DOE/EIA-0529(95)

Distribution Category UC-950

U.S. Coal Reserves:

A Review and Update

August 1996

Energy Information Administration

Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels

Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

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.
ii Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Internet Access

The information and databases in this report can be accessed and downloaded via the EIA

home page: 

› http://www.eia.doe.gov.

› Click on “Coal”

› Publications Menu — click on The U.S. Coal Reserves Publication, or

› Data Menu — locate “1995 Coal Reserves Data Base”

› Click on data or summary

Contacts

This report was prepared jointly in the Coal and Electric coverable reserves, and coal classification should be

Analysis Branch, Analysis and Systems Division, Office of directed to:

Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels and in the

Coal, Uranium and Renewable Fuels Branch, Office of Richard F. Bonskowski

Integrated Analysis and Forecasting. General information Energy Information Administration, EI-532

regarding this publication may be obtained from John U.S. Department of Energy

Geidl (202/426-1200), Director, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Washington, DC 20585

Electric and Alternate Fuels; Robert M. Schnapp (202/426-

1211), Director, Analysis and Systems Division; or Betsy Telephone Number: (202)426-1132

O'Brien (202/426-1180), Chief, Supply Analysis Branch. Internet E-Mail: rbonskow@eia.doe.gov

Information regarding coal mining cost factors and coal Specific questions and comments on coal reserves at active

supply projections may be obtained from Mary J. Hutzler mines, coal mining cost factors, and coal supply

(202/586-2222), Director, Office of Integrated Analysis projections should be directed to:

and Forecasting; Scott B. Sitzer (202/586-2308), Director,

Energy Supply and Conversion Division; or Edward J. Michael L. Mellish

Flynn, Chief, Coal, Uranium and Renewable Fuels Energy Information Administration, EI-822

Analysis Branch. U.S. Department of Energy

Questions and comments regarding the preparation

and content of the report and specific questions on coal Telephone Number: (202)586-2136

resources, demonstrated reserve base, estimated re- Internet E-Mail: mmellish@eia.doe.gov

Washington, DC 20585
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update iii

Preface

Section 205(a)(2) of the Department of Energy Organ- and reserve allocations. It makes the resulting data

ization Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-91) requires the available for general use by the public.

Administrator of the Energy Information Administration

(EIA) to carry out a central, comprehensive, and unified

energy data information program to collect, evaluate,

assemble, analyze, and disseminate data and information

relevant to energy resources, reserves, production,

demand, technology, and related economic and statistical

information.

This report, U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update, is the

third in series of “U.S. Coal Reserves” reports. As part of

the EIA program to provide information on coal, it The legislation that created EIA vested the organization

presents detailed estimates of domestic coal reserves, with an element of statutory independence. EIA's responwhich are basic to the analysis and forecasting of future sibilities are to provide timely, high-quality information

coal supply. It also describes the data, methods, and and to perform objective, credible analyses in support of

assumptions used to develop such estimates and explains deliberations by both public and private decisionmakers.

terminology related to recent data programs. In addition, EIA does not take positions on policy questions.

the report provides technical documentation for specific Accordingly, this report does not purport to represent the

revisions and adjustments to the demonstrated reserve policy positions of the U.S. Department of Energy or the

base (DRB) of coal in the United States and for coal quality Administration.

This report includes data on recoverable coal reserves

located at active mines and on the estimated distribution

of rank and sulfur content in those reserves. An analysis

of the projected demand and depletion in recoverable

reserves at active mines is used to evaluate the areas and

magnitude of anticipated investment in new mining

capacity.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update v

Contents

Page

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1. The Role of Coal and Coal Reserves Data ............................................................... 1

EIA Coal Reserves Data ............................................................................. 2

About This Report .................................................................................. 6

2. New EIA Coal Resource and Reserve Data Derivations .................................................. 9

New Mexico ........................................................................................ 9

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Eastern Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3. 1995 Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimated Recoverable Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Demonstrated Reserve Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Estimated Recoverable Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4. Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Mines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Glossary of Selected Coal Classification Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Appendices

A. Review of U.S. Coal Resource and Reserve Data Criteria and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

B. Detailed Estimates of Demonstrated Reserve Base, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and

 Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines, for U.S. Coal by Heat and Sulfur Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
vi Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Tables

1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Accessibility Factors and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico . . . . . . . . 13

3. Land Use Restrictions for Coal Accessibility, San Juan Basin, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Coal Resource Criteria Used in the Demonstrated Reserve Base, San Juan Basin, New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

5. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Bituminous Coal in

Illinois by Btu/Sulfur Range and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. Reliability Classifications for Coal Resources in Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7. Categories of Coal Seam Thickness in Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

8. Categories of Overburden Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

9. Factors Considered and Applied in Illinois to Estimate the Accessible Reserve Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10. Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Bituminous Coal in Eastern Kentucky

by Btu/Sulfur Range and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

11. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Rank, 1993, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

12. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Potential Method of Mining, 1993, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

13. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Rank, Potentially Minable by Underground Methods, 

1993, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

14. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Rank, Potentially Minable by Surface Methods,

1993, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

15. EIA Sulfur Content Categories for Coal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

16. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Sulfur Range and Coal-Producing Region . . . . . . . . 36

17. Net Accessibility and Recovery Factors for Coal Resources, by Coal-Producing Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

18. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal in the United States by Sulfur Range and Major Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

19. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Sulfur Range, Coal-Producing Region, and

Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

20. Coal Supply Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

21. Remaining Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Underground Mines, 1994-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

22. Remaining Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Surface Mines, 1994-2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

23. Range of Capital Costs for Selected Complements of Production Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

A1. Summary of 1992 Status of Database Updates for Energy Information Administration (EIA) Coal Resource

and Reserve Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

B1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . 77

B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

B3. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Coal Rank/Sulfur Range, Region, 

and Type of Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figures

1. Coal-Bearing Areas of the United States ................................................................ 4

2. Delineation of U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves ......................................................... 5

3. Coal-Bearing Areas of New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4. Coal-Bearing Areas of Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5. Coal-Bearing Areas of Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6. Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Mines, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

7. Comparative Trends in Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Mines and Production, 1980-1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A1. Diagram of Coal Resource Reliability Categories Based on Distances From Points of Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . 61

A2. Classification of Coal Resources and Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

A3. Identified Coal Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA

AA

AA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAA

AAA

AAA

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

Appalachia

Interior

West

All Regions

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

38(21)

45(23)

26(12)

17(10)

2(1)

12(9)

143(89)

126(54)

171(101)

141(86)

Billion Short Tons

High Sulfur

Medium Sulfur

Low Sulfur

DRB

Estimated Recoverable 

Total Reserves

Coal-Producing Region

184(86)

86(56)

110(56)

145(65)

241(153)

496(274)

AAA AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA AAA

AAA

AAA

Data Key: DRB Tonnage (Recoverable 

Reserve Component)

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update vii

Figure HL1. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal and Estimated Recoverable Reserves in the

United States by Sulfur Content and Coal-Producing Region as of January 1, 1995

 Note: In each bar the entire length represents the demonstrated reserve base (DRB), and the segment of the bar on the right

represents estimated recoverable reserves.

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.

Highlights

Demonstrated Reserve Base

This report, U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update,

contains updates to the coal resource and reserve data

maintained by the Energy Information Administration

(EIA). The demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal is a

selected subset of U.S. coal resource data, first published

in 1974, to provide an internally compatible database of

in-place coal in which mining is likely to occur. Key DRB

data include the following:

U The new estimates of DRB coal resources

remaining as of January 1, 1995, is 496 billion

short tons (Figure HL1). This is an increase of

nearly 22 billion short tons over the previous

(1993) DRB estimate of 474 billion short tons.

Although the DRB is more than 480 times U.S.

coal production in 1995, almost half the DRB is

either inaccessible or likely to be lost in the

mining process

U The increase in the DRB is attributable to major

revisions in a few States. In New Mexico, the

updated DRB increased by more than 8 billion

short tons; in Illinois, by 12 billion short tons; and

in eastern Kentucky, by 4 billion short tons.

Nationally, these increases were offset by nearly

3 billion short tons of depletion between 1993

and 1995. 

U Nearly half the DRB is found in the West (see

Figure HL2). Coal resources recoverable by
Appalachia

Interior (with

Gulf Coast)

West

viii Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Figure HL2. Coal-Producing Regions

 Note: Delineations depict only boundaries between regions.

Actual coal production originates from coal-bearing areas (not

shown) within each region. For more information, see Table 17.

 Source: Energy Information Administration.

surface mining make up one-third of the DRB, same Btu and sulfur content as the regional DRB from

more than half of which (58 percent) also occurs which they were extracted. The estimated recoverable

in the West. Two-thirds of the DRB is minable reserves have the following characteristics:

only by underground mining, and more than half

of that amount (56 percent) is found in the

Interior and Appalachian Coal-Producing Regions. Overall, recovery of about 55 percent of

the coal in the DRB is projected for surface and

underground mining combined.

U The quantities of low-sulfur, medium-sulfur,

and high-sulfur coals in the DRB are in

approximately equal proportions (Figure HL1).

Nationwide, low-sulfur coal is estimated to

amount to 171 billion short tons, or 34 percent of

all coal included in the DRB. Medium-sulfur coal

accounts for 28 percent of the DRB and highsulfur coal for 37 percent.

U Most low-sulfur coal (84 percent) and mediumsulfur coal (61 percent) included in the DRB is

in the West. Most of the high-sulfur coal in the

DRB (69 percent) is in the Interior region.

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

This report also includes updates to EIA's estimated

recoverable reserves of coal in the United States. Estimated recoverable reserves (formerly called “recoverable

reserves” by EIA) are the quantities of coal that may be

recoverable from the DRB, based on regional estimates of soon be exhausted and new mine capacity will

coal resource accessibility and mining recovery rates. The

estimated recoverable reserves have been assigned the

U The estimated recoverable reserves of the

United States include 274 billion short tons

(Figure HL1). Summarized by low-, medium-,

and high-sulfur levels, they diverge somewhat

from the profile of their DRB source data because

of regional differences in resource accessibility,

geology, and recovery rates.

U Estimated low-sulfur recoverable reserves

make up the largest part of the total, at 37

percent. Estimated medium- and high-sulfur

recoverable reserves each make up about 31.5

percent. This distribution by sulfur content is

somewhat reversed from that for the DRB, where

high-sulfur coal accounts for the largest part of

the total (37 percent).

U Higher recovery rates are projected for surfaceminable reserves concentrated in the West than

for underground reserves in the Interior and

Appalachia, where more of the coal is highsulfur.

Recoverable Reserves at

Active Mines

A new feature in this report is the allocation of recoverable coal reserves at active mines by sulfur content (Figure

HL3). Recoverable reserves at active mines are reported

in EIA's Coal Industry Annual, but sulfur content data are

not provided. Estimates of the sulfur content of the

recoverable reserves at active mines are developed using

coal quality data collected for coal shipped to electric

utilities, independent power producers, industrial consumers, and coke plants. This issue of U.S. Coal Reserves

also contains estimates of the number of years that the

recoverable reserves at mines active in 1994 (the most

recent data available) could support the levels of coal

production published in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1996

(AEO96) reference case forecast. AEO96 provides an

integrated forecast for all market-based sources of energy

through 2015.

U Recoverable coal reserves at active mines in

some regions and for certain sulfur levels will

be needed. Increased projected demand for lowsulfur coal indicates the need for substantial new
AA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AA

AAA AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AA

AAAAAAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

AA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA AAA AAA AAA

Appalachia

Interior

West

All Regions

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Billion Short Tons

274(21)

Coal-Producing Region

10(1)

2(0)*

9(0)*

21(2)

23(1)

12(2)

56(5)

54(2)

65(3)

56(4)

153(13)

86(3)

101(11)

86(7)

89(9)

High Sulfur

Medium Sulfur

Low Sulfur

Estimated Recoverable 

Reserves

Recoverable Reserves 

at Active Mines AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

Total

Data Key: Estimated Recoverable Reserve 

Tonnage (Active Mine Component)

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update ix

Figure HL3. Estimated Recoverable Reserves and Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in the United States 

by Sulfur Content and Coal-Producing Region as of January 1, 1995

 *Numbers less than 0.5 have been rounded to zero.

 Notes: In each bar the entire length represents the estimated recoverable reserves and the smaller segment of the bar represents

recoverable reserves at active mines. Totals for reserves at active mines exclude data for Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and Louisiana,

which were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. Recoverable reserves at active mines, as of December 31, 1994,

are equated to January 1, 1995. 

 Source: Energy Information Administration estimates.

mine capacity in low-sulfur coal regions, pri- ming report an estimated 6 billion short tons of

marily in central Appalachia. Investments in low-sulfur recoverable reserves, which represent

new low-sulfur capacity are most critical in nearly 75 percent of the low-sulfur reserves at

southern West Virginia, where recoverable active surface mines and almost 60 percent of

reserves of low-sulfur coal at active underground low-sulfur reserves at all active mines. Over the

mines are equivalent to only 5 years’ projected forecast period, low-sulfur coal production from

production. Over the forecast period, low-sulfur surface mines in this region is projected to

coal production at underground mines in this average almost 270 million short tons per year.

region is projected to average more than 100

million short tons per year.

U Of the predominant low-sulfur coal regions,

eastern Wyoming is best positioned to meet

increasing demand for low-sulfur coal over the

forecast. Active surface mines in eastern WyoU For medium- and high-sulfur coal, projections of

an expanding coal market and increased use of

flue gas desulfurization equipment create a

relatively stable market. To meet demand, some

new investments in medium-sulfur coal are

indicated over the forecast, mostly in Appalachia.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 1

Based on British thermal units (Btu) of energy produced and consumed and on kilowatthours of net generation of electricity by electric 1

utilities. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, DOE/EIA-0035(96/04) (Washington, DC, April 1996), pp. 88, 169, 5,

7, 95.

Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal Report, DOE/EIA-0121(95/4Q) (Washington, DC, May 1996), pp. 38-41. 2

Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 1994, Volume II, DOE/EIA-0348(94)/2 (Washington, DC, November 1995), 3

pp. 4, 45, 46.

A list of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report can be found following Chapter 4. 4

Clean Coal Today, Issue No. 20, “O'Leary Heralds Wabash Startup” (Germantown MD: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, 5

Winter 1995), pp. 1-2.

U.S. Department of Energy, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program: Project Fact Sheets, DOE/ 6

FE-0339 (Washington, DC, July 1995) pp. 22-23.

Greenhouse gas values based on emissions of carbon or carbon equivalent. Energy Information Administration, Emissions of Greenhouse 7

Gases in the United States, 1987-1994, DOE/EIA-0573(87-94) (Washington, DC, October 1995), pp. x, xi, 11.

1. The Role of Coal and Coal Reserves Data

Coal is the largest single source of domestically produced declined by 9.2 percent from the 1993 levels. That

primary energy, accounting for 32 percent in 1995. decline was due primarily to the use of stack scrubbers

Although coal fueled only 22 percent of U.S. energy and to switching to lower sulfur coals but, in the long run,

consumption (petroleum accounted for the largest even greater environmental benefits should accrue from

percentage), it was used to produce 55 percent of the progress in clean coal processing and combustion

electricity generated by electric utilities. technologies. A case in point: In November 1995, the 1

Eighty-eight percent of the coal consumed domestically in repowered a 42-year-old steam electric generator, using

1995 went to electric utilities, about 8 percent was coal gasification combined-cycle technology developed in

consumed to fuel industrial uses (primarily manufac- a Federal-private partnership under the U.S. Department

turing), and nearly 4 percent to produce metallurgical of Energy's (DOE) Clean Coal Technology Program. The

coke. Of the fuels consumed in the United States, only coal new facility burns high-sulfur Illinois Basin coal but

has a positive trade balance, with net exports of 79.3 reduces sulfur dioxide emissions by 98 percent, nitrogen

million short tons in 1995, valued at $3.3 billion. Coal oxide emissions by 90 percent, and carbon dioxide (CO ) 2

may continue to be important in the U.S. energy profile emissions by 20 percent, while improving power plant

and in its balance of payments, but U.S. coal is challenged efficiency by 20 percent.

by other domestic fuels, by imported low-sulfur coals, and

by conflicting uses for the land at potential mine sites. The The extraction and combustion of fossil fuels currently

contribution domestic coal reserves will make to the add significantly to the emissions of greenhouse

economy depends on the quality of the reserves and on gases—gases that can accumulate in the atmosphere and

cost variables, such as accessibility, minability, and may tend to raise temperatures at the Earth's surface by

transportation—variables that affect coal demand and trapping the heat from solar radiation. Those emissions

competitiveness. Reliable knowledge of U.S. coal reserves can be mitigated, however, by changes in extraction

is, therefore, important. practices and technologies, processing technologies, and

Despite steady improvements, coal is subject to outdated major greenhouse gases, CO made up 85 percent of the

notions of its environmental impacts. Although the estimated emissions, based on global warming potential.

amount of coal combusted for electricity generation has Coal consumption contributed 35 percent of that CO , as

increased consistently since World War II, the amount of estimated from all energy and industry sources.

sulfur dioxide (SO ) emissions from combusting that coal 2

has held steady or decreased each year since the Clearly, the country must rely on readily available coal for

implementation of the Clean Air Act in 1971. In 1994, the a major share of its energy, now and in the foreseeable

SO emissions from fossil-fueled steam electric generation, future. Businesses, utilities, and governments need data 2

almost all of which (96 percent) was attributable to coal, on the amounts and characteristics of reserves in the

3

Wabash River Repowering Project came on-line. It

4

2

5,6

end-use and combustion technologies. In 1993, of the four

2

2

7
2 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Energy Information Administration, Estimation of U.S. Coal Reserves by Coal Type: Heat and Sulfur Content, DOE/EIA-0529 (Washington, 8

DC, October 1989). 

