 3.7 

Total .......................... 370.2 161.1 4,227.0 52.3 17.8 0 4,828.4 

Colorado - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 2,671.3 1,101.1 64.5 0 0 0 3,837.0 

20-22.99 ....................... 1,443.5 1,591.7 243.4 154.4 0 0 3,432.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 2,196.7 1,235.2 316.5 311.6 157.8 0 4,217.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204.5 286.4 66.3 83.0 0 0 640.2 

Total .......................... 6,516 4,214.4 690.8 549.0 157.8 0 12,127.9 

Colorado - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4,189.9 0 0 0 4,189.9 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 51

 15-19.99 ..................... 2,701.4 1,113.2 65.5 0 0 0 3,880.1 

 20-22.99 ..................... 1,589.5 1,591.7 254.0 166.9 0 0 3,602.1 

 23-25.99 ..................... 2,390.8 1,380.7 342.0 351.3 175.6 0 4,640.4 

 26+ ......................... 204.5 290.0 66.3 83.0 0 0 643.8 

 Total ........................ 6,886.2 4,375.5 4,917.7 601.3 175.6 0 16,956.3 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

52 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Georgia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.5 0.5 * 0.1 0.1 1.5 

Total .......................... 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.7 

Georgia - Undergroundb

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.7 

Total .......................... 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9 

Georgia - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.1 0 0.3 0 0 0.4 

 26+ ......................... 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.3 3.2 

 Total ........................ 1.1 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 3.6 

Idaho - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Idaho - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 ....................... 0.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 4.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 0.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 4.4 

Idaho - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 ..................... 0.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 4.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 0.5 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 4.4 

Illinois - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 7.9 212.0 3,346.0 7,844.6 11,410.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 113.5 431.5 2,215.7 1,199.5 3,960.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 14.7 0 14.7 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 121.4 643.5 5,576.4 9,044.1 15,385.4 

Illinois - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 130.8 1,542.6 2,359.0 39,565.3 43,597.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,968.8 4,846.2 6,876.8 5,326.1 19,017.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 115.9 0 115.9 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 2,099.6 6,388.8 9,351.7 44,891.4 62,731.5 

Illinois - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 53

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 138.7 1,754.6 5,705.0 47,409.8 55,008.1 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 2,082.3 5,277.7 9,092.5 6,525.6 22,978.2 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 130.6 0 130.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 2,221.0 7,032.3 14,928.1 53,935.4 78,116.9 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

54 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Indiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 78.0 40.1 166.9 0 303.3 588.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 40.4 10.7 33.4 278.6 269.3 632.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 118.4 50.8 200.4 278.6 572.6 1,220.8 

Indiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 336.7 264.1 747.1 1,277.0 2,361.2 4,986.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 263.5 116.9 623.7 1,083.9 1,815.7 3,903.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 600.2 381.1 1,370.8 2,360.9 4,176.9 8,889.9 

Indiana - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 414.7 304.3 914.1 1,277.0 2,664.4 5,574.5 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 304.0 127.6 657.1 1,362.5 2,085.1 4,536.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 718.7 431.9 1,571.2 2,639.5 4,749.5 10,110.7 

Iowa - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 457.6 0 457.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 457.6 0 457.6 

Iowa - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 187.3 1,545.2 1,732.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 187.3 1,545.2 1,732.5 

Iowa - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 644.9 1,545.2 2,190.1 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 644.9 1,545.2 2,190.1 

Kansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 76.1 433.6 509.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 246.7 152.0 398.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 68.6 68.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 322.7 654.1 976.8 

Kansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kansas - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 55

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 76.1 433.6 509.6 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 246.7 152.0 398.7 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 68.6 68.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 322.7 654.1 976.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

56 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Kentucky, Eastern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 38.3 80.9 0 0 119.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 12.8 131.7 295.3 178.7 28.2 29.4 676.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.8 413.5 160.5 115.4 46.2 8.8 792.2 

Total .......................... 60.5 545.2 494.0 375.0 74.4 38.2 1,587.4 

Kentucky, Eastern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 63.8 171.9 0 0 235.7 

23-25.99 ....................... 67.8 547.3 938.0 483.1 65.4 94.4 2,196.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264.2 2,536.8 1,165.0 508.3 244.3 65.8 4,784.4 

Total .......................... 332.1 3,084.1 2,166.8 1,163.3 309.7 160.2 7,216.0 

Kentucky, Eastern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 102.1 252.8 0 0 354.9 

 23-25.99 ..................... 80.6 679.0 1,233.2 661.8 93.6 123.8 2,872.0 

 26+ ......................... 312.0 2950.3 1,325.5 623.7 290.6 74.6 5,576.6 

 Total ....................... 392.6 3629.2 2,660.8 1,538.3 384.2 198.3 8,803.4 

Kentucky, Western - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 60.3 712.5 682.3 1,455.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 142.4 761.8 1,386.2 2,290.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 30.1 5.2 35.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 202.7 1,504.5 2,073.6 3,780.8 

Kentucky, Western - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 14.0 1,907.1 2,693.6 4,614.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 60.7 1,874.4 9,250.4 11,185.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 478.7 213.6 692.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 74.7 4,260.1 12,157.6 16,492.4 

Kentucky, Western - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 74.3 2,619.6 3,375.9 6,069.8 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 203.1 2,636.2 10,636.6 13,475.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 508.8 218.7 727.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 277.4 5,764.6 14,231.2 20,273.2 

Louisiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 483.6 0 0 483.6 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 483.6 0 0 483.6 

Louisiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Louisiana - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 483.6 0 0 483.6 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 57

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 483.6 0 0 483.6 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

58 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Maryland - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 25.0 0 25.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4.1 12.3 19.7 24.4 0 60.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4.1 12.3 19.7 49.4 0 85.5 

Maryland - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 202.4 0 202.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 53.1 92.5 196.3 120.1 0 462.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 53.1 92.5 196.3 322.5 0 664.4 

Maryland - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 227.4 0 227.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 57.2 104.8 216.0 144.5 0 522.5 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 57.2 104.8 216.0 371.9 0 749.9 

Michigan - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.3 3.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.7 2.7 0.8 0.4 4.6 

Michigan - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 6.6 10.3 6.8 6.5 30.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 10.6 32.1 21.7 17.3 81.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 4.8 5.6 0 10.4 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 17.2 47.2 34.8 23.9 123.1 

Michigan - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 6.8 10.8 6.8 6.6 31.1 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 11.1 34.1 22.2 17.6 8.05 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 5.0 5.7 0 10.7 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 17.9 49.9 35.6 24.2 127.7 

Missouri - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 77.9 2,827.1 2,905.0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 136.9 1,440.0 1,576.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 40.1 40.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 214.9 4,307.1 4,522.0 

Missouri - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 6.2 1,181.9 1,188.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 35.8 239.7 275.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 15.5 15.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 42.0 1,437.1 1,479.1 

Missouri - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 59

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 84.1 4,009.0 4,093.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 172.7 1,679.7 1,852.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 55.6 55.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 256.9 5,744.3 6,001.1 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

60 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Montana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,860.5 3,721.0 5,842.9 1,546.3 1,860.5 930.3 15,761.6 

15-19.99 ....................... 20,271.8 4,993.6 6,023.5 1,508.3 185.4 216.0 33,198.6 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 22,132.3 8,714.6 11,866.4 3,054.7 2,045.9 1,146.3 48,960.1 

Montana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 30,392.4 19,001.0 14,304.0 4,472.8 676.9 726.3 69,573.3 

20-22.99 ....................... 349.6 422.9 70.5 211.0 137.8 193.5 1,385.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 30,742.0 19,423.9 14,374.5 4,683.8 814.7 919.8 70,958.7 

Montana - Total

 <15 ......................... 1,860.5 3,721.0 5,842.9 1,546.3 1,860.5 930.3 15,761.6 

 15-19.99 ..................... 50,664.1 23,994.6 20,327.4 5,981.1 862.3 942.3 102,771.9 

 20-22.99 ..................... 349.6 422.9 70.5 211.0 137.8 193.5 1,385.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 52,874.2 28,138.5 26,240.9 7,738.5 2,860.6 2,066.1 119,918.9 

New Mexico - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 890.7 714.8 0 0 1,605.5 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 154.8 101.6 48.0 0 0 304.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 228.8 169.5 0 0 0 398.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 383.6 1,161.9 762.9 0 0 2,308.3 

New Mexico - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 165.7 177.7 419.1 126.5 0 889.0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 121.8 88.2 26.7 0 0 236.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 690.4 165.6 0.3 0 0 856.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 138.7 0.9 0 0 0 139.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,116.6 432.3 446.1 126.5 0 2,121.6 

New Mexico - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 165.7 1,068.4 1,134.0 126.5 0 2,494.5 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 276.6 189.9 74.7 0 0 541.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 919.2 335.1 0.3 0 0 1,254.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 138.7 0.9 0 0 0 139.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,500.2 1,594.2 1,209.0 126.5 0 4,429.9 