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content, DOE/EIA-0529(92) (Washington, DC, 9

February 1993). 

Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, DOE/EIA-0383 (various years) (Washington, DC). 10

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Mineral Industry Surveys, “Demonstrated Coal Reserve Base of the United States on 11

January 1, 1974” (Washington, DC, June 1974).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production, DOE/EIA-0118 (Washington, DC, various years). 12

energy marketplace to plan investments in technologies Modeling System (NEMS), EIA's integrated energy

for environmentally responsible uses of coal and other forecasting system. The NEMS forecasts are the basis for

fossil fuels.

EIA Coal Reserves Data

This report is the third in a series published by the Energy

Information Administration (EIA) to provide data on coal

resources and reserves (see “Important Terminology” box)

allocated by estimated ranges of heat value and sulfur

content. EIA’s estimated recoverable reserves are derived

from the demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal in the

United States by applying adjustments for the percentages

of the DRB expected to be accessible, and for the percentages of the accessible DRB expected to be recoverable

by surface and underground mining. EIA’s recoverable

reserves at active mines, about which EIA is authorized to

collect simple tonnage and recovery rate estimates in its

annual Coal Production Report survey, rely on mine operator estimates, and cannot be classified as to geologic

assurance (see “Measured Resources” in “Important

Terminology” box).

Originally developed for use in EIA coal supply models,

the data in the first report (1989) were published to 8

broaden communication with the public on the available

data and analyses of coal resources and their characteristics and to refine estimates of the resources that may be

recoverable and suitable for future needs. The second

report, published in 1993, incorporated new coal resource 9

and quality data in three States. Further, it expanded the

1989 database into various non-producing areas of the

DRB. For the first time, coal quality and recoverability

estimates were available for all the States with DRB data.

The DRB is the only publicly available, nationwide data

file of the quantities of minable coal conforming to a

unified set of criteria. The DRB provides the basic input

for numerous coal and energy analysis and forecasting

models—both government and private. These include

EIA's Resource Allocation and Mine Costing (RAMC)

model, which provides input to other EIA models and is

used to answer congressional and executive department

requests and ad hoc analyses, and the National Energy

EIA's Annual Energy Outlook. The DRB is also used in 10

commercial models, such as ICF, Incorporated's Coal and

Electric Utility Model.

The Demonstrated Reserve Base

The in-place coal resources in the United States, including

the DRB and the identified and undiscovered resources,

occur within the rocks in certain coal-bearing areas

(Figure 1).

The DRB was originally devised to impart a uniform set of

definitions and criteria and replace the compilations of

variously defined coal reserve and resource data in

Federal and State studies available in the 1950's and

1960's. Engineers and geologists at the U.S. Bureau of

Mines (BOM) inaugurated the DRB in the early 1970's.11

They selected geologic reliability criteria (“measured” and

“indicated”) that included only resources based on

multiple field measurements or resource extensions

corroborated by measurements, within a defined study

area. Working with the thickness categories common to

contemporary coal assessments, they selected as minability criteria those broad ranges of coalbed thickness and

overburden thickness that encompassed most commercial

mining. For a discussion of the significance of the data

and criteria on updates of the DRB and related databases,

see Appendix A.

The EIA assumed responsibility for the DRB and for coal

reserves data in 1977, when DOE was established.

Between 1983 and 1993, EIA published annual updates to

the DRB in its annual Coal Production reports. Because of 12

differences between DRB data and the production data as

reported by coalbeds the EIA updates could be maintained only at the State level, by coal rank and type of

mining. Some State updates by EIA incorporated new

resource data by coalbed, but it was not feasible to

maintain the national DRB at the coalbed level. DRB

updates during the 1980s also broadened criteria in

locations where evidence showed that coal was being

mined from beds thinner or deeper than the standards

(Appendix A).
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 3

Important Terminology: Resources, Reserves, and the DRBa

“Resources” are naturally occurring concentrations or deposits of coal in the Earth's crust, in such forms and amounts that

economic extraction is currently or potentially feasible. 

“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 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) criteria, the points of observation are no greater than 1⁄2 mile apart (see Figure A1).

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 from 1⁄2 to 11⁄2- miles apart (see Figure A1). Indicated coal is projected to

extend as a 1⁄2-mile-wide belt that lies more than 1⁄4mile from the outcrop or points of observation or measurement.

 

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

“Demonstrated reserve base” (DRB) (or just “reserve base” in USGS usage) is, in its broadest sense, defined as those parts of

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 resource from which reserves are estimated. The reserve base 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 from

11⁄2 to 6 miles apart (Figure A1). Inferred coal is projected to extend as a 21⁄4-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.

“Recoverable” refers to coal that is, or can be, extracted from a coalbed during mining.

“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,” and “economic reserves” are redundant. Even though “recoverable reserves” is redundant,

implying recoverability in both words, EIA prefers this term specifically to distinguish recoverable coal from in-ground resources,

such as the demonstrated reserve base, that are only partially recoverable.

“Minable” refers to coal that can be mined under present-day mining technology and (in certain contexts) economics.

 For a full discussion of coal resources and reserve terminology as used by EIA, USGS, and BOM, see Appendix A, “Specialized a

Resource and Reserve Terminology.”

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

In 1990, EIA initiated the Coal Reserves Data Base (CRDB) The resulting revised coal resource estimates include the

program, to help meet the growing need for new sources DRB, along with accessibility adjustments, estimated

of data for U.S. coal reserves estimates. Unpublished recoverable reserves (recoverable coal), and allocations by

mapping data and coal quality data from various sources Btu, sulfur, and ash content using coal quality data

and years are commonly housed at State geological

surveys in a wide range of formats. In order to promote

the processing, analysis, and promulgation of such data,

EIA has encouraged active participation of State surveys

in the CRDB program.

coordinated with mapped resources. EIA's U.S. Coal

Reserves report in 1993 included new CRDB/State-agency

data in major portions of Ohio and Wyoming, resulting in

significant revisions. It also contained EIA revisions in the

Pennsylvania anthracite coal fields and Btu/sulfur range
4 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Figure 1. Coal-Bearing Areas of the United States

 Sources: United States Geological Survey, Coalfields of the United States, 1960-1961; Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Lignite

Resources in Texas, 1980; Louisiana Geological Survey, Near Surface Lignite in Louisiana, 1981; Colorado Geological Survey, Coal

Resources and Development Map, 1981; and Mississippi Bureau of Geology, 1983.

allocations for the DRB in parts of 10 other States. The mapping and field studies required to calculate identified

present report includes new State agency data developed coal resources, and it estimates undiscovered resources

via CRDB projects in New Mexico, Illinois, and eastern from extensions of available data based on known

Kentucky. geologic information. State geological surveys also may

Coal Resource Data Framework

The DRB is part of a larger system of coal resource data

and EIA's estimates of coal reserves are part of a hierarchy

of U.S. Government coal resource assessment data (Figure

2). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) performs the

map coal resources, and many do so in cooperation with

the USGS and have adopted USGS criteria as their

standards.

EIA's underlying responsibility is to develop reliable data

on coal reserves, but the coal reserves data EIA is

authorized to collect from the coal industry are too limited
RI

WI

B

S

S

S

B

S

L

L

A

BB

S

L

B

S

B

L

L

L

L

L

S

S

S

S

L

S

L

S

B

S

S

S

S

S

S L

L L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L L

L

L

L L L

L

L

L L

L

L

L

L

L

L

S

B

L

L

L L

L

L

L

L

L

L

S

B

B

S

L

L

L

L L

L

L

L

L

L

S

WA

ID

MT

NE

OR

UT

CA NV

AZ

NM

CO

WY

TX

OK

KS

AR

LA

MO

IA

SD

ND

MN

IL MI

IN OH

KY

TN

MS

AL GA

SC

NC

B

B

VA

PA

NY VT

NH

MA

NJ

DE

ME

AK

B

B

B

FL

B L

L

L L

L

S

S

L

S

L

B

B B

B

B

B

L L

L

L

S

S

B B

L

A

S

S

L

S

B

A

B

S

B

L

L L

L

L

S

B

B

BB A

S B

S

B

A

L

B

SCALE OF ALASKA ONE HALF THAT

OF CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES

100 0 100 200

SCALE IN MILES

Lignite

RANK

SMALL FIELD

OR ISOLATED

OCCURRENCE1

Bituminous Coal

Anthracite2 A

B

S

L

FIELD

Subbituminous Coal

MI

MD

CT

200 0 200 400

SCALE IN MILES

WV

L

L

L

L L

L

L L

L

L

L L L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

B

A

B

B

S

B

B

A

L

L

L L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L

L L

L

L L

L

L

L

B
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 5

Figure 2. Delineation of U.S. Coal Resources and Reserves

(Billion Short Tons as of January 1, 1995)

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

estimated recoverable reserves depicted near the top of the diagram assume that the 21 billion short tons of recoverable reserves at active mines

reported by mine operators to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) are part of the same body of resource data. This diagram portrays the

theoretical relationships of data magnitude and reliability among coal resource data. All numbers are subject to revision with changes in knowledge

of coal resource data.

 Sources: The DRB estimate was compiled by the EIA as of January 1, 1995. Estimated recoverable reserves were compiled in EIA's 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.

for mid- or long-term analyses. To supply a broader include inferred coal resources and all measured and

national database of coal reserves, EIA analyzes coal indicated resources currently too thin or too deep to

resource data—primarily the DRB, but also the other include in the DRB; and the undiscovered resources

measured, indicated, and inferred resource categories estimated by the USGS, which, along with identified

from which the DRB might be derived. These resource resources, constitute the comprehensive "total resources"

categories include: the DRB and estimated recoverable classification (Figure 2).

reserves, which EIA reckons from available data on coal

resources in the ground; the identified resources, which Although the data represented in Figure 2 are all

are estimated by USGS and State geological surveys and interrelated conceptually, in practice they cannot be
6 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Approximately 180 billion short tons of inferred resources were added to the coal data base from existing DRB data sources in areas 13

where the DRB was out of date and no significant new resource data were available. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook

1995, with Projections to 2010 and Annual Energy Outlook 1996, with Projections to 2015, DOE/EIA-0383(95) and DOE/EIA-0383(96) (Washington,

DC, January 1995 and January 1996).

maintained uniformly. The recoverable reserves at active and inferred resource data and extend allocations and

mines are updated annually. However, they represent analyses to the inferred if supported by the geologic

only a fraction of the reserves controlled by mining evidence. Inferred data can be updated at little or no

companies. EIA treats the recoverable reserves at active additional cost in CRDB studies and, even though inferred

mines as though they constitute a portion of its estimated data are not published by EIA, they supply useful

recoverable reserves. In reality, some of the data at mines information about mining potential in important areas.

may incorporate reserves from beyond the coverage of the

DRB and EIA’s estimated recoverable reserves data. The

mine data EIA receives are not detailed enough to allow

comparative analysis.

In many States, the active mines data may be more timely

than the broader resource studies from which estimated

recoverable reserves are derived. Similarly, the DRB data

are derived from more recent sources in many areas than

were available when the USGS compiled identified

resources and total resources as of 1974. Thus, in Figure 2,

the data for active mines are generally more current than

the DRB and its associated recoverable reserve estimates,

which are in turn more up to date than much of the total

resource data. Under current planning, there is little

likelihood that total resources of coal will be updated by

the USGS in the near future.

Recent Developments

In some situations, the most recent source data for the

DRB are old, and there may even be evidence that coal is

being mined that is not in the DRB. In other words, the

DRB in such areas is out of date. By definition, the DRB

almost never represents all the coal in the ground. It

represents coal that has been mapped, that meets DRB

reliability and minability criteria, and for which the data

are publicly available. The resource data assessment and

the DRB are clearly out of date if the resources being

mined supersede in quantity, location, or physical parameters, the resources that have been demonstrated. In that

event, analyses of current or projected production based

on the DRB alone would be data-restricted. That is, the

reserves may be in the ground but there is a shortfall of

reliable data. To resolve situations like that, EIA used

some data on inferred coal resources to develop coal forecasts published in the Annual Energy Outlook for 1995 and

1996.13

Inferred coal resources are not listed in this report because

they are less reliable than the DRB and because the

coverage of inferred data is not consistent from one State

to another. Recent CRDB studies include updated DRB

In the only currently active CRDB project, new data are

being incorporated in Part 2 of the Illinois study, due

January 1997. A project is being planned that would

revise coal resource estimates and update the CRDB in

several coalfields in Colorado, commencing in late 1996.

EIA has been able to obtain useful new accessibility and

recoverability data for some coal reserve estimates from

the USGS Coal Availability Studies (CAS) and the BOM

Coal Recoverability Studies (CRS) conducted before the

Bureau of Mines was shut down. The USGS recognizes the

value of the CRS, which complement its availability

studies with economic mining feasibility data, and it

included a vestigial CRS effort in recent USGS budget

proposals. It is not clear at this time at what level a CRS at

USGS will be funded. Both programs have been sources of

updated objective data for EIA’s coal reserves adjustments; their loss or reduction would impact EIA’s CRDB

program. As explained in Chapter 3, EIA has also adopted

some of the CAS criteria for “restricted resources” in its

own accessibility adjustments. This allows the DRB

criteria to remain more consistent because local coal

minability restrictions can be updated via the local

accessibility factors.

The USGS is proceeding with its National Coal Resource

Assessment (NCRA)—a project running from 1995 to 1999

to update basic U.S. coal resources data. The NCRA

incorporates new data in systematic study of designated

major coal deposits to produce a representative estimate

of resources for coalbeds that will produce the majority of

U.S. coal for the next 30 years. It does not attempt to

compile data for new total U.S. coal resource estimates,

which have long been beyond the scope of any fundable

Federal project. When completed, the NCRA data may

serve an important role in updating—or even replacing—EIA’s DRB.

About This Report

In this report, EIA adds new coal resource and coal quality

data in three States and updates the DRB and reserves
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 7

What's New in This Report

! Terminology – We modified some coal terminology related to resources and reserves for better clarity and for

consistency.

! Coal Resource and Reserve Data – New data from CRDB studies in eastern Kentucky, New Mexico, and Illinois

are presented and their derivation described.

! The Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimated Recoverable Reserves – Data are updated to January 1, 1995.

! Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines – We report the coal reserve data derived from EIA's annual survey of coal

producers, aggregated by coal supply areas, by surface- and underground-minable reserves, and by estimated

coal rank and sulfur ranges. The data are also presented and discussed in terms of the years of projected

production that they can support.

! Accessible Reserve Base – State-level tables of these data are no longer published. As an intermediate step in

estimated recoverable reserve compilations, the accessible reserve base was of limited interest. The net

accessibility factors and coal recovery rates for each State are still reported.

data to January 1, 1995. Chapter 2 reports on the In addition, reference information is included in two

derivation of new coal resource and reserve estimates in appendices. Appendix A discusses coal resource and

New Mexico, Illinois, and eastern Kentucky through reserve terminology at EIA and related terms at USGS,

cooperative agreements between EIA and the geological and explains their usage. Appendix A also contains

surveys of those States. In Chapter 3, the 1995 DRB and documentation for EIA’s criteria, updates, and changes in

estimated recoverable reserves are summarized and the DRB and estimated recoverable coal reserves.

discussed. Chapter 4 describes EIA's database of Appendix B contains tables of the DRB, estimated

recoverable coal reserves at active mines and analyzes the recoverable reserves, and the recoverable reserves at

implications of the data with reference to anticipated active mines, detailed by coal supply area, type of mining,

future investment in new mines. and sulfur ranges.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 9

Terminology related to coal resources and reserves is defined in the glossary following Chapter 4. A discussion of Federal programs 14

to develop coal resource and reserve data, and of their use of related terms, is included in Appendix A.

New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Demonstrated Reserve Base for Coal in New Mexico, by Gretchen K. Hoffman, Final 15

Report to the Energy Information Administration for Cooperative Agreement DE-FC0193EI23974 (Socorro, NM, 1994).

2. New EIA Coal Resource and

Reserve Data Derivations

This chapter includes descriptions of revisions in the coal because it is one of the remaining sizable sources of lowresource and reserve data in the coal supply areas of New sulfur compliance coal in the eastern United States and

Mexico, Illinois, and eastern Kentucky. The data were because the State holds a large database of coal resource 14

updated through cooperative agreements between EIA and coal quality data that could be coordinated in new

and the geological surveys of those States. The results of coal resource and reserve databases with the assistance of

these comparative agreements are updates to the data some of the same State personnel who had assisted in the

base of coal resources, including demonstrated reserve data collection and mapping.

base (DRB) and inferred coal resources, estimates of the

portions of the DRB that would be accessible for mining A limited project to update high-priority resources in

(the accessible reserve base) and estimates of the coal several Colorado coalfields is in planning. Colorado is

quantities recoverable from the accessible reserve base being considered because of the increasing importance of

(EIA’s estimated recoverable reserves). In addition, these the State as a shipper of high-quality bituminous coal to

coal resource and reserves data are allocated to heat and new domestic markets and because the State’s geological

sulfur content. survey has actively acquired and processed new resource

Each State was selected for updating based on a

combination of criteria, including: the importance of the

State as a coal producer; the relative quantities and

qualities of coals in the State; the existence of significant

new data to revise coal resource estimates and to analyze

the coal quality of those resources, the accessibility, and

the minability or recovery factors; the capability of the

State's geological survey to perform the mapping,

compilations, and analyses needed; and the availability of

key personnel in the geological survey to work on the

project within EIA's budget and performance period

requirements. 

New Mexico was selected because of the importance of

the San Juan Basin as a source of relatively low-sulfur coal

and because of the existence of an excellent coal resource

mapping program with new resource and coal quality

data that could be recompiled to EIA criteria by an

accomplished staff. Illinois was selected because of the

importance of its vast resources of coal, most of which

contain high amounts of sulfur, and the need to monitor

the impacts of changes in high-sulfur coal markets on

consumption and distribution patterns and on State and

regional economies. Eastern Kentucky was chosen

data and coal quality analyses that should permit a more

accurate profile of Colorado’s future coal supplies.

New resource and reserve assessments are needed in

numerous other States, but the data and/or the personnel

are not available. For example, in both Pennsylvania and

West Virginia coal resource reevaluations are in progress

that may take 4 or more years to complete. In the

meantime, it would be futile to try to update the coal

resource data using sources that would soon be obsolete.

Other States need revisions but do not have enough

mapping completed or qualified personnel on staff to

support the revisions. In some cases of that type there may

be no sources of coal resource data available that are

better than the sources EIA currently uses.

New Mexico 

Overview

The New Mexico update incorporates new resource

mapping in the San Juan Basin recompiled under an EIA

cooperative agreement with the New Mexico Bureau of

Mines and Mineral Resources (NMBMMR), which was

completed in July 1994. EIA developed DRB estimates 15
0 50 100

Miles

Coal-bearing area

Coal-fired power plant

Raton

Basin

San

Juan

Basin

10 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

DRB tonnages are influenced by rank because standard coal density values and bed thickness cutoffs conform to coal rank. 16

Figure 3. Coal-Bearing Areas of New Mexico

 Source: United States Geological Survey, Coalfields of the

United States, 1960.

in the Raton Basin from a separate report. The data of the the ranks of the coal. Coal analysis data in the State files

San Juan and Raton Basins constitute 99.7 percent of the indicated that much of the coal in the San Juan Basin that

DRB in New Mexico. The remaining 0.3 percent is based had previously been classified as subbituminous might in

on older data in small isolated fields throughout the State. fact be bituminous. The rank issues have now been settled

San Juan Basin

The San Juan Basin occupies more than 26,000 square

miles—more than 80 percent in northwestern New Mexico Data for this study consisted of point source data in the

and the remainder in neighboring Colorado. Numerous NMBMMR computerized database. These data are from

coal-bearing areas have been mapped within the basin. published sources, NMBMMR data files (i.e., NMBMMR

The new DRB developed by the NMBMMR for coal of the companies, Bureau of Land Management “inactive files,”

San Juan Basin, New Mexico, was 11.29 billion short tons data from Federal coal leases that are no longer active,

remaining as of January 1, 1993 (Table 1). This compares tract delineation studies, and NMBMMR coal studies.

with 4.40 billion short tons in the EIA's DRB as of the same Collection and entry of these data into the National Coal

data for all of New Mexico and 2.78 billion short tons for Resources Data System (NCRDS) is part of a cooperative

the San Juan Basin. The increase of 8.51 billion short tons grant with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Point

in the San Juan Basin DRB is based on data in the source data plotted on 7.5-minute quadrangle maps and

NMBMMR computerized data file. Many of these data hand-planimetered resource area measurements of these

points were on file in 1983 when EIA evaluated 11 billion data were reevaluated. Exposures of coal-bearing formashort tons of resources. Except for 228 million short tons of tions and/or members from the latest geologic mapping

undisputed bituminous resources, however, the data were transferred onto these data-point maps to delineate

could not be used in 1983 because of uncertainties about resource areas accurately.

16

and additional measurement points added to the

NMBMMR files.

The NMBMMR estimate includes revised resource

calculations in the San Juan Basin for San Juan, McKinley,

Sandoval, Rio Arriba, Bernalillo, and Cibola counties. The

DRB estimates include adjustments both for depletion due

to past mining and for accessibility and recoverability

(Table 2).

Data on sulfur, heat, and ash content from available

analyses appropriate for characterizing the State's remaining coal resources were coordinated with the

updated DRB. Coal quality data were examined in

conjunction with coal resource mapping. Samples from

exploration drill holes and coal coring as well as from

locations in or near mines within traditional coal resource

districts were consulted in allocating resource quantities

to ranges of sulfur and Btu content. The new allocations

placed 3.27 billion short tons, or 29 percent, of the San

Juan Basin DRB in the 0.41–0.60 sulfur content range

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu), as compared to 1.50

billion short tons, which represented 34 percent of the

New Mexico total, in EIA's previous DRB.

As part of the study, certain factors affecting coal

accessibility and recent data on mining recovery rates

were also analyzed. Based on the updated, January 1,

1993 DRB, the accessible reserve base for the San Juan

Basin was 10.33 billion short tons and estimated

recoverable reserves were 7.70 billion short tons. 

Oil and Gas Library geophysical logs), data acquired from
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 11

Table 1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1993)

County Formation

Geologic

Heat Content Sulfur

(million Btu 0.41- 0.61- 0.84- 1.25- Cate- 5.01- 10.01-

per short ton) 0.60 0.83 1.24 1.67 gories 10 15 > 15

Sulfur Content Ash Content

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu) (percent by weight)a

 Total All

Coal Rank: Bituminous

 Minable from Surface

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 – 24.81 31.30 – 56.11 – – 550.16

20-22.99 – 46.40 447.65 – 494.05 112.94 – –

Menefee 20-22.99 – 112.94 – – 112.94 – – –

McKinley Menefee 20-22.99 31.88 – – – 31.88 – 31.88 –

Crevasse 20-22.99 112.56 100.57 – – 213.13 213.13 – – b

Sandoval Menefee 20-22.99 6.40 20.85 40.84 – 68.09 – 68.09 –

Rio Arriba Menefee 23-24.99 – – – 7.63 7.63 – 7.63 –

All Counties Subtotal 15-19.99 – 24.81 31.30 – 56.11 – – –

Subtotal 20-22.99 150.84 280.76 488.49 – 920.09 – – –

Subtotal 23-24.99 – – – 7.63 7.63 – – –

Bituminous Surface Totals ........... 150.84 305.57 519.79 7.63 983.83 326.07 107.60 550.16

 Minable Underground

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 – 138.27 269.05 – 407.32 – – 862.80

20-22.99 – 204.26 251.22 – 455.48 – – –

Menefee 20-22.99 – 135.80 – – 135.80 135.80 – –

McKinley Menefee 20-22.99 10.51 – – – 10.51 – 10.51 –

Crevasse 20-22.99 239.26 129.75 – – 369.01 369.01 – – b

Sandoval Menefee 20-22.99 – 44.78 19.29 – 64.07 – 64.07 –

Rio Arriba Menefee 23-24.99 – – – 31.58 31.58 – 31.58 –

All Counties Subtotal 15-19.99 – 138.27 269.05 – 407.32 – – –

Subtotal 20-22.99 249.77 514.59 270.51 – 1,034.87 – – –

Subtotal 23-24.99 – – – 31.58 31.58 – – –

Bituminous Underground Totals ...... 249.77 652.86 539.56 31.58 1,473.77 504.81 106.16 862.80

Bituminous Total ................... 400.61 958.43 1,059.35 39.21 2,457.60 830.88 213.76 1,412.96

Coal Rank: Subbituminous

 Minable from Surface

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 1,059.12 605.61 874.73 – 2,539.46 – – 2,557.64

20-22.99 – 18.18 – – 18.18 – – –

Menefee 15-19.99 – – 72.07 – 72.07 – 72.07 –

20-22.99 – – 10.24 – 10.24 10.24 – –

McKinley Fruitland 15-19.99 – 483.89 – – 483.89 – – 483.89

Menefee 15-19.99 – – 444.35 114.75 559.10 5.82 804.31 –

20-22.99 26.62 – 224.41 – 251.03 – – –

Crevasse 15-19.99 – – – 662.51 662.51 – 662.51 – b

20-22.99 262.70 72.73 31.37 – 366.80 343.47 – 23.34

Gallup SS 20-22.99 – 1.15 35.36 29.16 65.67 – 65.67 –

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 1. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1993)

County Formation

Geologic

Heat Content Sulfur

(million Btu 0.41- 0.61- 0.84- 1.25- Cate- 5.01- 10.01-

per short ton) 0.60 0.83 1.24 1.67 gories 10 15 > 15

Sulfur Content Ash Content

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu) (percent by weight)a

 Total All

12 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Sandoval Fruitland 15-19.99 – 117.35 – – 117.35 – – 117.35

Menefee 20-22.99 41.62 39.88 100.63 – 182.13 170.04 12.09 –

Crevasse 15-19.99 – – 12.41 – 12.41 12.41 – – b

Cibola Crevasse 20-22.99 13.92 – – – 13.92 – 13.92 – b

Gallup SS 20-22.99 – – 0.56 – 0.56 – 0.56 –

Bernalillo Crevasse 15-19.99 – – 12.29 – 12.29 12.29 – – b

All Counties Subtotal 15-19.99 1,059.12 1,206.85 1,415.85 777.26 4,459.08 – – –

Subtotal 20-22.99 344.86 131.94 402.57 29.16 908.53 – – –

Subbituminous Surface Totals ........ 1,403.98 1,338.79 1,818.42 806.42 5,367.61 554.27 1,631.13 3,182.22

 Minable Underground

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 1,225.57 199.02 33.69 – 1,458.28 – – 1,501.34

20-22.99 – 43.05 – – 43.05 – – –

Menefee 15-19.99 – – 54.25 – 54.25 – 57.60 –

20-22.99 3.35 – 31.41 – 34.76 31.41 – –

McKinley Fruitland 15-19.99 – 127.09 – – 127.09 – – 127.09

Menefee 15-19.99 – – 300.52 308.46 608.98 50.74 853.19 –

20-22.99 148.34 – 146.60 – 294.94 – – –

Crevasse 15-19.99 – – – 457.58 457.58 100.70 457.58 30.61 b

20-22.99 25.33 24.17 81.80 – 131.30 – – –

Gallup SS 20.22.99 – – 9.95 1.20 11.15 – 11.15 –

Sandoval Fruitland 15-19.99 – 52.21 – – 52.21 – – 52.21

Menefee 20-22.99 56.01 20.03 110.03 – 186.07 172.78 13.29 –

Crevasse 15-19.99 – – – – –––– b

Cibola Crevasse 20-22.99 5.80 – – – 5.80 – 5.80 – b

Gallup SS 20-22.99 – – 1.33 – 1.33 – 1.33 –

All Counties Subtotal 15-19.99 1,225.57 378.32 388.46 766.04 2,758.39 – – –

Subtotal 20-22.99 238.83 87.25 381.12 1.20 708.40 – – –

Subbituminous Underground Total .... 1,464.40 465.57 769.58 767.24 3,466.79 355.63 1,399.94 1,711.25 

Subbituminous Total ................ 2,868.38 1,804.36 2,588.00 1,573.66 8,834.40 909.90 3,031.07 4,893.47 

 Percentage of ash is not differentiated by heat content categories. a

 Crevasse Canyon Formation. b

 Notes: Subtotals are shown by San Juan Basin coal resources falling within county boundaries, by geologic rock formation containing the

coal in each county, and by ranges of heat and sulfur content in each county/formation. Data may not equal sum of components due to

independent rounding.

 Source: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Demonstrated Reserve Base for Coal in New Mexico.

Coal rank, sulfur, Btu, and ash categories were deter- are sparse in many areas, particularly areas of greater coal

mined using all available analyses in the NMBMMR depth. The majority of analyses in the NMBMMR

quality database for the San Juan Basin. Coal analyses database are from cores or mine samples, totaling 1,313

were on the as-received basis, excluding samples with individual analyses. These were weighted by percent of

more than 33 percent ash yield. Some resource and quality total seam thickness and statistically averaged by

data are clustered in exploration or mine areas, but data township to determine quality categories for the DRB. A
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 13

Table 2. Accessibility Factors and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal in the San Juan Basin,

New Mexico

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1993)

County Formation DRB Factors DRB Categories

Geologic Total sibility sible Sulfur

Heat

Content

(million Btu

per short

ton) 0.41-0.60 0.61-0.83 0.84-1.24 1.25-1.67 a

Acces- Acces- Total All

b

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu)

Coal Rank: Bituminous

 Minable from Surface

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 56.11 0.89 49.94 0.00 19.43 24.51 0.00 43.95

20-22.99 494.05 0.89 439.70 0.00 36.34 350.60 0.00 386.94

Menefee 20-22.99 112.94 0.74 83.08 0.00 73.11 0.00 0.00 73.11

McKinley Menefee 20-22.99 31.88 0.92 29.31 25.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.80

Crevasse 20-22.99 213.13 0.93 197.96 92.00 82.20 0.00 0.00 174.20

Sandoval Menefee 20-22.99 68.09 0.91 61.96 5.12 16.69 32.70 0.00 54.52

Rio Arriba Menefee 23-24.99 7.63 0.89 6.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.95 5.95

All Subtotal 15-19.99 56.11 0.89 49.94 0.00 19.43 24.51 0.00 43.95

Counties Subtotal 20-22.99 920.09 0.88 812.01 122.92 208.34 383.30 0.00 714.57

Subtotal 23-24.99 7.63 0.89 6.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.95 5.95

Bituminous Surface Totals ....... 983.83 0.88 868.71 122.92 227.78 407.81 5.95 764.47

 Minable Underground

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 407.32 0.80 325.00 0.00 61.78 120.22 0.00 182.00

20-22.99 455.48 0.80 363.43 0.00 91.27 112.25 0.00 203.52

Menefee 20-22.99 135.80 0.67 91.58 0.00 51.29 0.00 0.00 51.29

McKinley Menefee 20-22.99 10.51 0.93 9.82 5.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50

Crevasse 20-22.99 369.01 0.99 365.14 132.58 71.90 0.00 0.00 204.48

Sandoval Menefee 20-22.99 64.07 0.94 59.99 0.00 23.48 10.11 0.00 33.59

Rio Arriba Menefee 23-24.99 31.58 0.86 27.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.24 15.24

All Subtotal 15-19.99 407.32 0.80 325.00 0.00 61.78 120.22 0.00 182.00

Counties Subtotal 20-22.99 1,034.87 0.86 889.95 138.08 237.93 122.37 0.00 498.37

Subtotal 23-24.99 31.58 0.86 27.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.24 15.24

Bituminous Underground Total . . . 1,473.77 0.84 1,242.18 138.08 299.71 242.58 15.24 695.62

Bituminous Total ............... 2,457.60 0.86 2,110.89 261.00 527.49 650.40 21.20 1,460.08

Coal Rank: Subbituminous

 Minable from Surface

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 2,539.46 0.97 2,454.90 900.99 515.19 744.13 0.00 2,160.31

20-22.99 18.18 0.97 17.57 0.00 15.47 0.00 0.00 15.47

Menefee 15-19.99 72.07 0.89 64.34 0.00 0.00 56.62 0.00 56.62

20-22.99 10.24 9.14 0.00 0.00 8.05 0.00 8.05 0.89

McKinley Fruitland 15-19.99 483.89 0.97 467.82 0.00 411.69 0.00 0.00 411.69

Menefee 15-19.99 559.10 0.92 514.09 0.00 0.00 359.55 92.85 452.40

20-22.99 251.03 0.92 230.82 21.54 0.00 181.58 0.00 203.12

Crevasse 15-19.99 662.51 0.96 634.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 558.17 558.17

20-22.99 366.80 0.96 351.17 221.33 61.28 26.43 0.00 309.03

Gallup SS 20-22.99 65.67 0.99 65.08 0.00 1.00 30.84 25.43 57.27

Sandoval Fruitland 15-19.99 117.35 0.97 113.45 0.00 99.84 0.00 0.00 99.84

Menefee 20-22.99 182.13 0.90 163.90 32.96 31.58 79.69 0.00 144.23

Crevasse 15-19.99 12.41 11.84 0.00 0.00 10.42 0.00 10.42 0.95

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table 2. Accessibility Factors and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal in the San Juan Basin,

New Mexico (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1993)

County Formation DRB Factors DRB Categories

Geologic Total sibility sible Sulfur

Heat

Content

(million Btu

per short

ton) 0.41-0.60 0.61-0.83 0.84-1.24 1.25-1.67 a

Acces- Acces- Total All

b

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu)

14 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, One Hundred Years of Coal Mining in the San Juan Basin, New Mexico, Bulletin 111, 17

by H.B. Nickelson (Socorro NM, 1988).