North Carolina - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Carolina - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.7 2.9 3.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.7 3.6 2.9 0 7.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.7 3.6 3.6 2.9 10.7 

North Carolina - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 61

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.7 2.9 3.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.7 3.6 2.9 0 7.1 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.7 3.6 3.6 2.9 10.7 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

62 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

North Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578.4 995.8 1,825.3 4,563.2 1,137.5 489.8 9,590.0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 578.4 995.8 1,825.3 4,563.2 1,137.5 489.8 9,590.0 

North Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Dakota - Total

 <15 ......................... 578.4 995.8 1,825.3 4,563.2 1,137.5 489.8 9,590.0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 578.4 995.8 1,825.3 4,563.2 1,137.5 489.8 9,590.0 

Ohio - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 18.4 34.3 94.1 285.2 643.6 1,075.7 

23-25.99 ....................... 31.0 86.0 136.6 446.3 958.8 2,626.9 4,285.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 41.4 83.7 107.7 108.1 271.2 612.1 

Total .......................... 31.0 145.8 254.7 648.1 1,352.1 3,541.7 5,973.4 

Ohio - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 9.2 10.6 157.1 644.1 1,488.4 2,309.4 

23-25.99 ....................... 140.5 112.5 290.9 1,029.4 2,575.6 8,281.8 12,430.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 42.3 79.1 288.0 815.1 1,954.2 3,178.7 

Total .......................... 140.5 164.0 380.6 1,474.5 4,034.8 11,724.4 17,918.8 

Ohio - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 27.6 44.9 251.2 929.3 2,132.1 3,385.1 

 23-25.99 ..................... 171.5 198.5 427.5 1,475.7 3,534.4 10,908.6 16,716.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 83.6 162.9 395.7 923.2 2,225.5 3,790.8 

 Total ........................ 171.5 309.7 635.2 2,122.6 5,387.0 15,266.2 23,892.2 

Oklahoma - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 27.2 27.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 29.5 5.1 9.1 14.6 91.3 149.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 66.7 31.1 40.0 34.0 0 171.8 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 96.2 36.2 49.2 48.6 118.5 348.6 

Oklahoma - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 64.9 64.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 61.2 83.5 75.4 55.7 149.0 424.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 269.8 127.0 234.9 116.7 0 748.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 331.0 210.5 310.2 172.4 213.9 1,237.9 

Oklahoma - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 63

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 92.1 92.1 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 90.7 88.5 84.5 70.3 240.3 574.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 336.5 158.1 274.9 150.7 0 920.1 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 427.2 246.6 359.4 220.9 332.4 1,586.6 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

64 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Oregon - Surfacec

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 0.8 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.2 2.3 

20-22.99 ....................... 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 1.3 0.4 0.8 0 0.2 0.2 2.9 

Oregon - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 4.1 2.1 3.1 0 1.0 1.0 11.4 

20-22.99 ....................... 2.1 0 1.0 0 0 0 3.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 6.2 2.1 4.1 0 1.0 1.0 14.5 

Oregon - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 5.0 2.5 3.7 0 1.2 1.2 13.7 

 20-22.99 ..................... 2.5 0 1.2 0 0 0 3.7 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 7.5 2.5 5 0 1.2 1.2 17.4 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 10.9 2.0 3.9 0 0 16.8 

23-25.99 ....................... 427.9 1,692.5 432.1 75.3 11.1 4.1 2,643.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.8 495.4 108.5 19.0 0.2 0 720.9 

Total .......................... 525.8 2,198.9 542.6 98.2 11.3 4.1 3,380.8 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 13.3 0 3.9 0 0 17.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 864.7 1,907.0 251.9 30.5 4.3 0 3,058.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197.1 415.5 135.2 26.6 2.5 0 776.9 

Total .......................... 1,061.7 2,335.7 387.1 61.0 6.8 0 3,852.3 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 24.2 2.0 7.8 0 0 34.0 

 23-25.99 ..................... 1,292.6 3,599.5 684.0 105.8 15.4 4.1 5,701.4 

 26+ ......................... 294.9 910.9 243.7 45.6 2.7 0 1,497.8 

 Total ........................ 1,587.5 4,534.6 929.7 159.2 18.1 4.1 7,233.1 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 42.8 19.9 62.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7.2 30.5 163.2 158.7 138.4 498.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 27.0 67.8 305.9 146.2 48.7 595.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 34.2 98.3 469.1 347.8 206.9 1,156.3 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 97.0 249.4 229.6 576.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 96.8 244.0 2,172.8 2,894.7 1,691.9 7,100.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 395.1 1,159.6 6,605.3 4,273.2 690.0 13,123.2 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 491.9 1,403.5 8,875.2 7,417.3 2,611.5 20,799.5 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 65

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 97.0 292.3 249.5 638.7 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 104.1 274.5 2,336.1 3,053.5 1,830.3 7,598.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 422.1 1,227.4 6,911.2 4,419.4 738.7 13,718.7 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 526.1 1,501.8 9,344.3 7,765.1 2,818.5 21,955.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

66 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

South Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0 366.1 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0 366.1 

South Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

South Dakota - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0 366.1 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0 366.1 

Tennessee - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 110.3 0 0 110.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 58.1 35.1 29.1 60.1 0 182.4 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 58.1 35.1 139.5 60.1 0 292.8 

Tennessee - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 183.5 0 0 183.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 125.6 71.1 60.8 109.4 0 367.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 125.6 71.1 244.3 109.4 0 550.5 

Tennessee - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 293.8 0 0 293.8 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 183.7 106.2 90.0 169.5 0 549.4 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 183.7 106.2 383.8 169.5 0 843.2 

Texas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 778.8 7,493.4 4,497.3 496.4 13,265.9 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 778.8 7,493.4 4,497.3 496.4 13,265.9 

Texas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Texas - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 778.8 7,493.4 4,497.3 496.4 13,265.9 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 67

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 778.8 7,493.4 4,497.3 496.4 13,265.9 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

68 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Utah - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 34.7 21.9 106.8 44.0 42.6 250.0 

23-25.99 ....................... 9.0 4.9 1.8 0 0 0 15.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.9 0 0 0 0 2.2 

Total .......................... 10.3 40.5 23.7 106.8 44.0 42.6 267.9 

Utah - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 803.7 961.7 1,628.3 396.0 558.1 4,347.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 632.5 357.3 155.3 0 0 0 1,145.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140.6 188.2 0 0 0 0 328.8 

Total .......................... 773.2 1,349.2 1,117.1 1,628.3 396.0 558.1 5,821.9 

Utah - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 838.4 983.6 1,735.1 440.0 600.7 4,597.9 

 23-25.99 ..................... 641.5 362.2 157.1 0 0 0 1,160.9 

 26+ ......................... 141.9 189.1 0 0 0 0 331.0 

 Total ........................ 783.5 1,389.7 1,140.8 1,735.1 440.0 600.7 6,089.8 

Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 ....................... 3.6 13.8 115.3 0 0 0 132.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.0 308.2 148.1 74.4 0 0 597.7 

Total .......................... 70.6 322 263.4 74.4 0 0 730.4 

Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 ....................... 13.4 9.1 13.3 0 0 0 35.7 

23-25.99 ....................... 77.7 161.2 145.1 9.1 0 0 393.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209.0 693.6 320.1 164.2 0 0 1,386.8 

Total .......................... 300.0 863.9 478.5 173.3 0 0 1,815.7 

Virginia - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 ..................... 13.4 9.1 13.3 0 0 0 35.7 

 23-25.99 ..................... 81.2 175.1 260.4 9.1 0 0 525.8 

 26+ ......................... 276.0 1,001.7 468.2 238.6 0 0 1,984.6 

 Total ........................ 370.6 1,185.9 741.9 247.7 0 0 2,546.0 

Washington - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 86.3 0 0 86.3 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 86.3 0 0 86.3 

Washington - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 83.4 169.0 776.1 0 0 1,028.5 

20-22.99 ....................... 124.8 0 0 81.4 0 0 206.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 97.6 0 0 0 0 97.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 124.8 181.0 169.0 857.5 0 0 1,332.3 

Washington - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 69

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 83.4 169.0 862.4 0 0 1,114.8 

 20-22.99 ..................... 124.8 0 0 81.4 0 0 206.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 97.6 0 0 0 0 97.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 124.8 181.0 169.0 943.8 0 0 1,418.6 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

70 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

West Virginia, - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 24.1 24.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 458.6 405.2 275.2 10.4 73.4 1,222.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188.2 1,926.4 527.0 467.7 296.4 85.2 3,491.0 

Total .......................... 188.2 2,385.0 932.2 742.9 306.8 182.7 4,737.8 

West Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 190.5 214.2 73.7 478.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 804.2 833.0 2,100.6 988.5 3,566.0 8,292.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,031.5 8,859.0 3,326.6 4,566.0 3,239.3 2,256.0 23,278.4 

Total .......................... 1,031.5 9,663.2 4,159.6 6,857.1 4,442.1 5,895.6 32,049.1 

West Virginia - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 190.5 214.2 97.8 502.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,262.8 1,238.1 2,375.8 998.9 3,639.4 9,515.0 

 26+ ......................... 1,219.7 10,785.4 3,853.6 5,033.7 3,535.7 2,341.2 26,769.4 

 Total ........................ 1,219.7 12,048.2 5,091.8 7,600.0 4,748.8 6,078.3 36,786.8 

Wyoming - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,127.4 210.0 1,646.3 2,983.7 

15-19.99 ....................... 5,196.0 10,314.3 4,684.0 1,653.8 444.0 989.8 23,282.0 

20-22.99 ....................... 36.1 162.7 216.9 55.1 21.7 0 492.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 5,232.1 10,477 4,900.9 2,836.3 675.8 2,636.1 26,758.2 

Wyoming - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 3,781.4 15,223 9,691.9 8,780.7 1,186.1 0 38,663.1 

20-22.99 ....................... 493.1 504.1 686.5 366.6 0 61.0 2,111.4 

23-25.99 ....................... 82.6 506.2 834.0 342.7 0 0 1,765.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 4,357.1 16,233.2 11,212.4 9,490.0 1,186.1 61.0 42,539.9 

Wyoming - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,127.4 210.0 1,646.3 2,983.7 

 15-19.99 ..................... 8,977.4 25,537.3 14,375.9 10,434.5 1,630.1 989.8 61,945.1 

 20-22.99 ..................... 529.1 666.8 903.4 421.8 21.7 61.0 2,603.9 

 23-25.99 ..................... 82.6 506.2 834.0 342.7 0 0 1,765.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 9,589.1 26,710.3 16,113.3 12,326.3 1,861.9 2,697.1 69,298.1 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 71

United States - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,438.9 4,716.8 12,773.9 16,323.4 7,933.5 3,562.8 47,749.1 

15-19.99 ....................... 26,009.2 15,377.8 11,603.6 3,965.6 629.7 1,206.0 58,792 

20-22.99 ....................... 259.7 633.0 474.1 841.3 5,064.0 12,848.7 20,120.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 695.0 3,010.2 1,985.3 2,524.0 5,060.0 7,410.7 20,685.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402.4 3,546.2 1,419.1 1,853.8 762.2 529.4 8,513 

Total .......................... 29,805.2 27,284.0 28,255.9 25,508.1 19,449.4 25,557.7 155,860.3 

United States - Undergroundd

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 41,061.8 35,699.5 24,438.5 14,466.6 1,991.3 727.3 118,385.1 

20-22.99 ....................... 2,995.8 4,218.0 2,540.7 5,402.8 7,384.8 50,024.8 72,566.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 4,188.6 7,040.5 6,577.8 12,610.4 16,959.0 30,435.2 77,811.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,047.7 14,196.9 6,736.8 13,253.0 9,534.1 5,205.4 50,973.9 

Total .......................... 50,293.9 61,154.9 40,293.8 45,732.8 35,869.3 86,392.7 319,737.4 

United States - Total

 <15 ......................... 2,438.9 4,716.8 12,773.9 16,323.4 7,933.5 3,562.8 47,749.1 

 15-19.99 ..................... 67,071.0 51,077.3 36,042.1 18,432.2 2,621.1 1,933.4 177,177.1 

 20-22.99 ..................... 3,255.5 4,851.0 3,014.8 6,244.1 12,448.9 62,873.5 92,687.8 

 23-25.99 ..................... 4,883.6 10,050.7 8,563.1 15,134.4 22,019.1 37,845.9 98,496.7 

 26+ ......................... 2,450.1 17,743.1 8,155.9 15,106.8 10,296.2 5,734.8 59,486.9 

 Total ........................ 80,099.1 88,438.9 68,549.7 71,240.9 55,318.7 111,950.4 475,597.7 

 Data include minor amounts of anthracite (all occurring in heat content categories greater than 23.00 million short tons) as follows: Arkansas 104.2, Colorado 25.5, a

New Mexico 2.3, and Virginia 125.5, expressed in million short tons.

 Georgia: The surface-minable DRB includes a correction of 0.03 million short tons; compared with the data published in Coal Production 1991, this results in a 0.1 b

million short ton increase in the rounded data published herein.

 Oregon: The surface-minable DRB includes a correction of (-)0.01 million short tons; compared with the data published in Coal Production 1991, this results in a 0.1 c

million short ton decrease in the rounded data published herein, apparent only in the State total.

 United States: The underground-minable DRB includes a correction of 0.03 million short tons, based on the Georgia DRB; compared with the data published in Coal d

Production 1991, this results in a 0.1 million short ton increase in the rounded data published herein. 

 * Quantity less than 0.05 million short tons.

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 61

Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Alabama - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 898.9 0 0 898.9 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 137.4 202.3 511.9 162.0 0 1,013.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 164.5 116.3 552.3 0 0 833.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 301.8 318.6 1,963.1 162.0 0 2,745.5 

Alabama - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 140.4 200.6 276.7 109.3 0 727.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 160.6 0 420.8 0 0 581.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 301.1 200.6 697.5 109.3 0 1,308.4 

Alabama - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 898.9 0 0 898.9 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 277.8 402.8 788.6 271.3 0 1,740.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 325.1 116.3 973.1 0 0 1,414.5 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 602.9 519.2 2,660.6 271.3 0 4,054 

Alaska, Southern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 443.8 47.3 0 0 0 0 491.1 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 443.8 47.3 0 0 0 0 491.1 

Alaska, Southern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 3,674.9 78.5 0 0 0 0 3,753.4 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 15.8 0 0 0 0 15.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 3,674.9 94.3 0 0 0 0 3,769.2 

Alaska, Southern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 4,118.7 125.8 0 0 0 0 4,244.5 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 15.8 0 0 0 0 15.8 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ....................... 4,118.7 141.6 0 0 0 0 4,260.3 

Alaska, Northern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 8.7 2.4 1.9 1.2 0 0 14.2 

20-22.99 ....................... 38.6 19.5 0 0 0 0 58.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 8.3 2.9 0 0 0 0 11.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 55.6 24.8 1.9 1.2 0 0 83.6 

Alaska, Northern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 64.7 18.0 14.2 9 0 0 105.8 

20-22.99 ....................... 284.7 143.2 0 0 0 0 427.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 62.8 21.0 0 0 0 0 83.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 412.2 182.2 14.2 9 0 0 617.5 

Alaska, Northern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 73.4 20.5 16.1 10.2 0 0 120.1 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

62 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 20-22.99 ..................... 323.3 162.8 0 0 0 0 486.1 

 23-25.99 ..................... 71.1 23.8 0 0 0 0 94.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 467.8 207.0 16.1 10.2 0 0 701.1 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 63

Arizona - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 121.0 0 0 0 0 121.0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 121.0 0 0 0 0 121.0 

Arizona - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 91.4 0 0 0 0 91.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 91.4 0 0 0 0 91.4 

Arizona - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 212.4 0 0 0 0 212.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 212.4 0 0 0 0 212.4 

Arkansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 21.6 0 0 21.6 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.8 88.6 7.9 1.3 1.3 101.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.8 88.6 29.4 1.3 1.7 122.9 

Arkansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1.7 1.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 12.7 173.4 39.2 9.1 9.1 243.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 12.7 173.4 39.2 9.1 10.8 245.3 

Arkansas - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 21.6 0 0 21.6 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 2.1 2.1 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14.6 262.0 47.0 10.4 10.4 344.5 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14.6 262.0 68.6 10.4 12.6 368.2 

Colorado - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3,729.0 0 0 0 3,729.0 

15-19.99 ....................... 26.8 10.7 0.9 0 0 0 38.4 

20-22.99 ....................... 129.9 0 9.4 11.2 0 0 150.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 172.8 129.4 22.7 35.3 15.9 0 376.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3.3 0 0 0 0 3.3 

Total .......................... 329.5 143.4 3762 46.5 15.9 0 4,297.3 

Colorado - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 2,404.2 991.0 58.1 0 0 0 3,453.3 

20-22.99 ....................... 1,299.1 1,432.5 219.1 138.9 0 0 3,089.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 1,977.0 1,111.7 284.8 280.5 142.0 0 3796.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184.1 257.7 59.7 74.7 0 0 576.2 

Total .......................... 5,864.4 3,793.0 621.7 494.1 142.0 0 10,915.1 

Colorado - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3,729.0 0 0 0 3,729.0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

64 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 ..................... 2,431.0 1,001.7 58.9 0 0 0 3,491.7 

 20-22.99 ..................... 1,429.1 1,432.5 228.5 150.1 0 0 3,240.2 

 23-25.99 ..................... 2,149.8 1,241.1 307.6 315.8 157.8 0 4,172.1 

 26+ ......................... 184.1 261.0 59.7 74.7 0 0 579.4 

 Total ........................ 6,193.9 3,936.4 4,383.7 540.6 157.8 0 15,212.4 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 65

Georgia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 * 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.4 0.4 * 0.1 0.1 1.3 

Total .......................... 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.5 

Georgia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.5 

Total .......................... 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.7 