Cibola Crevasse 20-22.99 13.92 0.95 13.25 11.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.66

Gallup SS 20-22.99 0.56 1.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.49

Bernalillo Crevasse 15-19.99 12.29 0.99 12.11 0.00 0.00 10.66 0.00 10.66

All Subtotal 15-19.99 4,459.08 0.96 4,272.85 900.99 1,026.72 1,181.38 651.02 3,760.11

Counties Subtotal 20-22.99 908.53 0.94 851.50 287.49 109.33 327.08 25.43 749.32

Subbituminous Surface Total ..... 5,367.61 0.95 5,124.35 1,188.48 1,136.04 1,508.45 676.45 4,509.43

 Minable Underground

San Juan Fruitland 15-19.99 1,458.28 0.82 1,191.41 560.72 91.06 15.41 0.00 667.19

20-22.99 43.05 0.82 35.17 0.00 19.70 0.00 0.00 19.70

Menefee 15-19.99 54.25 0.90 48.86 0.00 0.00 27.36 0.00 27.36

20-22.99 34.76 0.90 31.31 1.69 0.00 15.84 0.00 17.53

McKinley Fruitland 15-19.99 127.09 0.96 122.10 0.00 68.37 0.00 0.00 68.37

Menefee 15-19.99 608.98 0.93 568.97 0.00 0.00 157.23 161.39 318.62

20-22.99 294.94 0.93 275.56 77.61 0.00 76.70 0.00 154.32

Crevasse 15-19.99 457.58 0.99 452.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 253.55 253.55

20-22.99 131.30 0.99 129.92 14.04 13.39 45.33 0.00 72.76

Gallup SS 20.22.99 11.15 0.93 10.36 0.00 0.00 5.18 0.62 5.80

Sandoval Fruitland 15-19.99 52.21 0.96 50.16 0.00 28.09 0.00 0.00 28.09

Menefee 20-22.99 186.07 0.94 174.61 29.43 10.53 57.82 0.00 97.78

Crevasse 15-19.99 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Cibola Crevasse 20-22.99 5.80 0.99 5.76 3.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.23

Gallup SS 20-22.99 1.33 0.99 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.74

All Subtotal 15-19.99 2,758.39 0.88 2,434.28 560.72 187.52 200.01 414.94 1,363.19

Counties Subtotal 20-22.99 708.40 0.94 664.01 126.00 43.62 201.61 0.62 371.85

Subbituminous Underground

 Total ....................... 3,466.79 0.89 3,098.29 686.72 231.13 401.62 415.57 1,735.04

Subbituminous Total ............ 8,834.40 8,222.64 1,875.20 1,367.17 1,910.07 1,092.02 6,244.47 0.93

 DRB = Demonstrated reserve base of coal, data from Table NM2. a 

 Aggregated data resulting from applying county/formational accessibility factors to appropriate DRB data; detailed component data not b

shown.

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

 Source: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Demonstrated Reserve Base for Coal in New Mexico.

type of geostatistical analysis known as kriging was Depletion of original resources was based on production

attempted on the coal quality data, but the mixture of figures determined from comparative analysis of four

clustered and sparse data produced invalid results. In data sources. Percentages of total tonnage by depth and

smaller, less-explored districts, where there may be very thickness for mining prior to 1962 were determined from

few quality data, the NMBMMR geologist drew on field individual mine data, the NMBMMR mine and resource

experience and familiarity with the geologic setting to databases, and Territorial and State Mine inspector

select data from adjacent areas to supplement the DRB reports. New Mexico Energy Minerals and Natural

coal quality allocations. Resources Department annual reports were used for

17
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 15

U.S. Geological Survey, Coal Resource Classification System of the U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 891 (Washington, DC, 1983). 18

Table 3. Land use Restrictions for Coal Accessibility, San Juan Basin, New Mexico

Restrictions

Total Acreage in SanJuan

Basin Coal Areas

Abandoned Mines ................................... 18,796

Streams, Lakes, Reservoirs ........................... 61,355

Residences, Towns, Public Buildings ................... a 22,065

Historic Sites and Non-Federal Public Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320

Highways and Railroads .............................. 5,766

Powerlines, Pipelines ................................ 12,404

National Parks, Wildlife Refuges, Recreation Areas ........ 17,558

Wilderness Study Areas .............................. 42,162

Oil and Gas Wells ................................... 151,476

Total Acreage Restricted ............................ 331,902

Total Acreage of Coal Resource Areas: ................ 4,013,693

Accessible Acreage of Coal Resources Areas .......... 3,681,791

 Cemeteries are included in acreages for towns. a

 Source: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 1994.

production data from 1970 through 1992. EIA production Inaccessible coal resource areas were compared to the

data were examined jointly with the data from the Terri- total resource areas on individual 1:100,000-scale quadtorial and State reports. Production data were assigned to rangles to calculate the accessible percentages. These

thickness and depth categories based on a percentage percentages were applied to the DRB to determine the

determined from the individual mine production data accessible DRB. Estimated recoverable reserves were

divided by the average total production. Depletion was derived from the accessible DRB by applying recent

calculated using average total tonnage figures (county weighted average recovery percentages for New Mexico

basis) for all years through 1992 with standard depletion from EIA coal mine survey files: 88 percent for surface

factors of 1.25 for surface and 2.00 for underground. For mining and 56 percent for underground.

recent years (1970–1992), mine production plus coal lost

in mining were subtracted directly from the original The DRB was compiled using USGS criteria for subdemonstrated resources. bituminous and bituminous coals. Subbituminous coals

The San Juan Basin includes several coalfields defined by and bituminous coal a density factor of 1,800, the

formational and political boundaries. The Fruitland, standard values assigned by the USGS. The NMBMMR

Menefee, and Crevasse Canyon formations are the major and EIA geologists contemplated different values because

Late Cretaceous coal-bearing units, and the Gallup Sand- of the high ash content of the San Juan Basin coal, but

stone contains small resources of coal. Original resources inconsistent coverage of analytical data made assigning

of these units were compiled by intermediate-scale different density values to all parts of the study area

(1:100,000) quadrangle and by county. The remaining infeasible. Additional ash content categories of 10.01–15

DRB, Btu and sulfur ranges, and ash categories were percent and greater than 15 percent were added to

calculated on a county basis. All the county evaluations accommodate the greater percentages of ash common in

were based on formation totals from individual field many San Juan Basin coals. The subbituminous DRB

summaries in the database. Land use restrictions for includes coal as thin as 2.5 feet, and the bituminous DRB

accessibility factors were digitized on the 1:100,000 includes coal as thin as 28 inches within surface-minable

quadrangles and overlaid with digitized coal resource depths (Table 4). Coal with less than 20 feet of overareas to determine inaccessible regions. The criteria used burden was excluded from the original resource and DRB

and the total areas affected by land-use restrictions within estimates because coal within this interval is generally

the coal resource area are listed in Table 3. weathered and cannot be used for energy production.

were assigned a density factor of 1,770 tons per acre-foot

18
16 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Pillmore, Charles L., “Geology and Coal Resources of the Raton Coalfield,” in Coalfields of New Mexico: Geology and Resources, U.S. 19

Geological Survey, Bulletin 1972 (Reston, VA, 1991), pp. 49-68.

U.S. Geological Survey, Coal Resources of New Mexico, Circular 89 (Washington, DC, 1950). 20

Table 4. Coal Resource Criteria Used in the Demonstrated Reserve Base, San Juan Basin, New Mexico

Coal Seam Thickness

(underground or surface mining)

Overburden Thickness

(depth from surface)

Bituminous Subbituminous

28-42 inches 2.5-5 feet 0 to 200 feet Surface

> 42 inches 5-10 feet 200 to 500 feet Underground

> 10 feet 500 to 1,000 feet Underground

 Source: New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, 1994.

Raton Basin

The DRB for the New Mexico portion of the Raton Coal

Field was updated with data and information published

in 1991. The author of the 1991 report has done geologic 19

mapping and coal resource investigations in the Raton

Basin over three decades and also brings to bear extensive

contacts with coal company personnel in the area.

Although rounded to protect sources, the new data reflect

more thorough and timely knowledge of the coal

resources than EIA's former data source.20

The Raton Basin lies astride the Colorado-New Mexico

border, roughly half of its area in each State (Figure 3).

The New Mexico portion, covering 900–1,000 square

miles, is in Colfax County in the northeastern corner of the

State. Coal resources occur in two geologic formations: the

Vermejo formation, of Upper Cretaceous age, and the

Raton Formation, of transitional Upper Cretaceous-Paleocene age.

The resources are of bituminous rank, reported by coalbed

or coal zone for six mining districts in the Vermejo

Formation and eight districts in the Raton Formation. The

1.48 billion short tons of resources documented in the

report are demonstrated (having measured and indicated

geologic reliability), with average thicknesses ranging

from 2.5 to 6.5 feet. Of that amount, 1.29 billion short tons

were usable in the DRB. The previous DRB published by

EIA included 1.30 billion short tons after adjustments

 for cumulative depletion to 1993. Although the apparent

difference is small, the revised DRB is based on more

detailed thickness measurements and definitions of

coalbeds and mining districts. The new DRB includes

detailed coal quality data, more relevant to resources still

in the ground.

The Raton Basin DRB as of January 1, 1991, based on

remaining resource estimates in the 1991 report, included

the following:

Raton Basin, New Mexico Vermejo Formation Raton Formation Raton Basin Total

Demonstrated Reserve Base (million short tons (million short tons) (million short tons)

Surface Minable ................ 0.00 60.20 60.20

Underground Minable ........... 775.00 453.20 1,228.20

Totals ........................ 775.00 513.40 1,288.40

The DRB was depleted to January 1, 1995, to account for preference to NMBMMR data and EIA data because they

coal mining and losses, using EIA annual coal production include coal sampled at active mines and in undeveloped

data and standard 1.25 surface and 2.00 underground parts of the field corresponding with remaining DRB.

depletion factors. EIA adjusted surface and underground DRB for

The Btu and sulfur ranges for the coal were allocated from is based on assumed land use restrictions of 5 percent or

data on ranges of sulfur content and on representative less in the Raton Field and assumed unmined barrier

proximate analyses in the 1991 report. These were used in areas of 5 percent or more, for an average accessibility of

accessibility using 0.90 accessibility factors for both. This
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 17

Ibid. 21

Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois Coal Reserve Assessment and Data Base Development: Final Report for Part 1, Open-File Series, 1995- 22

11, published report prepared for the Energy Information Administration (Champaign, IL, 1995).

About 5 percent of the coal in the less than 42-inch category was mapped using prior criteria and includes beds as thick as 47 inches. 23

90 percent. Recovery rates of 0.88 surface and 0.56 geologic trends were compiled and mapped to allocate

underground were based on regional averages of mine coal resources to ranges of sulfur and heat content and to

recovery rates collected on EIA’s annual coal production rank group. The new allocations place almost 1 percent of

survey. the DRB of Illinois in the two lowest sulfur categories, as

The Raton Field bituminous coal data, allocated by Btu allocations also place 89 percent of the DRB in the highest

and sulfur range, are included with the San Juan Basin sulfur category, as compared with EIA's previous

subbituminous and bituminous coal data, as of January 1, allocation of 69 percent.

1995, in Tables B1 and B2. Those tables also include 37.9

million short tons of bituminous and 2.3 million short tons By comparing depletion of reserves as calculated from

of anthracite DRB in four other small districts in New maps of mined areas with reported production and

Mexico. These data are based on the earlier DRB source, recovery rates, ISGS uncovered some potential pitfalls in

USGS Circular 89. estimating depletion based on reported production, and 21

Illinois

Overview

The identified resource, DRB, and estimated recoverable

reserves for the State of Illinois are being updated in a

two-part cooperative agreement between EIA and the

Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS). The first part was

completed in November 1995 for resources in all parts of

the Illinois coalfield using new data that were

immediately available and could be fully implemented in

a 12-month project period. The second part will 22

incorporate existing data that require broader analysis

and will focus on potential DRB estimates in coal seams

with low to medium sulfur content and on areas currently

lacking reliable DRB estimates.

The new DRB of coal in Illinois was 90.05 billion short

tons, as of January 1, 1994 (Table 5). This compares with

78.01 billion short tons in EIA's most recent DRB, as of

January 1, 1993. The new estimate includes revised

resource calculations based on recent mapping in a

number of counties, as well as significant adjustments for

depletion due to past mining. The new estimate for

identified resources is 188 billion short tons, as compared

with the previous estimate of 181 billion short tons.

The new resource estimates also incorporate analyses of

sulfur and heat content and rank data appropriate for

characterizing the remaining coal resources in Illinois.

Available coal quality data were examined in conjunction

with coal resource mapping. Samples from exploration

drill holes, channel samples from mines and outcrops, and

compared with none in EIA's previous allocation. These

demonstrated the need for knowledge of mine operations.

Issues included production data reported on the basis of

tipple location rather than point of extraction and

depletion of reserves classified as surface-minable by

underground mining. The destruction of unmined

reserves by preferential mining of lower seams is an

important issue but could not be estimated from the

statistics.

The January 1, 1994, accessible reserve base was estimated

at 61.61 billion short tons (Table 5). EIA's previous

(January 1, 1992) accessible reserve base estimate of 56.49

billion tons excluded surface-minable coal under prime

farm land, an exclusion that is no longer considered valid.

The new estimate excludes resources under towns,

interstate highways, and public land; undergroundminable resources less than 4 feet thick; resources in small,

irregular blocks between mines; and coal allocated for

barriers and small blocks left in future mines. For

underground mining, the coal accessibility related to

surface-feature land use restrictions ranges from 42

percent to 100 percent, varying by coalbed and county.

These accessibility rates were further reduced to account

for irregular blocks of coal and barriers expected to be left

unmined, and to exclude coal less than 42 inches thick.23

For surface mining, a net accessibility factor of 80 percent

or less was applied to all coalbeds and counties. This was

based on determinations that: (1) On average, 15 percent

of future mining will be inaccessible because of barriers

between mine blocks and at property boundaries and

because of irregularly shaped isolated resource blocks that

cannot economically be accessed; and (2) another 6

percent, on average, is expected to be restricted due to

land use conflicts. In addition, specific limited-accessibility restrictions were identified in several counties.
18 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Table 5. Estimates of the Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Bituminous

Coal in Illinois by Btu/Sulfur Range and Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1994)

Heat content Total

(million Btu per All Sulfur

short ton) < 0.40 0.41–0.60 0.61–0.83 0.84–1.24 1.25–1.67 1.68–2.50 > 2.50 Categories

Sulfur Content

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu)

Demonstrated Reserve Base

 Minable from Surface

 < 20 . . . . . . – – – – – 8.84 121.98 130.82

 20 – 22.99 . . – – – 3.59 18.37 421.74 14,020.05 14,463.76

 23 – 24.99 . . – – 1.36 26.42 20.12 80.81 1,089.44 1,218.15

 25 – 25.99 . . – – – – – – 373.88 373.88

 Total ..... – – 1.36 30.01 38.49 511.39 15,605.35 16,186.60

 Minable Underground

 20 – 22.99 . . 72.71 498.09 805.51 1,322.16 1,103.43 2,169.84 43,707.90 49,679.65

 23 – 24.99 . . 0.02 16.92 245.26 890.21 703.86 1,490.37 19,662.01 23,008.65

 25 – 25.99 . . – – – – – – 1,170.13 1,170.13

 > 25.99 .... – – – – – – 9.45 9.45

 Total ..... 72.73 515.01 1,050.76 2,212.38 1,807.29 3,660.21 64,549.48 73,867.88

 Minable Total

 <20 . . . . . . . – – – – – 8.84 121.98 130.82

 20 – 22.99 . . 72.71 498.09 805.51 1,325.76 1,121.80 2,591.58 57,727.95 64,143.41

 23 – 24.99 . . 0.02 16.92 246.62 916.63 723.98 1,571.18 20,751.45 24,226.80

 25 – 25.99 . . – – – – – – 1,544.01 1,544.01

 > 25.99 .... – – – – – – 9.45 9,45

 Total ..... 72.73 515.01 1,052.12 2,242.39 1,845.79 4,171.60 80,154.84 90,054.48

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

 Recoverable from Surface

 < 20 . . . . . . – – – – – 4.91 68.22 73.13

 20 – 22.99 . . – – – 1.53 9.79 233.51 8,038.30 8,283.13

 23 – 24.99 . . – – 0.92 17.94 13.67 52.73 716.71 801.97

 25 – 25.99 . . – – – – – – 214.61 214.61

 Total ..... – – 0.92 19.47 23.45 291.14 9,037.85 9,372.84

 Recoverable Underground

 20 – 22.99 . . 5.31 108.89 274.45 433.94 355.58 688.95 14,363.69 16,230.82

 23 – 24.99 . . 0.01 4.36 75.40 349.88 275.53 588.70 6,821.03 8,114.91

 25 – 25.99 . . – – – – – – 284.01 284.01

 > 25.99 .... – – – – – – 1.85 1.85

 Total ..... 5.32 113.25 349.85 783.82 631.12 1,277.66 21,470.58 24,631.59

 Recoverable Total

 < 20 . . . . . . – – – – – 4.91 68.22 73.13

 20 – 22.99 . . 5.31 108.89 274.45 435.47 365.37 922.46 22,402.00 24,513.95

 23 – 24.99 . . 0.01 4.36 76.32 367.83 289.20 641.43 7,537.74 8,916.88

 25 – 25.99 . . – – – – – – 498.61 498.61

 > 25.99 .... – – – – – – 1.85 1.85

 Total ..... 5.32 113.25 350.77 803.29 654.57 1,568.80 30,508.43 34,004.43

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

 Source: Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois Coal Reserve Assessment and Data Base Development: Final Report for Part I., Open-File Series 1995-

11.
0 50 100

Miles

Coal-fired power plant

Coal-bearing area

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 19

A drift mine enters the coalbed directly at a location where the coal and overlying rocks are exposed, typically in a natural hillside. In 24

Illinois, drift mines sometimes access the coal seam via an artificial exposure, such as a “final cut” high wall, where the overburden becomes

too thick for further surface mining, or in a box-like pit excavated specifically to create an exposure surface in the coal seam.