Georgia - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.4 

 26+ ......................... 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.8 

 Total ........................ 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.2 

Idaho - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Idaho - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 ....................... 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.9 0 0 4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.9 0 0 4 

Idaho - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 ..................... 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.9 0 0 4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 0.4 1.8 0.9 0.9 0 0 4 

Illinois - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3.2 86.9 1,371.9 3,216.3 4,678.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 46.6 176.9 908.4 491.8 1,623.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 6.0 0 6.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 49.8 263.8 2,286.3 3,708.1 6,308.0 

Illinois - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 104.7 1,234.1 1,887.2 31,652.2 34,878.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,575.0 3,877.0 5,501.4 4,260.9 15,214.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 92.8 0 92.8 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,679.7 5,111.1 7,481.3 35,913.1 50,185.2 

Illinois - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

66 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 107.9 1,321.0 3,259.0 34,868.5 39,556.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,621.6 4,053.9 6,409.8 4,752.7 16,838.0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 98.8 0 98.8 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 1,729.5 5,374.9 9,767.7 39,621.2 56,493.2 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 67

Indiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 55.4 28.5 118.5 0 215.3 417.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 28.7 7.6 23.7 197.8 191.2 449.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 84.1 36.1 142.3 197.8 406.5 866.8 

Indiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 269.3 211.3 597.7 1,021.6 1,889.0 3,988.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 210.8 93.5 499.0 867.1 1,452.6 3,123.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 480.2 304.8 1,096.7 1,888.7 3,341.5 7,111.9 

Indiana - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 324.7 239.8 716.2 1,021.6 2,104.3 4,406.6 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 239.5 101.1 522.7 1,064.9 1,643.8 3,572.1 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 564.3 340.9 1,238.9 2,086.5 3,748.1 7,978.7 

Iowa - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 389.0 0 389.0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 389.0 0 389.0 

Iowa - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 168.6 1,390.7 1,559.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 168.6 1,390.7 1,559.2 

Iowa - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 557.5 1,390.7 1,948.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 557.5 1,390.7 1,948.2 

Kansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 64.6 368.5 433.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 209.7 129.2 338.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 58.3 58.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 274.3 556.0 830.3 

Kansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kansas - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

68 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 64.6 368.5 433.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 209.7 129.2 338.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 58.3 58.3 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 274.3 556.0 830.3 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 69

Kentucky, Eastern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 29.5 62.3 0 0 91.8 

23-25.99 ....................... 9.8 101.4 227.4 137.6 21.7 22.6 520.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 318.4 123.6 88.9 35.6 6.8 610.0 

Total .......................... 46.6 419.8 380.4 288.8 57.3 29.4 1,222.3 

Kentucky, Eastern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 57.4 154.7 0 0 212.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 61.0 492.6 844.2 434.8 58.8 84.9 1,976.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237.8 2283.1 1,048.5 457.5 219.9 59.2 4,305.9 

Total .......................... 298.9 2775.6 1,950.1 1,047 278.7 144.1 6,494.4 

Kentucky, Eastern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 86.9 217.0 0 0 303.9 

 23-25.99 ..................... 70.9 594.0 1,071.5 572.4 80.6 107.6 2,496.9 

 26+ ......................... 274.6 2601.5 1,172.1 546.3 255.5 66.0 4,915.9 

 Total ........................ 345.5 3195.4 2,330.5 1,335.7 336.1 173.5 7,716.7 

Kentucky, Western - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 45.3 534.4 511.7 1,091.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 106.8 571.4 1,039.6 1,717.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 22.6 3.9 26.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 152.0 1,128.4 1,555.2 2,835.6 

Kentucky, Western - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 11.2 1,525.6 2,154.9 3,691.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 48.6 1,499.5 7,400.4 8,948.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 383.0 170.9 553.8 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 59.7 3,408.1 9,726.1 13,193.9 

Kentucky, Western - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 56.4 2,060.0 2,666.6 4,783.0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 155.4 2,070.9 8,440.0 10,666.2 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 405.6 174.7 580.3 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 211.8 4,536.5 11,281.3 16,029.5 

Louisiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 435.3 0 0 435.3 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 435.3 0 0 435.3 

Louisiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Louisiana - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 435.3 0 0 435.3 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

70 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 435.3 0 0 435.3 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 71

Maryland - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 21.2 0 21.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3.5 10.5 16.7 20.7 0 51.4 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3.5 10.5 16.7 42.0 0 72.7 

Maryland - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 182.2 0 182.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 47.8 83.2 176.7 108.1 0 415.8 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 47.8 83.2 176.7 290.3 0 598.0 

Maryland - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 203.4 0 203.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 51.3 93.7 193.4 128.9 0 467.3 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 51.3 93.7 193.4 332.3 0 670.7 

Michigan - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.4 1.6 0.4 0.2 2.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0 0.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.6 2.3 0.7 0.3 3.9 

Michigan - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.7 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 5.9 9.2 6.1 5.9 27.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 9.6 28.9 19.5 15.6 73.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 4.3 5.0 0 9.4 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 15.5 42.5 31.3 21.5 110.8 

Michigan - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 6.1 9.7 6.2 5.9 27.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 10.0 30.6 19.9 15.9 76.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 4.5 5.1 0 9.7 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 16.1 44.8 32.0 21.8 114.7 

Missouri - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 66.3 2,403.0 2,469.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 116.4 1,224.0 1,340.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 34.1 34.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 182.6 3,661.1 3,843.7 

Missouri - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 5.6 1,063.7 1,069.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 32.2 215.7 248.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 14.0 14.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 37.8 1,293.4 1,331.2 

Missouri - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

72 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 71.8 3,466.8 3,538.6 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 148.6 1,439.7 1,588.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 48.0 48.0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 220.4 4,954.5 5,174.9 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 73

Montana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,600.0 3,200.1 5,024.9 1,329.9 1,600.0 800.1 13,555.0 

15-19.99 ....................... 18,244.6 4,494.3 5,421.1 1,357.5 166.9 194.4 29,878.7 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 19,844.6 7,694.3 10,446 2,687.3 1,766.9 994.5 43,433.7 

Montana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 27,353.1 17,100.9 12,873.6 4,025.5 609.2 653.7 62,616.0 

20-22.99 ....................... 314.7 380.6 63.5 189.9 124.0 174.2 1,246.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 27,667.8 17,481.5 12,937.0 4,215.4 733.2 827.8 63,862.8 

Montana - Total

 <15 ......................... 1,600.0 3,200.1 5,024.9 1,329.9 1,600.0 800.1 13,555.0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 45,597.7 21,595.1 18,294.7 5,383.0 776.1 848.1 92,494.7 

 20-22.99 ..................... 314.7 380.6 63.5 189.9 124.0 174.2 1,246.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 47,512.4 25,175.8 23,383.1 6,902.8 2,500.1 1,822.3 107,296.5 

New Mexico - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 623.5 500.4 0 0 1,123.9 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 108.3 71.2 33.6 0 0 213.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 160.2 118.7 0 0 0 278.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 268.5 813.3 534.0 0 0 1,615.8 

New Mexico - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 149.1 159.9 377.2 113.9 0 800.1 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 109.6 79.4 24.0 0 0 213.0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 621.4 149.0 0.3 0 0 770.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 124.9 0.8 0 0 0 125.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,005.0 389.1 401.5 113.9 0 1,909.4 

New Mexico - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 149.1 783.4 877.6 113.9 0 1,924.0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 218.0 150.6 57.6 0 0 426.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 781.5 267.7 0.3 0 0 1,049.5 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 124.9 0.8 0 0 0 125.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,273.4 1,202.4 935.5 113.9 0 3,525.2 

North Carolina - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Carolina - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.6 2.6 3.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.6 3.2 2.6 0 6.4 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.6 3.2 3.2 2.6 9.6 

North Carolina - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

74 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.6 2.6 3.2 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.6 3.2 2.6 0 6.4 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.6 3.2 3.2 2.6 9.6 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 75

North Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491.6 846.4 1,551.5 3,878.7 966.9 416.3 8,151.5 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 491.6 846.4 1,551.5 3,878.7 966.9 416.3 8,151.5 

North Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Dakota - Total

 <15 ......................... 491.6 846.4 1,551.5 3,878.7 966.9 416.3 8,151.5 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 491.6 846.4 1,551.5 3,878.7 966.9 416.3 8,151.5 

Ohio - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16.1 28.8 77.6 227.6 531.3 881.5 

23-25.99 ....................... 25.4 71.2 112.2 358.7 774.6 2,161.1 3,503.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 34.5 71.1 89.0 88.7 219.7 503.0 

Total .......................... 25.4 121.8 212.0 525.3 1,090.9 2,912.1 4,887.5 

Ohio - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8.1 9.6 137.4 566.7 1,309.4 2,031.3 

23-25.99 ....................... 123.6 100.5 256.6 880.9 2,271.2 7,309.5 10,942.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 37.3 70.3 253.9 722.3 1,709.5 2,793.2 