Illinois State Geological Survey, Minable Coal Reserves of Illinois, Bulletin 78 (Champaign, IL, 1952) 138 pp. 25

 Source: United States Geological Survey, Coalfields of the

United States, 1960.

The ISGS is currently involved in a multiyear study Figure 4. Coal-Bearing Areas of Illinois

supported by the USGS to assess the availability of coal

for mining. When complete, the findings from the Coal

Availability Studies are expected to lead to additional

adjustments in the accessible reserve base.

Estimated recoverable reserves, 34.00 billion short tons as

of January 1, 1994, were calculated using recovery factors

of 50 percent for underground-minable reserves and 70 to

85 percent (depending on location and thickness) for

surface-minable reserves (Table 5). These rates were

selected based on data on the depletion of reserves and on

mine production from January 1979 to January 1994. The

recovery rates account for coal that would be lost in

cleaning and handling or left as pillars or barriers in

mines.

Study Area

Illinois has the largest DRB of bituminous coal and the

second largest DRB of any State. The Illinois coalfield

(Figure 4) is in the Interior Region of the country and

covers most of Illinois as well as western portions of Indiana and Kentucky. Minable coal is found in the Pennsylvanian-age strata of the basin. The rank of the coals

is high volatile bituminous, ranging from the A rank

group at the extreme southern margin of the basin to rank

groups B and C in the southern, central, and northern

portions of the basin.

Since the development of modern surface mining equipment, coals as deep as 150 feet have commonly been

mined by surface methods. Large dragline and shovel

mining or small truck and shovel operations are the

primary forms of surface mining. Augering is sometimes

used to recover additional coal from the final cut of a

surface mine.

Shafts and slopes are the most common means of access to

underground mines, but some mines employ a drift

entrance constructed at an abandoned surface mine

highwall or a box cut. Partial and high extraction room- 24

and-pillar mining and longwall mining methods are used.

During the past 10 years, production has shifted from

entirely room and pillar to more than 30 percent from

longwall operations.

Methodology and Criteria

In the early 1950s, members of the ISGS Coal Section staff

completed the first comprehensive survey of coal

resources in the State. The landmark report on the 25

survey results, published in 1952, provided a framework

and format generally followed in subsequent resource

assessments. In particular, it established reliability categories adapted to reflect the lateral continuity of most

coals found in Illinois (Table 6). The 1952 report is also

the only source of resource and reserve estimates for a few

seams in some counties that have not attracted sufficient

interest to warrant revised mapping.

The ISGS categories of reliability are comparable to those

defined by the USGS. Because of the considerable lateral

continuity of most Illinois coals, however, the radii of

influence assigned to each datum point are larger than

those used by the USGS. The ISGS categories of class I-A,

I-B, and II-A are considered equivalent to the USGS

categories of measured, indicated, and inferred resources

and had previously been accepted as such in EIA coal

resource data.
20 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Table 6. Reliability Classifications for Coal Resources in Illinois

Class

Maximum

Distance from

Datum Points*

Accepted

Datum Points Remarks

I-A 0.5 mile Mined-out areas Approximately equivalent to

Proved Diamond drill holes measured category of the

(Measured) Outcrops U.S. Geological Survey

Coal test geophysical logs

I-B 2 miles All points of Class I-A plus coal- Approximately equivalent to 

Probable test churn drill holes indicated category of the U.S.

(Indicated) Geological Survey

II-A 4 miles All points of Classes I-A and I-B Approximately equivalent to 

Strongly Indicated plus churn drill holes drilled for inferred category of the U.S.

(Inferred) oil or water with unusually good Geological Survey

records, control rotary drill holes

and oil-test geophysical logs

 * Distances modified in practice by geological considerations.

 Source: Adapted from ISGS Bulletin 78, 1952.

Although the DRB did not exist at the time of the 1952 underground methods such as room-and-pillar or

report, the criteria used in the study are compatible with longwall mining.

current DRB definitions and would indicate a DRB of 61

billion tons. Additional mapping since 1950 raised the The factors that determine the method used to mine a

DRB to 78 billion tons as of January 1, 1993. particular deposit are primarily economic rather than

The ISGS began computerizing its coal resource mapping average stripping ratio of the mine block, nature of the

in the 1960s. Computers expedite merging of coal overburden material, surface ownership and land use,

thickness data with data on coal depth, sulfur, rank, proximity to other surface features, as well as the capital

heating value, and mined areas, and with other infor- and previous mining experience of individual companies.

mation such as calculated depletion, accessibility, and

recoverability of reserves. Future updates, revisions, and The ISGS has found the 150-foot depth line to be the most

accessibility adjustments can also be made more representative average delimiter between surface-minable

efficiently with a digital database. and underground-minable resources. Surface-minable

Many of the coal resource maps needed for this study minimum thickness of 18 inches. Underground-minable

were already in a digital format of some kind. For this resources are defined as having a minimum thickness of

study, all data were combined into a common digital map 28 inches. These minimum thicknesses are based on hisdatabase to facilitate processing as well as to provide a torical mining practice in the State. For economic reasons,

suitable foundation for future updates and revisions. All seams less than 48 inches thick have not been extensively

remaining paper maps were digitized into the common mined underground in Illinois for the past three decades

database and numerous adjustments were made to edge or more; however, reserves less than 48 inches thick were

match and correlate all data from earlier databases and retained in the DRB for this study in order to provide

base maps. compatibility with current DRB estimates of other mid-

 western States. As explained later, they are excluded from

Resources and reserves were divided into categories based the accessible reserve base.

on the type of mining method most likely to be used. The

surface-minable category consists of coals most likely to The categories of coal seam thickness and overburden

be mined by removing the overburden to expose and thickness followed in Illinois are summarized below

mine the coal. The underground-minable category (Tables 7 and 8). No maximum depth was established for

consists of resources that will be extracted by underground-minable reserves. The deepest mapped

technical. The main factors are thickness of the coal,

resources are defined by ISGS convention as having a
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 21

American Society for Testing and Materials, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 5, Petroleum Products, Lubricants, and Fossil Fuels, 26

Volume 5.05: Gaseous Fuels, Coal and Coke (Philadelphia, PA, 1990).

Table 7. Categories of Coal Seam Thickness

in Illinois

Thickness Rangea

(inches)

Average Thickness

(feet)

18-28 2b

28-42 3

42-54 4

54-66 5

66-78 6

78-90 7

90-102 8

102-114 9

$ 114 10

Thickness ranges expressed in even-inch values a

represent the isopach contour lines mapped to define

areas of average thickness. Isolated thicknesses corresponding to the upper limit of a range are included in the

next thicker range.

Surface-minable coal only. b

Source: Illinois Coal Reserve Assessment and Data

Base Development, Open-File Series 1995-11, 1995.

Table 8. Categories of Overburden Thickness

Underground Mining

(feet)

Surface Mining

(feet)

150-500 0-50

500-1,000 50-100

1,000-2,000 100-150

Note: Thickness ranges expressed in even-foot

values represent the isopach contour lines mapped to

define areas of average thickness. Isolated thicknesses

corresponding to the upper limit of a range are included

in the next thicker range.

Source: Illinois Coal Reserve Assessment and Data

Base Development, Open-File Series 1995-11, 1995.

resources in the State are slightly more than 1,500 feet to formulas of Standard D388, American Society for

deep. Interviews with representatives of mining com- Testing and Materials. The coal analyses were used to

panies indicated that this depth does not prevent mining. map million Btu per ton and pounds of sulfur per million

Coal tonnages were calculated using a density factor of

1,800 tons per acre per foot of coal thickness (equivalent to

1.32 specific gravity). The mean value of the two contours

defining an area was used for this calculation. For

example, the area between the 5.5-foot and 6.5-foot

isopachs was assumed to have an average thickness of 6

feet.

Depletion was calculated and analyzed both using information on mined areas, production data, and recovery

factors. The results were compiled to update the DRB to

January 1, 1994, and to provide comparative statistics on

reported production and depletion of reserves. EIA

depleted January 1, 1994, data to January 1, 1995, for

Appendix Tables B1 and B2, using EIA production data

and standard depletion factors.

Resources were allocated to EIA coal quality categories for

sulfur, rank, and calorific value. ISGS has on file more

than 4,000 analyses of Illinois coal. The majority of these

samples are of the face channel type; other sample types

include column, bench, drill core, grid, run of plant, run of

mine, and various float/sink fractions. These samples

were collected and analyzed by ISGS staff, the U.S.

Bureau of Mines, or coal companies. Face channel,

column, composite bench, and drill core samples were

used in the study. All Illinois coals are high-volatile

bituminous. Coal rank changes systematically with

distribution and depth of the deposit in the coal field.

Rank is determined by calculating the heating value of

samples on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis, according

26

Btu on an as-received basis and to assign corresponding

coal resources to the Btu/Sulfur ranges used in EIA

allocations.

Coal Accessibility Adjustments

The accessible reserve base can be thought of as the

portion of the DRB that can be mined at present, when

local or regional mining practice and technologies and

physical or geologic conditions are taken into account. For

recent resource studies and revisions, EIA has broadened

the concept of accessibility to include the limiting effects

of certain technological and geologic conditions. In the

past, such adjustments were made in the resource

database, by the field investigator or within the DRB derivation, and were difficult to reassess. EIA is using the

assessment capabilities of computerized resource mapping systems to enhance the comparability of EIA coal

accessibility and USGS coal availability. The expanded

definition has been incorporated into the Illinois study.

The accessible reserve base includes essentially that

portion of what the USGS would define as available

resources that would meet DRB criteria. For all new
22 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Illinois State Geological Survey, Deep-Minable Coal Resources of Illinois, Circular 504 (Champaign, IL, 1982). 27

Table 9. Factors Considered and Applied in Illinois to Estimate the Accessible Reserve Base

Factor Considered Applied? Remarks

Technical

Prime farmland No There is no evidence that prime farmland restricts access.

Areas densely drilled for oil No The presence of wells does not raise costs enough to restrict

access.

Barrier pillars and small Yes Tonnage of existing blocks and barriers was calculated

 blocks between mines from maps. Tonnage of blocks and barriers created by future mining

was estimated to be 15 percent of reserves otherwise accessible.

Thin coal Yes Underground-minable reserves <48 inches thick were excluded.

Land Use The tonnage of underground-minable reserves restricted by all land

use categories was estimated from previous mapping; 6 percent of

all surface-minable reserves was assumed to be inaccessible

because of land use.

Interstate highways Yes

Towns Yes

Cemeteries Yes

Public lands Yes

 Source: Illinois Coal Reserve Assessment and Data Base Development, Open-File Series 1995-11,1995. 

resource updates, EIA will coordinate coal accessibility mine regulations do not preclude mining prime farmland.

and coal availability to the extent feasible. Further, surface mine operators in Illinois are successfully

At the time of the EIA cooperative agreement, the ISGS

was in the third year of a multiyear USGS Coal

Availability Study (CAS). Five quadrangles had been

evaluated, about 20 percent of the number needed to

reliably assess availability of resources in Illinois. The

amount of coal available for mining in the sample areas

ranged from 18 percent to 61 percent of the original

resources. Technical factors such as thickness of the coal

and overlying bedrock, roof and floor conditions, faults,

and size of the mining block account for most of the

restrictions on coal availability. Land use restricts from

less than 1 percent to 16 percent of the resources in the

quadrangles studied. Although it was too early to apply

most of the initial findings of this study, some preliminary

observations were incorporated into this estimate of

accessible resources. Final findings of the CAS are

expected to significantly alter the accessible reserve base.

The factors considered for estimating the accessible

reserve base are listed in Table 9.

Almost 60 percent of the 36 million acres of land in Illinois

are classified as prime farmland. EIA's estimate of

accessible coal in Illinois had excluded surface-minable

reserves in areas of prime farmland, but Illinois surface

mining and reclaiming prime farmland, and in CAS

interviews with operators, they did not consider it a limit

to reserve accessibility. For these reasons, prime farmland

was not a factor in estimating the new accessible reserve

base.

Since 1952, the ISGS had excluded areas densely drilled

for oil from its calculation of reserves. Coal mining experts

interviewed by Treworgy and Bargh in 1981 confirmed 27

this restriction and the amount of coal excluded (9.6

billion tons) was documented. The thinking was that

safety considerations prevent mining coal in such areas. In

the CAS, however, it was found that mining companies no

longer regard closely spaced oil wells as an absolute

barrier to mining. Although regulations require that a

barrier pillar be left around wells, experienced mining

companies have been allowed to reduce the size of the

pillar. In many cases of abandoned wells, it has been

feasible to plug the well to meet specifications and then

mine through it.

The decrease in the amount of coal recovered and/or the

increase in the cost of mining is not severe enough to

consider the reserves inaccessible.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 23

The five CAS quadrangles completed by the end of the underground-minable reserves and is mid-range for the

Coal Reserves Data Base (CRDB) study contain about 2 surface-minable resources in the CAS quadrangles

percent of the underground-minable resources in the State studied to date.

and include all the major seams. Six of the eight

companies operating major underground mines in the Other factors that restrict the accessibility of reserves

State were interviewed. All six considered coal less than include insufficient thickness of the bedrock overburden,

42 inches thick as presently too thin to mine economically insufficient thickness of or incompetent interburden, and

by underground methods. Because there are few natural unfavorable roof and floor conditions. The impacts of

outcrops, most underground mines require extensive these factors are not understood well enough at this time,

exploratory and development drilling to obtain data for but at the completion of the Illinois CAS, the accessible

mine planning and permitting and for the construction of reserve base may be adjusted to include as many of these

slopes and shafts for the movement of air, miners, factors as practical. The January 1, 1994, accessible reserve

materials, and coal. To recoup these expenses, mines must base is considered more accurate than the previous data

produce large tonnages of low-cost coal. Mining in thin even though based partly on preliminary CAS data.

seams requires more acreage and the mining costs are

higher. For these reasons, underground-minable reserves

less than 42 inches thick have been excluded from 28

accessibility in this update.

A significant portion of inaccessible resources consists of

blocks of coal left as barrier pillars (the law requires 200

feet between mines) or simply left out because of the

geometry of the mine plan, early abandonment of a mine,

inability to obtain land ownership or mineral rights, or

unfavorable geology. Once surrounded by abandoned

mines, these blocks are too small or irregular to be

minable. The approximate area of coal rendered inaccessible by mining was calculated by creating a 200-foot

buffer around each mine and adding to that any areas of

coal considered to be unminable because of the small size

of a mining area, convoluted geometry, or proximity to

mined areas. The tonnage of coal in the adjusted buffer

areas was calculated and excluded from the accessible

reserve base.

Additional blocks will become inaccessible as mining

continues. The ISGS found that, on a county-by-county

basis, the amount of inaccessible coal ranged from 6

percent to more than 40 percent of the original resources

in mined areas, or roughly 20 percent on a Statewide

basis. Since some of this coal may have been left because

of surface features, which are accounted for separately, it

was assumed that 15 percent of the coal otherwise

qualified for the accessible reserve base will be rendered

inaccessible by future mining.

Earlier investigations have identified land uses such as

interstate highways, railroads, cemeteries, towns, and

public lands as factors that limit the accessibility of coal.

However, changes in mining practice and findings from

CAS indicate that land use restrictions have changed. For

this assessment, an interim 94-percent rate of accessibility

was applied to the surface-minable DRB in all counties to

account for land use restrictions. This figure was chosen

because it coincides with the statewide average for

Recovery Rates

EIA provided data on reported recovery rates from

individual mines in Illinois for the years of 1991 to 1993.

These data were compared with regional recovery rates

calculated from depletion (measured from resource maps)

and production data (compiled from State reports).

Recovery rates for underground reserves were calculated

by comparing cumulative depletion of underground

reserves with reported production. For those counties

where a valid comparison could be made, recovery rates

for the period 1979 through 1993 ranged from 40 percent

to 58 percent on a county and seam basis, averaging 48

percent for all seams and counties combined. This agrees

with EIA's data for 1991 through 1993, which show a

weighted average recovery rate of 50 percent for all

underground mines. Based on these statistics, a factor of

50 percent was used to calculate remaining recoverable

underground-minable reserves.

Consideration was given to using a higher recovery rate

in counties where longwall mining is being practiced;

however, EIA data did not show consistently higher

recovery rates at mines operating longwalls. This is

probably due to the influence of such factors as geology,

amount of coal preparation, and development stage of

individual mines. A valid comparison between depletion

and production could not be made in several counties

where reported production included production from

outside the county, or underground-minable reserves

were depleted by surface mining, or production was too

limited to measure depletion at the scale of mapping.

EIA data for individual surface mines for 1991 through

1993 showed recovery rates ranging from 60 to 90 percent,

with a weighted average of 75 percent. These figures compare favorably with recovery rates in selected counties, as

calculated from cumulative depletion of surface-minable

resources and reported cumulative production from
24 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

About 5 percent of the coal in the less than 42-inch category was mapped using prior criteria and includes beds as thick as 47 inches. 28

Energy Information Administration, New Demonstrated Reserve Base of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, Final Report by the Kentucky 29

Geological Survey, as amended, July 26, 1994 (Washington, DC, 1994).

Energy Information Administration, Coal Industry Annual 1994, DOE/EIA-0584(94) (Washington, DC, October 1995) p. 5. 30

surface mines. Both the EIA data and the ISGS cumulative the U.S. Bureau of Mines Coal Recoverability Studies

depletion data from base year of mapping to 1994 indicate (CRS) in the region could not be implemented because of

that recovery rates are lower for thinner seams or seams insufficient CRS data during the project period. The

with many impurities. The Herrin Coal in the estimated recoverable reserves instead used EIA

northwestern part of the State commonly contains recoverability factors, verified against recovery rates

impurities—a widespread parting known as the “blue reported on EIA's annual Coal Production Report, Form

band” and prevalent occurrences of “white top” and clay EIA-7A.

dikes. Based on these data, a recovery rate of 70 percent

was used in this study to calculate surface-minable The KGS delivered its study results in July 1994. Although

reserves for seams less than 42 inches thick or for the some data could not be developed to the extent both KGS

Herrin Coal in northwestern Illinois. A recovery rate of 85 and EIA planned due to unavailability of source data, the

percent was used for all other surface-minable reserves. two agencies continue to cooperate to improve the coal

Eastern Kentucky

Overview

The Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS), working in

cooperation with the EIA, compiled a new DRB estimate

for coal in the eastern Kentucky coalfield of 12.86 billion

short tons remaining as of January 1, 1993 (Table 10).29

This compares with 8.60 billion short tons in EIA's eastern

Kentucky DRB for the same date. The new estimate is

based on previously calculated KGS coal resource data,

but includes thicker overburden criteria for the surfaceminable DRB and a new methodology to estimate surface

minability in eastern Kentucky. The updated DRB also

includes adjustments for resource accessibility and

recoverability. 

The new estimates incorporate analyses of sulfur and heat

content data from KGS files suitable for characterizing

eastern Kentucky coal resources. Coal quality data were

examined in conjunction with coal resource mapping. The

new allocations place 9.4 percent of the DRB in the highest

sulfur category (2.5 or more pounds of sulfur per million

Btu), as compared with 2.3 percent in EIA's previous

allocation. The difference derives from the profile of the

KGS coal quality database.

Certain factors affecting coal resource availability and

recent data on mining recovery rates were also examined.

These resulted in new (January 1, 1993) estimates of the

accessible reserve base for eastern Kentucky of 9.64 billion

short tons and estimated recoverable reserves of 7.18

billion short tons (Table 10). This project was the first to

utilize results of USGS Coal Availability Studies (CAS). A

proposed methodology to incorporate information from

reserve database.

Study Area

The eastern Kentucky coalfield is the part of the Appalachian coal basin that lies within Kentucky (Figure 5).

The eastern Kentucky field covers more than 10,400

square miles and includes all or parts of 39 counties

underlain by Pennsylvanian age rocks. Minable coal

resources have been mapped by the KGS in 36 of those

counties. The coalfield lies in rugged mountainous terrain

in the southeast, in steep hills and uplands dissected by

tributaries to the Ohio and the Big Sandy Rivers to the

northeast, and in eroded plateaus and rolling hills in the

central and western counties. The coalfield is broken into

six coal resource districts, based on mining centers,

geology, physiography, common coalbed nomenclature,

and transportation patterns. 

This study does not involve the second major coalfield in

the State (in western Kentucky) which is also in

Pennsylvanian-age rocks (Figure 5). The centers of the

eastern and western Kentucky coalfields are about 230

miles apart, and they are separated by 80 miles at their

closest margins. The western Kentucky field is found in

the nonmountainous counties south of the Ohio River,

opposite southwestern Indiana and southeastern Illinois.

Coal production from all of Kentucky in 1994 was 161.6

million short tons, just behind that of second-place West

Virginia at 161.7 million short tons. The Kentucky production included 124.4 million short tons from eastern

Kentucky, which even by itself was exceeded by the

production of only two States, Wyoming and West

Virginia. Counting the production from western 30

Kentucky, the State was the leading U.S. producer as

recently as 1987.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 25

Table 10. Demonstrated Reserve Base and Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Bituminous Coal in

Eastern Kentucky by Btu/Sulfur Range and Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1993)

Heat Content

(million Btu per

short ton)

Sulfur Content

(pounds of sulfur per million Btu) Total

All Sulfur

< 0.40 0.41–0.60 0.61–0.83 0.84–1.24 1.25–1.67 1.68–2.50 > 2.50 Categories

Demonstrated Reserve Base

 Minable from Surface

 < 20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 20.17 50.42 100.85 60.51 40.34 141.18 413.47

 20-22.99 ....... 0.00 201.69 121.02 151.27 50.42 211.78 211.78 947.95

 23-24.99 ....... 0.00 262.20 292.45 221.86 141.18 231.95 252.11 1,401.75

 25-25.99 ....... 10.09 302.54 453.81 262.20 151.27 151.27 110.93 1,442.09

 > 25.99 ........ 242.03 2,208.52 1,149.64 816.85 594.99 605.07 231.95 5,849.05

 Total ......... 252.11 2,995.11 2,067.34 1,553.02 998.37 1,240.40 947.95 10,054.31

 Minable Underground

 < 20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 5.63 14.07 28.15 16.89 11.26 39.41 115.40

 20-22.99 ....... 0.00 56.29 33.78 42.22 14.07 59.11 59.11 264.59

 23-24.99 ....... 0.00 73.18 81.63 61.92 39.41 64.74 70.37 391.25

 25-25.99 ....... 2.81 84.44 126.66 73.18 42.22 42.22 30.96 402.51

 > 25.99 ........ 67.55 616.43 320.88 227.99 166.07 168.88 64.74 1,632.55

 Total ......... 70.37 835.98 577.02 433.47 278.66 346.21 264.59 2,806.30

 Minable Total

 < 20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 25.80 64.49 129.00 77.40 51.60 180.59 528.88

 20-22.99 ....... 0.00 257.98 154.80 193.49 64.49 270.89 270.89 1,212.53

 23-24.99 ....... 0.00 335.38 374.08 283.78 180.59 296.69 322.48 1,793.00

 25-25.99 ....... 12.90 386.98 580.47 335.38 193.49 193.49 141.89 1,844.58

 > 25.99 ........ 309.58 2,824.95 1,470.52 1,044.84 761.06 773.95 296.69 7,481.59

 Total ......... 322.48 3,831.09 2,644.36 1,986.49 1,277.03 1,586.61 1,212.54 12,860.61

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

 Recoverable from Surface

 < 20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 11.26 28.16 56.32 33.79 22.53 78.85 230.92

 20-22.99 ....... 0.00 112.64 67.59 84.48 28.16 118.27 118.27 529.42

 23-24.99 ....... 0.00 146.44 163.33 123.91 78.85 129.54 140.80 782.86

 25-25.99 ....... 5.63 168.96 253.45 146.44 84.48 84.48 61.95 805.39

 > 25.99 ........ 135.17 1,233.43 642.06 456.20 332.30 337.93 129.54 3,266.63

 Total ......... 140.80 1,672.74 1,154.58 867.35 557.58 692.75 529.42 5,615.22

 Recoverable Underground

 < 20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 3.14 7.86 15.72 9.43 6.29 22.01 64.45

 20-22.99 ....... 0.00 31.44 18.86 23.58 7.86 33.01 33.01 147.76

 23-24.99 ....... 0.00 40.87 45.58 34.58 22.01 36.15 39.30 218.49

 25-25.99 1.57 47.16 70.74 40.87 23.58 23.58 17.29 224.78

 > 25.99 ........ 37.73 344.24 179.20 127.32 92.74 94.31 36.15 911.70

 Total ......... 39.30 466.85 322.24 242.07 155.62 193.34 147.76 1,567.18

 Recoverable Total

 < 20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 14.41 36.02 72.04 43.22 28.82 100.86 295.36

 20-22.99 ....... 0.00 144.08 86.45 108.06 36.02 151.28 151.28 677.18

 23-24.99 ....... 0.00 187.30 208.92 158.49 100.86 165.69 180.10 1,001.36

 25-25.99 ....... 7.20 216.12 324.18 187.30 108.06 108.06 79.24 1,030.17

 > 25.99 ........ 172.90 1,577.68 821.26 583.52 425.04 432.24 165.69 4,178.32

 Total ......... 180.10 2,139.59 1,476.82 1,109.42 713.20 886.09 677.18 7,182.40

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

 Source: Energy Information Administration, New Demonstrated Reserve Base of the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field, as amended, July 26, 1994.
Miles

0 50 100

Coal-fired power plant

Coal-bearing area

Western Kentucky

Field

Eastern

Kentucky

Field

26 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

U.S. Geological Survey, Coal Resources Available for Development--A Methodology and Pilot Study, by J.R. Eggleston, M.D. Carter (and J.C. 31

Cobb, J. C., Circular 1055 (Washington, DC, 1990).

Figure 5. Coal-Bearing Areas of Kentucky

 Source: United States Geological Survey, Coalfields of the

United States, 1960.

Methodology and Criteria

In 1983 the KGS completed a 7-year assessment of the coal

resources of the eastern Kentucky coalfield. The results of

that research, referred to as the 1983 Coal Resources, were

original identified resources, compiled for coalbeds

thicker than 14 inches by seam thickness and data

reliability for each coalbed, county, and district. The 1983

Coal Resources were calculated following standard USGS

criteria for “measured,” “indicated,” and “inferred” data

reliability. All major coalbeds in all the counties of eastern

Kentucky were included in the study. A database of

approximately 20,000 coalbed thicknesses was used in

calculating the resources at a scale of 1:24,000 (7.5-minute

quadrangles). Results were aggregated at the county level

by coalbed.

A joint study was begun in 1986 by the USGS and KGS to

examine the coal resources available for development in

selected 7.5-minute quadrangles in eastern Kentucky.31

This pilot project was successful and became the first

study in the CAS program. As of 1993, fifteen CAS had

been completed in the central Appalachian coal basin,

nine of which were suitably located for the EIA Coal

Reserves Data Base (CRDB) project in eastern Kentucky.

Eight of the nine CAS quadrangles were in eastern Kentucky. The ninth, completed by the Virginia Division of

Mineral Resources, was located on the Kentucky–Virginia

state line and was useful in the eastern Kentucky study.

The initial research in the U.S. Bureau of Mines CRS

program was also done in eastern Kentucky. During the

EIA project period, CRS were in progress in four

Kentucky quadrangles, and the results would be used in

the CRDB project had they been available. By the end of

the project, however, only the pilot study was near

completion and no final reports had been released. The

KGS had developed a methodology to incorporate data

from the 1983 Coal Resource Program, CAS, and CRS, as

well as from the KGS Coal-Quality Data Base and

production data from the Kentucky Department of Mines

and Minerals into a single database, but delays in data

from the CRS and inadequate detail in production data

eventually led to alternative analyses for recoverability

and depletion.

The DRB for bituminous coal in eastern Kentucky

includes measured and indicated resources for coalbeds

of 28 inches or greater thickness. The surface-minable

DRB includes measured and indicated resources 14 to 28

inches thick as well as 28 inches or thicker.

EIA keeps the depth cutoff for the surface-minable DRB

flexible to allow for variations in local geology and mining

practice, and for evidence that the resources can be mined

economically at present. Based on that policy, the surfaceminable criterion was extended from 120 feet to 200 feet

of overburden in eastern Kentucky. This maintains compatibility with the USGS criteria for identified resources

being used in eastern Kentucky CAS, which recognize

that some mines have been removing as much as 200 feet

of overburden in eastern Kentucky—especially when

mining several coalbeds (“multi-seam operations”). Also,

mountain-top removal surface mines commonly remove

as much as 200 feet of overburden. The overburden

thickness criterion for deep- or underground-minable

resources was extended from 1,000 feet, in the previous

DRB, to 2,500 feet in mountainous locations. This reflects

current mining practice for underground drift mines in

mountainous terrain in eastern Kentucky and was the

depth cutoff in effect for the 1983 Resource Program. EIA's

previous DRB did not include mapping information by

which to distinguish resources situated for drift mining

beneath overburden of more than 1,000 feet.

Surface- and underground-minable DRB were estimated

using district average thickness-of-overburden factors

developed from the data in the nine CAS completed by

project end. Measured and indicated coal resources in

qualified bed thickness ranges were allocated to underground and surface categories for each county/coalbed,
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 27

according to the district in which they occur. Resources in more relevant to emission standards governing comthe inferred reliability category were not allocated. bustion of the coal.

The KGS compiled allocations separately for measured

and indicated resources. The ratio of measured and

indicated resources varies from one quadrangle to another

and is typically related in this region to the degree of

topographic dissection and the number of coal measurements at outcrops and highwalls versus at drill holes or

working face. The topographic relationships that affect the

measured and the indicated resources, by bed thickness

and overburden thickness categories, also affect coal

availability factors to varying degrees.

Depletion adjustments were applied to the original DRB

data to account for coal recovered or lost in past mining.

No depletion adjustments were made to inferred resources. In a few instances in which calculated depletion

tonnages exceeded the DRB, the remaining DRB was

reduced to zero. This situation indicates either that mining

has taken place in areas of inferred resources or in areas

with insufficient KGS file data to calculate any resource

estimate, or that DRB estimates are incomplete. The

depletion estimates, covering more than 200 years’

production in some counties, were compiled using EIA

standard depletion factors of 1.25 (surface) and 2.00

(underground) for county-level production tonnages

supplied by the Kentucky Department of Mines and

Minerals (KDMM) for the years 1790 through 1992, from

underground and surface production allocations by

KDMM, KGS, and EIA. The DRB data were depleted to

January 1, 1995, using EIA coal production data. 

Coal Quality Allocations

The surface and underground DRB were allocated to heat

value and sulfur-content categories using data and

locations from field samples and mines within traditional

coal resource districts. The KGS Coal Quality Data Base

and data from the Kentucky Center for Applied Energy

Research were used to subdivide the resources. Together,

these databases contain approximately 2,000 coal-quality

analyses for the eastern Kentucky coalfield. Of these, the

1,291 KGS analyses were primarily from channel samples

taken in roadcuts or mines or from borehole cores. These

analyses are believed to represent remaining coal

resources better than historical data, largely from preparation plants or loading points. Only data from beds 14

inches or thicker were used in this analysis because the

quality of thinner-bedded coals is highly variable and

would not be representative of the coal thicknesses in the

DRB. Analytical values in Btu per pound and percent

sulfur by weight were converted to millions of Btu per

short ton and pounds of sulfur per million Btu, which are

Coal quality of the DRB and the associated accessible

resources and reserve estimates were characterized by one

of three methods: (1) using analyses from specific

coalbeds with numerous samples, aggregated at the

county level; (2) using analyses with fewer samples from

specific coalbeds, but aggregating at the district level; and

(3) using characteristics of all remaining coalbeds occurring in a district. Method 1 was used where at least 20

samples per county for a specific coalbed were on file.

Method 2 was used for coalbeds without sufficient

samples for Method 1 but with at least 40 samples per

district. Btu and sulfur content data were statistically

distributed to EIA Btu and sulfur content ranges and coal

resources were allocated proportionately at the

county/coalbed level or at the district/coalbed level.

Method 3 was used in the many cases where the number

of coal quality data points were insufficient to characterize

the coalbeds in a county or district. In these cases, coalquality data for the coalbeds in a district were first

aggregated, then their resources statistically distributed to

EIA Btu/sulfur ranges.

The portion of the updated 1993 DRB allocated to the

highest sulfur content category (2.5 or more pounds of

sulfur per million Btu) was 1.21 billion short tons, or 9.4

percent of the total DRB, six times higher than the 0.20

billion short tons, or 2.3 percent of the total, in EIA's 1992

DRB. On the other hand, the updated DRB tonnage in the

compliance coal sulfur content category (less than 0.61

pounds of sulfur per million Btu) was virtually equal to

EIA’s previous estimate. It was 4.15 billion short tons, or

32.2 percent of the total DRB, compared with 4.02 billion

short tons in EIA's 1992 DRB. Since the EIA tonnage was

apportioned from a smaller total DRB, however, compliance coal represented 45.7 percent of the former total.

The KGS attests that the updated DRB and estimated

recoverable reserves allocations are more accurate because

the data in its coal quality database better reflect

remaining resources. Samples in areas already mined

were used to a much smaller extent in the KGS allocations

than was possible using the EIA coal quality data. Only a

small proportion of the KGS data were collected from

mine sites. The KGS geologists found that current and

historic mines were largely concentrated in higher-quality

coalbeds and that analyses from these sites consequently

may be more representative of past mining than of

remaining resources. The true distribution of quality in

future resources will be known with certainty only when

the coals are accessed, but the KGS findings indicate that

a large part of the remaining DRB will be of poorer quality
28 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

EIA’s maximum 120 foot overburden thickness included coal with as little as 80 feet and as much as 120 feet of cover. The average 32

thickness was 100 feet.