Total .......................... 123.6 146.0 336.5 1,272.2 3,560.2 10,328.3 15,766.8 

Ohio - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 24.2 38.4 215.1 794.4 1,840.7 2,912.7 

 23-25.99 ..................... 149.0 171.7 368.7 1,239.6 3,045.8 9,470.6 14,445.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 71.8 141.3 342.9 811.0 1,929.1 3,296.2 

 Total ........................ 149.0 267.7 548.4 1,797.6 4,651.1 13,240.5 20,654.4 

Oklahoma - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 23.1 23.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 25.1 4.3 7.8 12.4 77.6 127.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 56.7 26.4 34.0 28.9 0 146.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 81.7 30.7 41.8 41.3 100.7 296.3 

Oklahoma - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 58.4 58.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 55.1 75.1 67.8 50.1 134.1 382.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 242.9 114.3 211.4 105.0 0 673.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 297.9 189.4 279.2 155.1 192.5 1,114.1 

Oklahoma - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

76 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 81.5 81.5 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 80.2 79.4 75.6 62.5 211.7 509.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 299.5 140.7 245.4 133.9 0 819.5 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 379.7 220.2 321.0 196.4 293.2 1,410.5 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 77

Oregon - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 0.8 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.2 2.1 

20-22.99 ....................... 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 1.1 0.4 0.8 0 0.2 0.2 2.6 

Oregon - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 3.7 1.9 2.8 0 0.9 0.9 10.3 

20-22.99 ....................... 1.9 0 0.9 0 0 0 2.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 5.6 1.9 3.7 0 0.9 0.9 13.1 

Oregon - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 4.5 2.2 3.4 0 1.1 1.1 12.3 

 20-22.99 ..................... 2.2 0 1.1 0 0 0 3.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 6.7 2.2 4.5 0 1.1 1.1 15.7 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.0 0.2 0.7 0 0 2.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 78.1 227.3 54.4 9.8 1.3 0.4 371.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 62.8 13.7 2.2 * 0 95.8 

Total .......................... 95.1 292.1 68.4 12.7 1.3 0.4 470.1 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.6 0 0.7 0 0 3.4 

23-25.99 ....................... 156.0 331.1 45.3 6.1 0.7 0 539.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 76.5 23.8 4.6 0.4 0 139.2 

Total .......................... 189.8 410.3 69.1 11.4 1.2 0 681.8 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4.7 0.2 1.4 0 0 6.3 

 23-25.99 ..................... 234.0 558.5 99.7 15.9 2.0 0.4 910.5 

 26+ ......................... 50.9 139.3 37.5 6.8 0.5 0 235.0 

 Total ........................ 284.9 702.4 137.5 24.1 2.5 0.4 1,151.9 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 36.4 16.9 53.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6.2 25.9 138.7 134.9 117.6 423.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 22.9 57.6 260.0 124.3 41.4 506.2 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 29.1 83.5 398.7 295.6 175.9 982.9 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 87.3 224.5 206.6 518.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 87.1 219.6 1,955.6 2,605.3 1,522.7 6,390.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 355.6 1,043.6 5,944.8 3,845.9 621.0 11,810.8 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 442.7 1,263.2 7,987.7 6,675.6 2,350.4 18,719.5 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

78 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 87.3 260.9 223.5 571.7 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 93.3 245.5 2,094.3 2,740.2 1,640.3 6,813.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 378.5 1,101.2 6,204.8 3,970.1 662.4 12,317.1 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 471.8 1,346.7 8,386.4 6,971.2 2,526.3 19,702.4 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 79

South Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 115.1 0.8 191.6 0 307.5 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 115.1 0.8 191.6 0 307.5 

South Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

South Dakota - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 115.1 0.8 191.6 0 307.5 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 115.1 0.8 191.6 0 307.5 

Tennessee - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 93.8 0 0 93.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 49.4 29.8 24.8 51.1 0 155.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 49.4 29.8 118.5 51.1 0 248.8 

Tennessee - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 165.2 0 0 165.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 113.1 64.0 54.7 98.5 0 330.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 113.1 64.0 219.9 98.5 0 495.4 

Tennessee - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 258.9 0 0 258.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 162.4 93.8 79.5 149.5 0 485.3 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 162.4 93.8 338.4 149.5 0 744.3 

Texas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 700.9 6,744.1 4,047.6 446.8 11,939.4 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 700.9 6,744.1 4,047.6 446.8 11,939.4 

Texas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Texas - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 700.9 6,744.1 4,047.6 446.8 11,939.4 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

80 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 700.9 6,744.1 4,047.6 446.8 11,939.4 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 81

Utah - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 31.2 19.7 96.1 39.6 38.3 225.0 

23-25.99 ....................... 8.1 4.4 1.6 0 0 0 14.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.8 0 0 0 0 2.0 

Total .......................... 9.3 36.4 21.3 96.1 39.6 38.3 241.1 

Utah - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 723.4 865.6 1,465.5 356.4 502.3 3,913.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 569.3 321.6 139.8 0 0 0 1,030.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126.6 169.4 0 0 0 0 295.9 

Total .......................... 695.9 1,214.3 1,005.4 1,465.5 356.4 502.3 5,239.7 

Utah - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 754.6 885.3 1,561.6 396.0 540.6 4,138.1 

 23-25.99 ..................... 577.4 326.0 141.4 0 0 0 1,044.8 

 26+ ......................... 127.7 170.2 0 0 0 0 297.9 

 Total ........................ 705.1 1250.8 1,026.7 1,561.6 396.0 540.6 5,480.8 

Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 ....................... 2.8 11.1 92.2 0 0 0 106.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.6 246.6 118.5 59.5 0 0 478.2 

Total .......................... 56.4 257.6 210.7 59.5 0 0 584.3 

Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 ....................... 12.0 8.2 11.9 0 0 0 32.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 69.9 145.1 130.6 8.2 0 0 353.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188.1 624.2 288.1 147.8 0 0 1,248.1 

Total .......................... 270.0 777.5 430.6 156.0 0 0 1,634.1 

Virginia - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 ..................... 12.0 8.2 11.9 0 0 0 32.1 

 23-25.99 ..................... 72.8 156.2 222.8 8.2 0 0 459.9 

 26+ ......................... 241.7 870.8 406.6 207.3 0 0 1,726.3 

 Total ........................ 326.5 1,035.1 641.3 215.5 0 0 2,218.4 

Washington - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 77.7 0 0 77.7 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 77.7 0 0 77.7 

Washington - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 75.1 152.1 698.5 0 0 925.6 

20-22.99 ....................... 112.3 0 0 73.3 0 0 185.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 87.8 0 0 0 0 87.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 112.3 162.9 152.1 771.7 0 0 1,199.0 

Washington - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

82 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 75.1 152.1 776.1 0 0 1,003.3 

 20-22.99 ..................... 112.3 0 0 73.3 0 0 185.6 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 87.8 0 0 0 0 87.8 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 112.3 162.9 152.1 849.4 0 0 1,276.7 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 83

West Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 19.8 19.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 371.8 322.3 214.8 8.5 55.5 973.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.0 1,561.9 425.0 370.5 223.8 63.9 2,798.0 

Total .......................... 153.0 1,933.8 747.3 585.3 232.3 139.2 3,790.8 

West Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 171.4 192.8 66.3 430.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 723.8 749.7 1,890.6 889.7 3,209.4 7,463.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 928.4 7,973.1 2,993.9 4,109.4 2,915.4 2,030.4 20,950.6 

Total .......................... 928.4 8,696.9 3743.6 6,171.4 3,997.8 5,306.0 28,844.1 

West Virginia - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 171.4 192.8 86.0 450.3 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1,095.6 1,072.0 2,105.4 898.2 3,264.9 8,436.1 

 26+ ......................... 1,081.3 9,535.0 3,418.9 4,479.9 3,139.2 2,094.3 23,748.6 

 Total ........................ 1,081.3 10,630.6 4,490.9 6,756.7 4,230.1 5,445.3 32,634.9 

Wyoming - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,018.4 189.0 1,639.0 2,846.4 

15-19.99 ....................... 5,086.1 10,088.1 4,596.4 1,611.7 414.7 985.7 22,782.7 

20-22.99 ....................... 35.7 159.5 214.5 54.6 21.5 0 485.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 5,121.8 10,247.6 4,810.9 2,684.7 625.2 2,624.7 26,114.9 

Wyoming - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 3,403.3 13,700.7 8,722.7 7,902.6 1,067.5 0 34,796.8 

20-22.99 ....................... 443.8 453.7 617.9 330.0 0 54.9 1,900.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 74.3 455.6 750.6 308.4 0 0 1,588.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 3,921.4 14,609.9 10,091.2 8,541.0 1,067.5 54.9 38,285.9 

Wyoming - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 1,018.4 189.0 1,639.0 2,846.4 

 15-19.99 ..................... 8,489.4 23,788.8 13,319.1 9,514.3 1,482.2 985.7 57,579.5 

 20-22.99 ..................... 479.5 613.2 832.4 384.6 21.5 54.9 2,386.0 

 23-25.99 ..................... 74.3 455.6 750.6 308.4 0 0 1,588.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 9,043.2 24,857.5 14,902.1 11,225.7 1,692.7 2,679.6 64,400.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C2. Estimates of the Accessible Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

84 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

United States - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,091.6 4,046.5 11,121.4 14,327.7 6,995.1 3,302.2 41,884.4 

15-19.99 ....................... 23,810.7 14,643.2 10,644.3 3,548.4 581.9 1,180.3 54,408.8 

20-22.99 ....................... 204.6 513.1 405.4 587.3 2,751.4 7,344.8 11,806.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 305.3 1,277.0 1,238.6 1,817.5 3,156.6 5,511.0 13,306.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.8 2,527.5 1,081.6 1,506.0 603.2 429.4 6,409.5 

Total .......................... 26,674.1 23,007.3 24,491.2 21,786.9 14,088.1 17,767.7 127,815.3 

United States - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 36,903.9 32,115.1 21,983.3 13,012.8 1,792.2 654.6 106,461.9 

20-22.99 ....................... 2,468.5 3,638.6 2,247.2 4,625.4 6,079.1 40,530.1 59,588.8 

23-25.99 ....................... 3,094.4 4,907.5 5,524.8 10,729.4 14,229.6 25,608.4 64,094.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,699.5 12,479.0 5,964.3 11,903.0 8,508.1 4,614.1 45,168.0 

Total .......................... 44,166.2 53,140.1 35,719.7 40,270.6 30,609.0 71,407.2 275,312.9 

United States - Total

 <15 ......................... 2,091.6 4,046.5 11,121.4 14,327.7 6,995.1 3,302.2 41,884.4 

 15-19.99 ..................... 60,714.6 46,758.3 32,627.7 16,561.2 2,374.0 1,834.9 160,870.7 

 20-22.99 ..................... 2,673.1 4,151.7 2,652.6 5,212.7 8,830.4 47,874.9 71,395.4 

 23-25.99 ..................... 3,399.7 6,184.4 6,763.4 12,546.9 17,386.2 31,119.4 77,400.2 

 26+ ......................... 1,961.3 15,006.5 7,045.9 13,409.0 9,111.3 5,043.5 51,577.4 

 Total ........................ 70,840.4 76,147.4 60,210.9 62,057.5 44,697.1 89,174.9 403,128.2 

 Data include minor amounts of anthracite (all occurring in heat content categories greater than 23.00 million short tons) as follows: Arkansas 93.0, Colorado 23.0, a

New Mexico 2.1, and Virginia 112.9, expressed in million short tons.

 * Quantity less than 0.05 million short tons.

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates. 
74 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Table C3. Estimate of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Alabama - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 771.4 0 0 771.4 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 117.9 173.6 439.3 139.0 0 869.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 141.1 99.8 474.0 0 0 714.9 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 259.0 273.4 1,684.7 139.0 0 2,356.2 

Alabama - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 78.6 112.3 155.0 61.2 0 407.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 90.0 0 235.7 0 0 325.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 168.6 112.3 390.6 61.2 0 732.7 

Alabama - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 771.4 0 0 771.4 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 196.5 285.9 594.3 200.2 0 1,277.0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 231.1 99.8 709.6 0 0 1,040.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 427.6 385.8 2,075.3 200.2 0 3,088.9 

Alaska, Southern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 390.4 41.6 0 0 0 0 432.0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 390.4 41.6 0 0 0 0 432.0 

Alaska, Southern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 2,067.1 44.1 0 0 0 0 2,111.3 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8.9 0 0 0 0 8.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 2,067.1 53.0 0 0 0 0 2,120.1 

Alaska, Southern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 2,457.5 85.7 0 0 0 0 2,543.3 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8.9 0 0 0 0 8.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 2,457.5 94.6 0 0 0 0 2,552.2 

Alaska, Northern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alaska, Northern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alaska, Northern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 75

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

76 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Arizona - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 106.4 0 0 0 0 106.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 106.4 0 0 0 0 106.4 

Arizona - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 51.4 0 0 0 0 51.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 51.4 0 0 0 0 51.4 

Arizona - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 157.9 0 0 0 0 157.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 157.9 0 0 0 0 157.9 

Arkansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 17.8 0 0 17.8 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.5 73.0 6.5 1.1 1.1 83.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.5 73.0 24.2 1.1 1.4 101.3 

Arkansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6.6 89.8 20.3 4.7 4.7 126.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 6.6 89.8 20.3 4.7 5.6 127.0 

Arkansas - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 17.8 0 0 17.8 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 1.2 1.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8.1 162.8 26.8 5.8 5.8 209.2 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 8.1 162.8 44.5 5.8 7.0 228.2 

Colorado - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3,296.4 0 0 0 3,296.4 

15-19.99 ....................... 23.7 9.5 0.8 0 0 0 33.9 

20-22.99 ....................... 114.9 0 8.3 9.9 0 0 133.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 152.7 114.4 20.1 31.2 14.0 0 332.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.9 0 0 0 0 2.9 

Total .......................... 291.3 126.8 3,325.6 41.1 14.0 0 3,798.8 

Colorado - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 1,401.9 577.9 33.9 0 0 0 2,013.6 

20-22.99 ....................... 757.5 835.3 127.8 81.0 0 0 1,801.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 1,152.8 648.2 166.1 163.5 82.8 0 2,213.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107.3 150.3 34.8 43.6 0 0 336.0 

Total .......................... 3,419.5 2,211.7 362.5 288.1 82.8 0 6,364.6 

Colorado - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3296.4 0 0 0 3,296.4 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 77

 15-19.99 ..................... 1,425.6 587.3 34.6 0 0 0 2,047.6 

 20-22.99 ..................... 872.4 835.3 136.1 90.9 0 0 1,934.7 

 23-25.99 ..................... 1,305.5 762.6 186.2 194.8 96.8 0 2,545.9 

 26+ ......................... 107.3 153.2 34.8 43.6 0 0 338.8 

 Total ........................ 3,710.8 2,338.4 3,688.1 329.2 96.8 0 10,163.4 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

78 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Georgia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 * 0 0.1 0 0 0.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.3 * 0.1 0.1 1.0 

Total .......................... 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 

Georgia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 * 0 * 0 0 0.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.1 * 0.1 0.1 0.7 

Total .......................... 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 

Georgia - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0.1 0 0.2 0 0 0.2 

 26+ ......................... 0.6 0.5 0.4 * 0.2 0.2 1.8 

 Total ........................ 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0 

Idaho - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Idaho - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 ....................... 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.0 

Idaho - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 ..................... 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.4 0 0 2.0 

Illinois - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 2.4 64.4 1,016.0 2,382.0 3,464.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 34.5 131.0 672.8 364.2 1,202.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 4.5 0 4.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 36.9 195.4 1,693.3 2,746.2 4,671.7 

Illinois - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 53.0 625.1 955.9 16,031.8 17,665.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 797.8 1,963.7 2,786.5 2,158.1 7,706.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 47.0 0 47.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 850.8 2,588.8 3,789.3 18,190.0 25,418.8 

Illinois - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 79

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 55.4 689.4 1,971.9 18,413.8 21,130.5 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 832.2 2,094.7 3,459.3 2,522.4 8,908.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 51.4 0 51.4 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 887.6 2,784.1 5,482.5 20,936.2 30,090.5 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

80 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Indiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 45.6 23.5 97.6 0 177.3 344.0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 23.6 6.2 19.5 162.9 157.5 369.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 69.3 29.7 117.2 162.9 334.8 713.9 

Indiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 139.4 109.4 309.4 528.9 977.9 2,065.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 109.1 48.4 258.3 448.9 752.0 1,616.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 248.6 157.8 567.7 977.8 1,729.9 3,681.9 

Indiana - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 185.1 132.9 407.0 528.9 1,155.2 2,409.1 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 132.8 54.7 277.9 611.8 909.5 1,986.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 317.8 187.5 684.9 1,140.7 2,064.7 4,395.7 

Iowa - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 320.4 0 320.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 320.4 0 320.4 

Iowa - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 87.3 719.9 807.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 87.3 719.9 807.2 

Iowa - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 407.6 719.9 1,127.6 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 407.6 719.9 1,127.6 

Kansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 53.2 303.5 356.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 172.7 106.4 279.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 48.0 48.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 225.9 457.9 683.8 

Kansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Kansas - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 81

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 53.2 303.5 356.8 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 172.7 106.4 279.1 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 48.0 48.0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 225.9 457.9 683.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

82 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Kentucky, Eastern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 23.2 49.0 0 0 72.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 7.7 79.7 178.7 108.1 17.1 17.8 409.1 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 250.3 97.1 69.9 28.0 5.3 479.5 

Total .......................... 36.6 330.0 299.0 227.0 45.1 23.1 960.7 

Kentucky, Eastern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 35.6 96.0 0 0 131.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 37.9 305.6 523.8 269.8 36.5 52.7 1,226.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147.6 1,416.6 650.6 283.9 136.5 36.7 2,671.8 