In 1986, in connection with a correction to its own underground-minable DRB (with 100+ feet of overburden), EIA estimated that 14-28 33

inch beds comprised 8.68 billion short tons, or 46 percent of the measured and indicated resources deeper than 100 feet in 14-inch or thicker

beds. Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1985, DOE/EIA-0118(85) (Washington, DC, November 1986), p. 119.

than in the past and that some of that coal may be Because of the 200-foot highwall criterion, three sigeconomically uncompetitive for mining. nificant changes are reflected in the revised DRB:

Coal Accessibility Adjustments

A methodology was developed to apply appropriate data

from the detailed study areas of the CAS to the resources

data of the 1983 Coal Resource Program. The methodology draws on the nine CAS quadrangles and projects

average values from the two or three quadrangles judged

most representative of conditions in each of the six coal

resource districts, based on location, geologic setting, and

topography. The CAS examined the effects on resource

availability of land use constraints, geologic or physical

constraints, mining restrictions due to regulations, and

mined-out blocks of coal. In the CAS, these constraints

were correlated with specific features or trends, delineated on the maps, and their areas and affected coal

resource tonnages calculated. The types of constraints

included in the present study were land use restrictions

(cemeteries, faults, oil and gas wells, powerlines, roads,

streams, towns) and technological restrictions (barriers, oil

and gas wells, coal too thin to mine at present). Applied to

resources already meeting DRB criteria for geologic

assurance, coalbed thickness, and overburden thickness,

these constraints yielded the accessibility factors. The net

accessibility for the six districts ranged from 80.2 percent

to 91.2 percent.

The updated criteria used to calculate a surface-minable

DRB were broadened from EIA's previous criteria—a

more conservative maximum “highwall” of 120 feet—to

a limit of 200 feet in this study. The highwall is the

escarpment in the overburden produced by excavating to

the coal in a surface mine. Resources beneath more than

200 feet of overburden are assumed to be recoverable only

by underground mining technologies. Coal resources in

the CAS quadrangles had been mapped at standard USGS

thickness increments. To distinguish surface- and deepminable resources, the critical limitation in eastern

Kentucky is the 28-inch coalbed thickness. Therefore,

resources were compiled for 14-to-28-inch and greaterthan-28-inch categories. Coal thinner than 14 inches (very

thin bedded) was not evaluated in the 1983 Resources

because such beds are not commonly surface-mined.

When they are, it is the unusual, very thin beds of high

quality that may be recovered, in association with thicker

beds that can sustain a profitable operation.

 1. The surface-minable DRB now includes resource

data greater than 28 inches thick and beneath 10032

to 200 feet of cover that formerly would have been in

the underground-minable DRB. The underground

DRB is reduced by that same amount. It is not

feasible to calculate that amount precisely because of

differences in methodologies. The EIA assessment

was based on analysis of surface topography and

potential surface-minable acreages and the KGS

assessment was based on three-dimensional CAS

mapping of coalbeds and topography, extrapolated

to coal resource districts.33

 2. In addition, the surface-minable DRB is increased by

the resources 14 to 28 inches thick and beneath 100

to 200 feet of cover. Since such resources are too thin

to mine by conventional underground techniques,

they formerly were not included in either the

underground DRB or the surface DRB. It happens

that more than half of the original resource estimates

in eastern Kentucky are 14 to 28 inches thick, so

adding a part of those resources in the bettermapped, near-surface areas adds a significant

amount of coal.

 3. Finally, the new DRB for surface-minable coal contains a smaller percentage of recoverable coal (i.e.,

estimated recoverable reserves) than the old surface

DRB. This is because the economics of surface

reserves, assuming there is a market for the coal at

the time, is sensitive to the overburden ratio—the

ratio of tons of overburden that must be moved to

tons of recoverable coal in the mined rock sequence.

Thin-bedded resources with 100 feet of overburden

may be economically minable based on market value

alone because they can be recovered with low levels

of technology: that is, without investment in highcapacity equipment or expensive techniques. To

mine the same thin beds under 200 feet of overburden may be profitable only in association with

one or more thicker beds or only if some of the thin

beds are of exceptional quality. 

During data reviews, EIA recognized that an increase in

the surface-minable DRB relative to the underground DRB

in eastern Kentucky was appropriate; however, the large
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 29

quantity of thin-bedded resources in the rock sequence EIA used the statistics on measurement points to calculate

and the costs of mining to a 200-foot surface-mining cutoff the relative amounts of coal in the DRB in beds 28 inches

would depress net recovery factors by an unknown or thicker and in each 1-inch increment from 14 through

amount. Since available data from the single Bureau of 27 inches. These same measurement points were the basis

Mines CRS was insufficient to revise regional recovery of the measured and indicated resource estimates in the

factors, and no operable public database has data on DRB. The relative value of each thickness increment was

overburden ratios or on amount of overburden at active calculated as the number of measurement points in each

mines, EIA turned to alternative information to evaluate increment weighted by the overall number of measurerecoverability of thin-bedded resources under 200-foot ment points and by the effects of thickness on the tonnage

surface-mining limits. within the 14– to 28–inch DRB. These calculations

EIA estimated the effects of bed thickness on net recover- is restricted because beds are generally too thin to mine at

ability of surface-minable resources by reassessing present. That factor was used to adjust the accessible DRB.

accessibility restrictions for beds too thin to mine at The effect of this adjustment was to reduce the net

present. The EIA methodology included statistical accessibility of surface-minable DRB in eastern Kentucky

analyses of all surface production from 14– to 27–inch from 86.5 percent to 70.7 percent.

beds in selected years between 1983 and 1993 to

determine the distribution of production by bed thickness.

The production was analyzed by 1-inch increments from

14 through 27 inches (production reported from 28 inch

beds is depleted from the 28– to 42–inch DRB) and for

single-seam and multi-seam mines. Single-seam mines

were found to account for only 12 percent of the 14– to

27–inch production. Further, in only one district, the “Big

Sandy,” did recent production trends involve the entire

14– to 27–inch category. Another district normally

produces thin coal only from beds 20 inches or thicker,

two districts only from beds 24 inches or thicker, and two

districts produce no appreciable coal from 14– to 27–inch

beds.

EIA designated that bed thicknesses with no appreciable

recent production be considered as accessibility-restricted

because they are too thin to mine at present. The

accessible reserve bases in the six districts were adjusted

as follows:

 ! In the Big Sandy the 14– to 28–inch DRB was not

restricted.

 ! In one district the DRB thinner than 20 inches was

restricted.

 ! In two districts the DRB thinner than 24 inches was

restricted.

 ! In two districts the entire DRB thinner than 28 inches

was restricted.

Because the KGS resource data were hand-planimetered

in the late 1970s and early 1980s for set bed-thickness

intervals, the resources in smaller thickness increments

between 14 and 28 inches were not known. The KGS

could, however, supply statistics on the total number of

measurement points used in the 1983 Resources and for

each 1-inch increment in the 14– to 27–inch range.

indicated that a net 47.3 percent of the 14– to 28–inch DRB

Coal Recoverability Adjustments

Coal recoverability adjustments for eastern Kentucky

could not be based on the results from the four CRS in the

study area. Projected CRS release schedules during the

project period did not materialize and only preliminary

results from the Matewan Quadrangle CRS were available

for review. Also, the preliminary Matewan recoverability

data were for only one bed, the Upper Elkhorn No. 3B,

which is a dominant resource in the Matewan quadrangle

but may not be typical of some other major beds in eastern

Kentucky. Interestingly, the recovery rates for surface and

underground mining in the Matewan quadrangle were

within 2 percentage points of the average of recent rates

reported by active mine operators throughout eastern

Kentucky on EIA's annual coal production surveys.

Therefore, EIA retained the recoverability rates used since

1992 to derive estimated recoverable reserves from the

accessible reserve base, a regional average of 0.79 for

surface mining and 0.62 for underground.

After analyses of all the CRS in the region have been

completed, the KGS will incorporate the results into the

KGS/DRB computer routines and regenerate estimated

recoverable reserves for the coalfield. These results will be

made available to the EIA.

The extrapolation factors employed in the KGS cooperative agreement with EIA were calculated based on

general geographic regions and geologic settings. A

methodology is being tested by KGS and the USGS that

uses geologically mappable factors to reflect local

conditions more accurately within regional summaries.

The test methodology used a limited sample of detailed

CAS digital mapping data and has shown that the

technologic restriction of coal too thin to mine by
30 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

underground methods is the principal controlling factor, locations in eastern Kentucky, EIA estimates that as much

at least for coal availability in eastern Kentucky. Since this as 5 billion short tons of the surface-minable DRB may be

restriction is a function of overburden thickness (which minable by either method, underground or surface. The

was not measured in the 1983 Resources), proxy variables portions of that 5 billion short tons ultimately recovered

using data that have been mapped in all 7.5-minute by each method could not be anticipated. It will depend

quadrangles are being sought to predict the coal-too-thin- on the variables mentioned in the paragraph above, as

to-mine parameter. It remains, however, undetermined well as the quality of the coal and the market and prices at

whether this would be applicable to DRB accessibility the time of mining.

adjustments.

Implications of New Eastern Kentucky DRB

The eastern Kentucky DRB increased by nearly 4.3 billion

short tons as a result of the EIA cooperative study with the

KGS. Most of the increase is due to changes in the criteria

used and the data available to estimate surface-minable

coal. Expanding the overburden limit for resources

potentially minable from the surface reflects changes in

mining practice and mapping criteria. The DRB increase

results from an increase of about 8.5 billion short tons in

surface-minable DRB and a decrease of about 4.3 billion

short tons in the underground DRB. 

The databases at the KGS do not include automated

means to remap and recalculate old hand-planimetered

coal thickness areas or to calculate corresponding overburden thicknesses or ratios in the complex topography

and geologic structures. Some coal that is minable by

surface methods is also minable by underground

methods. The categories are not mutually exclusive in

marginal overburden and bed thickness conditions. Some

portion of the coalbeds that are 28 inches thick or thicker,

with overburden of 100 to 200 feet, will likely be

recovered by underground mining. The method of

recovery depends on factors such as the equipment

available, the type of mining committed to, and the

sequence of mining in the area.

Because recovery is generally higher for surface mining,

the EIA assumes that surface mining is the preferred

option. Coal that is potentially recoverable by surface

mining is assigned to the surface DRB and, as in this case,

thinner beds may be included that would not be in the

underground DRB. From what is known about the

distribution of bed thicknesses and measurement point

The underground-minable estimated recoverable reserves

for 1995 are 1.41 billion short tons. At the current rate of

production at underground mines, this would be depleted

in 19 or 20 years. Some portion of the 5 billion tons of

surface-minable DRB noted above will probably be

recovered in the shallow sections of underground mines,

but some of the associated thinner beds that could be

mined in a surface operation will thereby be rendered

unminable.

Based on the supplemental evidence of the established

mining and coal delivery infrastructure in eastern

Kentucky, EIA has included inferred resource data in the

database used in National Energy Modeling System

(NEMS) coal supply projections for EIA’s Annual Energy

Outlook. The existence of these inferred resources are well

enough documented to allow their limited use to develop

more realistic projections of future coal supplies than can

be done with the DRB alone. The small ratio of reserves to

production is also an indication that, despite a long-term

mapping program, there are areas in eastern Kentucky

where coverage of publicly available data and drilling

programs is inadequate for a complete DRB or resource

assessment.

Recoverable coal reserves at active mines are low in

eastern Kentucky (see Chapter 4). For underground

mines, the recoverable reserves of low-sulfur coal are

sufficient to meet projected levels of production for only

about 5 years. This projection is not a measure of all

attainable reserves, and the actual dates of depletion

would vary from mine to mine, but it does give insight

into the relative amount of reserves that can be mined in

eastern Kentucky with the current capital investment. To

add to this capacity will require new investments in new

mines.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 31

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1992, DOE/EIA-0118 (92) (Washington, DC, October 1993), pp. 71-75. This report 34

was discontinued in 1993 and superseded by the Coal Industry Annual. The DRB had been updated annually in the Coal Production series but

updates are not included in the Coal Industry Annual reports. 

3. 1995 Demonstrated Reserve Base and

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

Demonstrated Reserve Base

The demonstrated reserve base (DRB) of coal in the

United States as of January 1, 1995, contains an estimated

496 billion short tons. This is an increase of nearly 22

billion short tons over the previous (January 1, 1993) DRB

estimate of 474 billion short tons. The increase is 34

attributable to updated coal resource data from EIA's Coal

Reserves Data Base (CRDB) projects in New Mexico (+ 8

billion short tons), Illinois (+ 12 billion short tons), eastern

Kentucky (+ 4 billion short tons), including adjustments

for the effects of resource depletion (– 3 billion short tons).

Not all the coal in the DRB is recoverable. EIA's latest

estimates of the recoverable portions of the DRB indicate

that about 55 percent of the national DRB estimate may be

recovered by mining.

The DRB includes coal from States in all geographic

regions. Nearly half the DRB is found in the Western

Coal-Producing Region (Table 11). Coal resources

believed to be minable by surface mining make up onethird of the DRB, the major part of which (58 percent)

occurs in the West. On the other hand, two-thirds of the

DRB may be recoverable only by underground mining,

and more than half of that amount (56 percent) is found

in the Interior and Appalachian Coal-Producing Regions.

Coal ranks, which are generally related to coal heating

values, increase from the lowest rank, lignite, toward the

highest rank, anthracite, with the highest heat values

found in the low-volatile bituminous coals just below

anthracite in rank. Fifty-two percent of the DRB is

comprised of bituminous coals, which are found primarily

in the Interior and Appalachian Regions. Subbituminous

coals account for nearly 38 percent of the total and is all

located in the Western States. Lignite makes up 9 percent

of the DRB, primarily located in the West. The anthracite

DRB includes only 1.5 percent of the DRB and almost all

of it is located in northeastern Pennsylvania.

DRB summary data by State, coal rank, and potential

mining method are presented in Tables 11 through 14,

along with the previous (January 1, 1993) DRB for

comparison. With the exception of New Mexico, Illinois,

and eastern Kentucky, the 1995 DRB is based on the same

data sources used for the previous DRB. All data are

updated to the current base year to account for the

estimated effects of resource depletion due to mining and

coal lost in the mining process.

The sulfur content of the coal in the DRB has been

estimated by EIA according to six ranges of pounds of

sulfur per million Btu and five ranges of heat value, in

millions of Btu per short ton (Table B1). For more general

discussion, however, EIA refers to three major sulfur

ranges: low, medium, and high (Table 15). The quantities

of low-sulfur, medium-sulfur, and high-sulfur coals in the

DRB are in relative balance (Table 16). Nationwide, lowsulfur coal is estimated to amount to 170.8 billion short

tons, or 34 percent of all coal included in the DRB.

Medium-sulfur coal totals 141.1 billion short tons, or 28

percent of the DRB, and high-sulfur coal amounts to 183.7

billion short tons, or 37 percent. 