Total .......................... 185.4 1,722.3 1,210.0 649.6 173.0 89.4 4,029.8 

Kentucky, Eastern - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 58.8 145.0 0 0 203.8 

 23-25.99 ..................... 45.6 385.3 702.5 377.9 53.6 70.5 1,635.5 

 26+ ......................... 176.5 1,666.9 747.7 353.7 164.4 42.1 3,151.3 

 Total ........................ 222.1 2,052.2 1,509.0 876.6 218.0 112.5 4,990.5 

Kentucky, Western - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 37.7 445.6 426.7 910.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 89.0 476.5 866.9 1,432.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 18.8 3.2 22.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 126.8 940.9 1,296.9 2,364.6 

Kentucky, Western - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 5.9 811.2 1,145.7 1,962.9 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 25.8 797.3 3,934.8 4,757.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 203.6 90.8 294.5 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 31.8 1,812.1 5,171.4 7,015.2 

Kentucky, Western - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 43.7 1,256.8 1,572.5 2,873.0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 114.9 1,273.7 4,801.7 6,190.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 222.5 94.1 316.5 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 158.5 2,753.0 6,468.3 9,379.8 

Louisiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 358.5 0 0 358.5 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 358.5 0 0 358.5 

Louisiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Louisiana - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 358.5 0 0 358.5 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 83

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 358.5 0 0 358.5 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

84 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Maryland - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 16.9 0 16.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.8 8.3 13.3 16.5 0 41.0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2.8 8.3 13.3 33.5 0 58.0 

Maryland - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 110.9 0 110.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 29.1 50.7 107.6 65.9 0 253.2 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 29.1 50.7 107.6 176.8 0 364.2 

Maryland - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 127.9 0 127.9 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 31.9 59.0 121.0 82.4 0 294.2 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 31.9 59.0 121.0 210.3 0 422.1 

Michigan - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.1 0.4 * 0.1 0.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 2.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.2 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.5 1.8 0.5 0.3 3.1 

Michigan - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.3 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3.0 4.6 3.0 2.9 13.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 4.8 14.5 9.8 7.8 36.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 2.2 2.5 0 4.7 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 7.8 21.3 15.7 10.7 55.4 

Michigan - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.4 0 0.4 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 3.1 5.0 3.1 3.0 14.2 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 5.1 15.8 10.1 8.0 39.0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 2.3 2.6 0 4.9 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 8.2 23.1 16.2 11.0 58.5 

Missouri - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 54.6 1,979.1 2,033.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 95.8 1,008.1 1,103.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 28.1 28.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 150.4 3,015.2 3,165.7 

Missouri - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 2.9 550.7 553.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 16.7 111.7 128.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 7.2 7.2 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 19.6 669.6 689.2 

Missouri - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 85

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 57.5 2,529.8 2,587.3 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 112.5 1,119.8 1,232.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 35.3 35.3 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 170.0 3,684.8 3,854.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

86 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Montana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,458.3 2,916.5 4,579.7 1,212.0 1,458.3 729.2 12,354.0 

15-19.99 ....................... 16,628.1 4,096.1 4,940.8 1,237.2 152.1 177.2 27,231.5 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 18,086.4 7,012.6 9,520.5 2,449.2 1,610.3 906.4 39,585.4 

Montana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 15,386.1 9,619.2 7,241.4 2,264.4 342.7 367.7 35,221.5 

20-22.99 ....................... 177.0 214.1 35.7 106.8 69.8 98.0 701.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 15,563.1 9,833.4 7,277.1 2,371.2 412.4 465.7 35,922.8 

Montana - Total

 <15 ......................... 1,458.3 2,916.5 4,579.7 1,212.0 1,458.3 729.2 12,354.0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 32,014.2 13,715.3 12,182.2 3,501.6 494.8 544.9 62,453.0 

 20-22.99 ..................... 177.0 214.1 35.7 106.8 69.8 98.0 701.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 33,649.5 16,846.0 16,797.6 4,820.4 2,022.8 1,372.0 75,508.3 

New Mexico - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 548.5 440.2 0 0 988.7 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 95.3 62.6 29.6 0 0 187.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 140.9 104.4 0 0 0 245.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 236.2 715.5 469.8 0 0 1,421.4.0 

New Mexico - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 83.9 90.0 212.2 64.1 0 450.1 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 61.7 44.7 13.5 0 0 119.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 349.5 83.8 0.1 0 0 433.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 70.2 0.4 0 0 0 70.7 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 565.3 218.9 225.8 64.1 0 1,074 

New Mexico - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 83.9 638.4 652.4 64.1 0 1,438.7 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 157.0 107.3 43.1 0 0 307.3 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 490.4 188.2 0.1 0 0 678.8 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 70.2 0.4 0 0 0 70.7 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 801.5 934.3 695.6 64.1 0 2,495.5 

North Carolina - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Carolina - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.3 1.3 1.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.3 1.6 1.3 0 3.2 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 4.8 

North Carolina - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 87

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0.3 1.3 1.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.3 1.6 1.3 0 3.2 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 4.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

88 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

North Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441.2 759.6 1,392.5 3,481.2 867.8 373.7 7,315.9 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 441.2 759.6 1,392.5 3,481.2 867.8 373.7 7,315.9 

North Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

North Dakota - Total

 <15 ......................... 441.2 759.6 1,392.5 3,481.2 867.8 373.7 7,315.9 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 441.2 759.6 1,392.5 3,481.2 867.8 373.7 7,315.9 

Ohio - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 12.9 23.0 62.1 182.1 425.1 705.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 20.3 56.9 89.7 287.0 619.7 1,728.9 2,802.5 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 27.6 56.8 71.2 71.0 175.7 402.4 

Total .......................... 20.3 97.4 169.6 420.3 872.8 2,329.7 3,910.0 

Ohio - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 4.1 4.8 68.7 283.4 654.7 1,015.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 61.8 50.3 128.3 440.5 1,135.6 3,654.8 5,471.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 18.6 35.1 126.9 361.1 854.7 1,396.6 

Total .......................... 61.8 73.0 168.2 636.1 1,780.1 5,164.2 7,883.4 

Ohio - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 16.9 27.8 130.8 465.5 1,079.8 1,720.8 

 23-25.99 ..................... 82.1 107.2 218 727.4 1,755.3 5,383.6 8,273.7 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 46.3 92.0 198.2 432.1 1,030.5 1,799.0 

 Total ........................ 82.1 170.4 337.8 1,056.4 2,652.8 7,493.9 11,793.5 

Oklahoma - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 19.1 19.1 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 20.7 3.5 6.4 10.2 63.9 104.7 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 46.7 21.8 28.0 23.8 0 120.3 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 67.3 25.3 34.4 34.0 83.0 244.1 

Oklahoma - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 30.2 30.2 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 28.5 38.9 35.1 25.9 69.4 197.9 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 125.7 59.2 109.4 54.4 0 348.7 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 154.2 98.1 144.5 80.3 99.6 576.8 

Oklahoma - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 89

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 49.3 49.3 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 49.2 42.4 41.5 36.2 133.3 302.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 172.4 80.9 137.5 78.1 0 468.9 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 221.6 123.4 179.0 114.3 182.6 820.9 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

90 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Oregon - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 0.6 0.3 0.5 0 0.2 0.2 1.7 

20-22.99 ....................... 0.3 0 0.2 0 0 0 0.5 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 0.9 0.3 0.6 0 0.2 0.2 2.1 

Oregon - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 1.9 0.9 1.4 0 0.5 0.5 5.1 

20-22.99 ....................... 0.9 0 0.5 0 0 0 1.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 2.8 0.9 1.9 0 0.5 0.5 6.5 

Oregon - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 ..................... 2.5 1.2 1.9 0 0.6 0.6 6.8 

 20-22.99 ..................... 1.2 0 0.6 0 0 0 1.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 3.7 1.2 2.5 0 0.6 0.6 8.6 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.8 0.2 0.6 0 0 2.6 

23-25.99 ....................... 70.3 204.6 49.0 8.8 1.1 0.4 334.2 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 56.5 12.4 2.0 * 0 86.2 

Total .......................... 85.6 262.9 61.5 11.4 1.2 0.4 423.1 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.3 0 0.4 0 0 1.7 

23-25.99 ....................... 78.0 165.6 22.7 3.0 0.4 0 269.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 38.2 11.9 2.3 0.2 0 69.6 

Total .......................... 94.9 205.1 34.6 5.7 0.6 0 340.9 

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 3.2 0.2 1.0 0 0 4.3 

 23-25.99 ..................... 148.2 370.2 71.6 11.8 1.5 0.4 603.8 

 26+ ......................... 32.3 94.7 24.3 4.3 0.2 0 155.8 

 Total ........................ 180.5 468.1 96.1 17.1 1.8 0.4 764.0 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 29.8 13.8 43.7 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 5.0 21.3 113.7 110.6 96.4 347.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 18.8 47.2 213.1 101.9 33.9 414.9 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 23.8 68.5 326.8 242.3 144.2 805.6 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 51.9 133.5 122.9 308.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 51.8 130.5 1,162.8 1,549.1 905.4 3,799.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 211.4 620.5 3,534.8 2,286.7 369.3 7,022.7 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 263.2 751.1 4,749.5 3,969.3 1,397.5 11,130.6 

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 91

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 51.9 163.3 136.7 351.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 56.9 151.8 1,276.5 1,659.7 1,001.8 4,146.6 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 230.2 667.8 3,747.9 2,388.6 403.2 7,437.6 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 287.1 819.6 5,076.3 4,211.6 1,541.7 11,936.2 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

92 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

South Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0 276.8 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0 276.8 

South Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

South Dakota - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0 276.8 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0 276.8 

Tennessee - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 74.8 0 0 74.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 39.4 23.8 19.8 40.7 0 123.6 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 39.4 23.8 94.5 40.7 0 198.4 

Tennessee - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 100.6 0 0 100.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 68.9 39.0 33.3 60.0 0 201.1 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 68.9 39.0 133.9 60.0 0 301.7 

Tennessee - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 175.4 0 0 175.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 108.2 62.8 53.1 100.7 0 324.8 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 108.2 62.8 228.4 100.7 0 500.1 

Texas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 599.5 5,768.2 3,461.9 382.1 10,211.7 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 599.5 5,768.2 3,461.9 382.1 10,211.7 

Texas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Texas - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 599.5 5,768.2 3,461.9 382.1 10,211.7 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 93

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 599.5 5,768.2 3,461.9 382.1 10,211.7 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

94 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

Utah - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 27.5 17.3 84.6 34.8 33.7 197.9 

23-25.99 ....................... 7.1 3.9 1.4 0 0 0 12.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.7 0 0 0 0 1.7 

Total .......................... 8.2 32.1 18.8 84.6 34.8 33.7 212.1 

Utah - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 394.0 471.5 798.3 194.1 273.6 2,131.5 

23-25.99 ....................... 310.1 175.2 76.1 0 0 0 561.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.9 92.3 0 0 0 0 161.2 

Total .......................... 379.0 661.4 547.6 798.3 194.1 273.6 2,854.1 

Utah - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 421.5 488.8 882.8 229.0 307.3 2,329.4 

 23-25.99 ..................... 317.2 179.0 77.6 0 0 0 573.8 

 26+ ......................... 70.0 93.0 0 0 0 0 162.9 

 Total ........................ 387.2 693.5 566.4 882.8 229.0 307.3 3,066.2 

Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 ....................... 2.3 8.8 73.8 0 0 0 85.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.9 197.4 94.9 47.7 0 0 382.9 

Total .......................... 45.2 206.3 168.7 47.7 0 0 467.8 

Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 ....................... 7.5 5.1 7.4 0 0 0 20.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 43.6 90.5 81.5 5.1 0 0 220.8 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117.3 389.4 179.7 92.2 0 0 778.7 

Total .......................... 168.5 485.1 268.7 97.3 0 0 1,019.5 

Virginia - Totala

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 ..................... 7.5 5.1 7.4 0 0 0 20.1 

 23-25.99 ..................... 45.9 99.4 155.3 5.1 0 0 305.7 

 26+ ......................... 160.3 586.9 274.6 139.9 0 0 1,161.6 

 Total ........................ 213.7 691.4 437.4 145.0 0 0 1,487.4 

Washington - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 68.3 0 0 68.3 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 68.3 0 0 68.3 

Washington - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 42.2 85.6 392.9 0 0 520.7 

20-22.99 ....................... 63.2 0 0 41.2 0 0 104.4 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 49.4 0 0 0 0 49.4 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 63.2 91.6 85.6 434.1 0 0 674.5 

Washington - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 95

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 42.2 85.6 461.2 0 0 589.0 

 20-22.99 ..................... 63.2 0 0 41.2 0 0 104.4 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 49.4 0 0 0 0 49.4 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 63.2 91.6 85.6 502.4 0 0 742.8 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

96 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content

West Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 15.6 15.6 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 293.5 254.4 169.5 6.7 43.8 768.0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.7 1,232.8 335.5 292.4 176.6 50.5 2,208.5 

Total .......................... 120.7 1,526.3 589.9 461.9 183.3 109.9 2,992.1 

West Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 101.7 114.3 39.3 255.3 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 429.2 444.6 1,121.1 527.6 1,903.2 4,425.6 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550.5 4,728.0 1,775.4 2,436.9 1,728.8 1,204.0 12,423.7 

Total .......................... 550.5 5,157.2 2,220.0 3,659.7 2,370.7 3,146.5 17,104.6 

West Virginia - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 101.7 114.3 54.9 270.9 

 23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 722.7 699.0 1,290.6 534.3 1,947.0 5,193.6 

 26+ ......................... 671.2 5,960.9 2,110.9 2,729.3 1,905.4 1,254.5 14,632.2 

 Total ........................ 671.2 6,683.6 2,809.8 4,121.6 2,554.0 3,256.4 20,096.7 

Wyoming - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 909.8 170.1 1,393.4 2,473.3 

15-19.99 ....................... 4,559.6 8,995.9 4,099.6 1,408.6 351.9 843.0 20,258.6 

20-22.99 ....................... 28.6 130.3 173.0 43.7 17.2 0 392.8 

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 4,588.2 9,126.2 4,272.6 2,362.0 539.3 2,236.4 23,124.7 

Wyoming - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 2,042.0 8,220.4 5,233.6 4,741.6 640.5 0 20,878.1 

20-22.99 ....................... 266.3 272.2 370.7 198.0 0 33.0 1,140.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 44.6 273.3 450.3 185.0 0 0 953.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................... 2,352.8 8,765.9 6,054.7 5,124.6 640.5 33.0 22,971.5 

Wyoming - Total

 <15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 909.8 170.1 1,393.4 2,473.3 

 15-19.99 ..................... 6,601.6 17,216.3 9,333.2 6,150.2 992.4 843.0 41,136.6 

 20-22.99 ..................... 294.8 402.5 543.7 241.7 17.2 33.0 1,532.9 

 23-25.99 ..................... 44.6 273.3 450.3 185.0 0 0 953.3 

 26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

 Total ........................ 6,941.0 17,892.2 10,327.3 7,486.7 1,179.7 2,269.3 46,096.2 

See footnotes at end of table.
Table C3. Estimates of the Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and 

Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1992)

State and Type of Mining (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

(Million Btu per Short Ton) 0.41 - 0.60 0.61 - 0.83 0.84 - 1.67 1.68 - 2.50 > 2.50 Total

Heat Content # 0.40

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update By Heat and Sulfur Content 97

United States - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,899.5 3,676.2 9,971.6 12,519.7 6,130.5 2,878.4 37,075.8 

15-19.99 ....................... 21,602.5 13,143.3 9,590.1 3,154.3 504.2 1,020.3 49,014.7 

20-22.99 ....................... 143.7 419.9 333.8 479.5 2,153.9 5,776.4 9,307.1 

23-25.99 ....................... 260.4 1,070.0 1,011.0 1,479.9 2,516.4 4,454.6 10,792.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209.1 2,018.9 870.9 1,238.0 483.0 345.9 5,165.8 

Total .......................... 24,115.2 20,328.3 21,777.5 18,871.3 11,788.0 14,475.5 111,355.8 

United States - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

15-19.99 ....................... 20,899.0 18,588.7 12,685.8 7,611.0 1,048.0 368.2 61,200.6 

20-22.99 ....................... 1,272.4 1,987.5 1,264.0 2,502.5 3,184.2 20,681.6 30,892.2 

23-25.99 ....................... 1,729.0 2,805.9 3,110.4 5,904.5 7,589.4 13,551.1 34,690.3 

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,009.0 7,435.5 3,547.5 7,030.6 4,952.8 2,567.6 26,543.0 

Total .......................... 24,909.3 30,817.7 20,607.7 23,048.6 16,774.4 37,168.5 153,326.2 

United States - Total

 <15 ......................... 1,899.5 3,676.2 9,971.6 12,519.7 6,130.5 2,878.4 37,075.8 

 15-19.99 ..................... 42,501.4 31,732.0 22,275.9 10,765.3 1,552.3 1,388.5 110,215.3 

 20-22.99 ..................... 1,416.1 2,407.4 1,597.9 2,982.0 5,338.0 26,457.9 40,199.3 

 23-25.99 ..................... 1,989.4 3,875.9 4,121.4 7,384.3 10,105.8 18,005.7 45,482.6 

 26+ ......................... 1,218.1 9,454.4 4,418.4 8,268.6 5,435.8 2,913.5 31,708.9 

 Total ........................ 49,024.6 51,146.0 42,385.2 41,919.9 28,562.4 51,644.0 264,682.0 

 Data include minor amounts of anthracite (all occurring in heat content categories greater than 23.00 million short tons) as follows: Arkansas 52.2, Colorado 13.4, a

New Mexico 1.2, and Virginia 70.5, expressed in million short tons.

 * Quantity less than 0.05 million short tons.

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.