In contrast to the relative parity nationwide, coal-type

distribution by region is markedly uneven. Most of the

low-sulfur coal included in the DRB (84 percent) is in the

West. Appalachia encompasses 15 percent of the lowsulfur DRB and the Interior only 1 percent (or less than 2

billion short tons of low-sulfur resources), located entirely

in Illinois, Oklahoma, and Indiana. Similarly, an estimated

87 billion short tons (61 percent) of the medium-sulfur

DRB coal is in the West, about 27 percent of the total is

estimated to be in Appalachia, and only 12 percent is in

the Interior Region. Most of the high-sulfur DRB is in the

Interior Region. EIA estimates that the Interior contains

nearly 69 percent of the total high-sulfur DRB coal in the

United States; Appalachia, less than 25 percent; and the

West, less than 7 percent.
32 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Table 11. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Rank, 1993, 1995

(Million Short Tons)

Coal Producing Region

and State 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993

Anthracite Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Total

Alabama .............. – – 3,552.0 3,634.6 – – 1,083.0 1,083.0 4,635.0 4,717.6

Alaska ................ – – 697.5 697.5 5,418.4 5,422.3 14.0 14.0 6,129.9 6,133.9

Arizona ............... – – 188.8 220.4 – – – – 188.8 220.4

Arkansas .............. 104.1 104.2 287.5 287.6 – – 25.4 25.4 417.0 417.1

Colorado .............. 25.5 25.5 8,776.6 8,837.6 3,851.8 3,871.7 4,189.9 4,189.9 16,843.8 16,924.6

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – 3.6 3.6 – – – – 3.6 3.6

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – 4.4 4.4 – – – – 4.4 4.4

Illinois ................ – – 89,956.0 78,006.9 – – – – 89,956.0 78,006.9

Indiana ............... – – 9,991.0 10,070.7 – – – – 9,991.0 10,070.7

Iowa ................. – – 2,189.5 2,189.7 – – – – 2,189.5 2,189.7

Kansas ............... – – 975.6 976.4 – – – – 975.6 976.4

Kentucky Total .......... – – 32,564.7 28,804.3 – – – – 32,564.7 28,804.3

 Kentucky, Eastern ...... – – 12,484.8 8,600.8 – – – – 12,484.8 8,600.8

 Kentucky, Western ..... – – 20,079.8 20,203.5 – – – – 20,079.8 20,203.5

Louisiana .............. – – – – – – 471.3 479.6 471.3 479.6

Maryland .............. – – 731.4 744.1 – – – – 731.4 744.1

Michigan .............. – – 127.7 127.7 – – – – 127.7 127.7

Missouri ............... – – 5,995.7 5,997.5 – – – – 5,995.7 5,997.5

Montana .............. – – 1,385.4 1,385.4 102,627.4 102,723.6 15,760.5 15,761.3 119,773.3 119,870.3

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.3 3,740.7 1,918.1 8,803.8 2,478.7 – – 12,546.8 4,399.1

North Carolina .......... – – 10.7 10.7 – – – – 10.7 10.7

North Dakota ........... – – – – – – 9,470.0 9,550.3 9,470.0 9,550.3

Ohio ................. – – 23,754.0 23,845.4 – – – – 23,754.0 23,845.4

Oklahoma ............. – – 1,579.6 1,584.4 – – – – 1,579.6 1,584.4

Oregon ............... – – – – 17.5 17.5 – – 17.5 17.5

Pennsylvania Total ...... 7,225.2 7,230.3 21,642.6 21,841.0 – – – – 28,867.8 29,071.2

 Anthracite ............ 7,225.2 7,230.3 – – – – – – 7,225.2 7,230.3

 Bituminous ........... – – 21,642.6 21,841.0 – – – – 21,642.6 21,841.0

South Dakota ........... – – – – – – 366.1 366.1 366.1 366.1

Tennessee ............. – – 827.1 841.5 – – – – 827.1 841.5

Texas ................ – – – – – – 13,064.9 13,197.6 13,064.9 13,197.6

Utah ................. – – 5,954.6 6,046.0 1.1 1.1 – – 5,955.7 6,047.1

Virginia ............... 125.5 125.5 2,201.8 2,341.0 – – – – 2,327.3 2,466.5

Washington ............ – – 303.7 303.7 1,089.2 1,100.6 8.1 8.1 1,400.9 1,412.4

West Virginia ........... – – 35,983.1 36,498.2 – – – – 35,983.1 36,498.2

Wyoming .............. – – 4,354.4 4,364.2 64,141.4 64,694.3 – – 68,495.8 69,058.5

Appalachian Total ....... a 7,350.7 7,355.8 101,191.1 98,360.8 – – 1,083.0 1,083.0 109,624.8 106,799.6

Interior Total ........... a 104.1 104.2 131,182.3 119,444.2 – – 13,561.6 13,702.5 144,848.0 133,250.9

Western Total .......... a 27.8 27.8 25,406.2 23,777.3 185,950.4 180,309.7 29,808.5 29,889.6 241,193.0 234,004.5

East of the Miss. River .... 7,350.7 7,355.8 221,345.6 206,769.5 – – 1,083.0 1,083.0 229,779.3 215,208.3

West of the Miss. River . . . 131.9 132.0 36,434.0 34,812.9 185950.4 180,309.7 43,370.1 43,592.1 265,886.4 258,846.7

 U.S. Total ............ 7,482.6 7,487.7 257,779.5 241,582.4 185,950.4 180,309.7 44,453.1 44,675.1 495,665.6 474,054.9

 For a definition of coal-producing regions, see Table 17. a

 Note: Totals based on available data. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Data are reported as of the first day of the

year.

 Sources: State geological and mineral resource surveys, and other geological reports.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 33

Table 12. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Potential Method of Mining, 1993, 1995

(Million Short Tons)

Coal Producing Region

and State 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993

Underground Surface Total

Alabama ................ 1,361.9 1,421.9 3,273.1 3,295.7 4,635.0 4,717.6

Alaska .................. 5,423.0 5,423.0 706.9 710.9 6,129.9 6,133.9

Arizona ................. 101.6 101.6 87.3 118.8 188.8 220.4

Arkansas ................ 272.5 272.5 144.5 144.6 417.0 417.1

Colorado ................ 12,049.1 12,107.5 4,794.7 4,817.2 16,843.8 16,924.6

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 3.6 3.6

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 4.4 – – 4.4 4.4

Illinois .................. 73,781.3 62,637.5 16,174.7 15,369.3 89,956.0 78,006.9

Indiana ................. 8,872.8 8,884.6 1,118.1 1,186.0 9,991.0 10,070.7

Iowa ................... 1,732.5 1,732.5 457.0 457.3 2,189.5 2,189.7

Kansas ................. – – 975.6 976.4 975.6 976.4

Kentucky Total ............ 18,884.8 23,517.1 13,679.8 5,287.2 32,564.7 28,804.3

 Kentucky, Eastern ........ 2,525.0 7,071.8 9,959.9 1,529.0 12,484.8 8,600.8

 Kentucky, Western ....... 16,359.9 16,445.3 3,720.0 3,758.2 20,079.8 20,203.5

Louisiana ................ – – 471.3 479.6 471.3 479.6

Maryland ................ 649.2 659.9 82.2 84.2 731.4 744.1

Michigan ................ 123.1 123.1 4.6 4.6 127.7 127.7

Missouri ................. 1,479.1 1,479.1 4,516.5 4,518.4 5,995.7 5,997.5

Montana ................ 70,958.7 70,958.7 48,814.6 48,911.6 119,773.3 119,870.3

New Mexico .............. 6,205.4 2,121.4 6,341.4 2,277.8 12,546.8 4,399.1

North Carolina ............ 10.7 10.7 – – 10.7 10.7

North Dakota ............. – – 9,470.0 9,550.3 9,470.0 9,550.3

Ohio ................... 17,846.7 17,894.8 5,907.3 5,950.6 23,754.0 23,845.4

Oklahoma ............... 1,237.4 1,237.8 342.2 346.5 1,579.6 1,584.4

Oregon ................. 14.5 14.5 2.9 2.9 17.5 17.5

Pennsylvania Total ........ 24,408.2 24,561.7 4,459.6 4,509.6 28,867.8 29,071.2

 Anthracite .............. 3,850.4 3,851.5 3,374.9 3,378.8 7,225.2 7,230.3

 Bituminous ............. 20,557.9 20,710.2 1,084.7 1,130.8 21,642.6 21,841.0

South Dakota ............. – – 366.1 366.1 366.1 366.1

Tennessee ............... 539.0 550.5 288.2 291.0 827.1 841.5

Texas .................. – – 13,064.9 13,197.6 13,064.9 13,197.6

Utah ................... 5,687.8 5,779.2 267.9 267.9 5,955.7 6,047.1

Virginia ................. 1,630.0 1,746.5 697.3 720.0 2,327.3 2,466.5

Washington .............. 1,332.3 1,332.3 68.7 80.1 1,400.9 1,412.4

West Virginia ............. 31,419.5 31,818.9 4,563.6 4,679.4 35,983.1 36,498.2

Wyoming ................ 42,525.1 42,534.8 25,970.7 26,523.6 68,495.8 69,058.5

Appalachian Total ......... a 80,392.0 85,738.4 29,232.8 21,061.2 109,624.8 106,799.6

Interior Total ............. a 103,858.6 92,812.5 40,989.4 40,438.4 144,848.0 133,250.9

Western Total ............ a 144,301.8 140,377.3 96,891.1 93,627.1 241,193.0 234,004.5

East of the Mississippi River . 179,529.1 173,828.9 50,250.2 41,379.3 229,779.3 215,208.3

West of the Mississippi River . 149,023.3 145,099.3 116,863.1 113,747.4 265,886.4 258,846.7

 U.S. Total .............. 328,552.3 318,928.2 167,113.3 155,126.7 495,665.6 474,054.9

 For a definition of coal-producing regions, see Table 17. a

 Note: Totals based on available data. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Data are reported as of the first day of

the year.

 Sources: State geological and mineral resource surveys, and other geological reports.
34 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Table 13. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Rank, Potentially Minable by Underground

Methods, 1993, 1995

(Million Short Tons)

Coal Producing Region

and State 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993

Anthracite Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Total

Alabama ................ – – 1,361.9 1,421.9 – – – – 1,361.9 1,421.9

Alaska .................. – – 617.0 617.0 4,805.9 4,805.9 – – 5,423.0 5,423.0

Arizona ................. – – 101.6 101.6 – – – – 101.6 101.6

Arkansas ................ 88.6 88.6 183.9 183.9 – – – – 272.5 272.5

Colorado ................ 25.5 25.5 8,188.1 8,245.0 3,835.5 3,837.0 – – 12,049.1 12,107.5

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – 1.9 1.8 – – – – 1.9 1.8

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – 4.4 4.4 – – – – 4.4 4.4

Illinois .................. – – 73,781.3 62,637.5 – – – – 73,781.3 62,637.5

Indiana ................. – – 8,872.8 8,884.6 – – – – 8,872.8 8,884.6

Iowa ................... – – 1,732.5 1,732.5 – – – – 1,732.5 1,732.5

Kentucky Total ............ – – 18,884.8 23,517.1 – – – – 18,884.8 23,517.1

 Kentucky, .............. – – 2,525.0 7,071.8 – – – – 2,525.0 7,071.8

 Kentucky, Western ....... – – 16,359.9 16,445.3 – – – – 16,359.9 16,445.3

Maryland ................ – – 649.2 659.9 – – – – 649.2 659.9

Michigan ................ – – 123.1 123.1 – – – – 123.1 123.1

Missouri ................. – – 1,479.1 1,479.1 – – – – 1,479.1 1,479.1

Montana ................ – – 1,385.4 1,385.4 69,573.3 69,573.3 – – 70,958.7 70,958.7

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.3 2,736.3 1,230.1 3,466.8 889.0 – – 6,205.4 2,121.4

North Carolina ............ – – 10.7 10.7 – – – – 10.7 10.7

Ohio ................... – – 17,846.7 17,894.8 – – – – 17,846.7 17,894.8

Oklahoma ............... – – 1,237.4 1,237.8 – – – – 1,237.4 1,237.8

Oregon ................. – – – – 14.5 14.5 – – 14.5 14.5

Pennsylvania Total ........ 3,850.4 3,851.5 20,557.9 20,710.2 – – – – 24,408.2 24,561.7

 Anthracite .............. 3,850.4 3,851.5 – – – – – – 3,850.4 3,851.5

 Bituminous ............. – – 20,557.9 20,710.2 – – – – 20,557.9 20,710.2

Tennessee ............... – – 539.0 550.5 – – – – 539.0 550.5

Utah ................... – – 5,686.7 5,778.1 1.1 1.1 – – 5,687.8 5,779.2

Virginia ................. 125.5 125.5 1,504.6 1,621.0 – – – – 1,630.0 1,746.5

Washington .............. – – 303.7 303.7 1,028.6 1,028.6 – – 1,332.3 1,332.3

West Virginia ............. – – 31,419.5 31,818.9 – – – – 31,419.5 31,818.9

Wyoming ................ – – 3,862.0 3,871.7 38,663.1 38,663.1 – – 42,525.1 42,534.8

 – –

Appalachian ............. a 3,975.9 3,977.0 76,416.1 81,761.4 – – – – 80,392.0 85,738.4

Interior Total ............. a 88.6 88.6 103,770.0 92,723.9 – – – – 103,858.6 92,812.5

Western Total ............ a 27.8 27.8 22,885.2 21,537.0 121,388.8 118,812.5 – – 144,301.8 140,377.3

 – –

East of the Mississippi River . 3,975.9 3,977.0 175,553.2 169,852.0 – – – – 179,529.1 173,828.9

West of the Mississippi River . 116.4 116.4 27,518.1 26,170.4 121,388.8 118,812.5 – – 149,023.3 145,099.3

 – –

 U.S. Total .............. 4,092.3 4,093.4 203,071.2 196,022.3 121,388.8 118,812.5 – – 328,552.3 318,928.2

 For a definition of coal-producing regions, see Table 17. a

 Note: Totals based on available data. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Data are reported as of the first day of

the year.

 Sources: State geological and mineral resource surveys, and other geological reports.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 35

Table 14. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal by State and Rank, Potentially Minable by Surface

Methods, 1993, 1995

(Million Short Tons)

Coal Producing Region

and State 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993 1995 1993

Anthracite Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Total

Alabama ................ – – 2,190.1 2,212.7 – – 1,083.0 1,083.0 3,273.1 3,295.7

Alaska .................. – – 80.5 80.5 612.4 616.4 14.0 14.0 706.9 710.9

Arizona ................. – – 87.3 118.8 – – – – 87.3 118.8

Arkansas ................ 15.5 15.6 103.6 103.6 – – 25.4 25.4 144.5 144.6

Colorado ................ – – 588.5 592.7 16.3 34.7 4,189.9 4,189.9 4,794.7 4,817.2

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – 1.7 1.7 – – – – 1.7 1.7

Illinois .................. – – 16,174.7 15,369.3 – – – – 16,174.7 15,369.3

Indiana ................. – – 1,118.1 1,186.0 – – – – 1,118.1 1,186.0

Iowa ................... – – 457.0 457.3 – – – – 457.0 457.3

Kansas ................. – – 975.6 976.4 – – – – 975.6 976.4

Kentucky Total ............ – – 13,679.8 5,287.2 – – – – 13679.8 5287.2

 Kentucky, Eastern ........ – – 9,959.9 1,529 – – – – 9,959.9 1,529.0

 Kentucky, Western ....... – – 3,720.0 3,758.2 – – – – 3,720.0 3,758.2

Louisiana ................ – – – – – – 471.3 479.6 471.3 479.6

Maryland ................ – – 82.2 84.2 – – – – 82.2 84.2

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – 4.6 4.6 – – – – 4.6 4.6

Missouri ................. – – 4,516.5 4,518.4 – – – – 4,516.5 4,518.4

Montana ................ – – – – 33,054.1 33,150.3 15,760.5 15,761.3 48,814.6 48,911.6

New Mexico .............. – – 1,004.4 688.0 5,337.0 1,589.7 – – 6,341.4 2,277.8

North Dakota ............. – – – – – – 9,470.0 9,550.3 9,470.0 9,550.3

Ohio ................... – – 5,907.3 5,950.6 – – – – 5,907.3 5,950.6

Oklahoma ............... – – 342.2 346.5 – – – – 342.2 346.5

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – – – 2.9 2.9 – – 2.9 2.9

Pennsylvania Total ........ 3,374.9 3,378.8 1,084.7 1,130.8 – – – – 4,459.6 4,509.6

 Anthracite .............. 3,374.9 3,378.8 – – – – – – 3,374.9 3,378.8

 Bituminous ............. – – 1,084.7 1,130.8 – – – – 1,084.7 1,130.8

South Dakota ............. – – – – – – 366.1 366.1 366.1 366.1

Tennessee ............... – – 288.2 291.0 – – – – 288.2 291.0

Texas .................. – – – – – – 13,064.9 13,197.6 13,064.9 13,197.6

Utah ................... – – 267.9 267.9 – – – – 267.9 267.9

Virginia ................. – – 697.3 720.0 – – – – 697.3 720.0

Washington .............. – – – – 60.6 72.0 8.1 8.1 68.7 80.1

West Virginia ............. – – 4,563.6 4,679.4 – – – – 4,563.6 4,679.4

Wyoming ................ – – 492.4 492.5 25,478.3 26,031.2 – – 25,970.7 26,523.6

Appalachian Total ......... a 3,374.9 3,378.8 24,775.0 16,599.4 – – 1,083.0 1,083.0 29,232.8 21,061.2

Interior Total ............. a 15.5 15.6 27,412.3 26,720.3 – – 13,561.6 13,702.5 40,989.4 40,438.4

Western Total ............ a – – 2,521.0 2,240.3 64,561.7 61,497.2 29,808.5 29,889.6 96,891.1 93,627.1

East of the Mississippi River . 3,374.9 3,378.8 45,792.3 36,917.5 – – 1,083.0 1,083.0 50,250.2 41,379.3

West of the Mississippi River . 15.5 15.6 8,915.9 8,642.5 64,561.7 61,497.2 43,370.1 43,592.1 116,863.1 113,747.4

 U.S. Total .............. 3,390.4 3,394.4 54,708.3 45,560.1 64,561.7 61,497.2 44,453.1 44,675.1 167,113.3 155,126.7

 For a definition of coal-producing regions, see Table 17. a

 Note: Totals based on available data. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Data are reported as of the first day of

the year.

 Sources: State geological and mineral resource surveys, and other geological reports.
36 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

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, c

if blended with lower-sulfur coals, it may meet them.

 Source: Energy Information Administration.

Table 15. EIA Sulfur Content Categories for Coal

Table 16. Demonstrated Reserve Base of Coal in the United States by Sulfur Range and

Coal-Producing Region

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

Coal-Producing

Region

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Low Sulfur High Sulfur

(# 0.60) ($ 1.68)

Medium Sulfur

(0.61-1.67) Total

Million Percent Million Percent Million Percent Million Percent

Short Tons of Total Short Tons of Total Short Tons of Total Short Tons of Total

Surface

 Appalachia ..... 9,406.2 15.6 11,505.2 19.5 8,321.4 17.2 29,232.8 17.4

 Interior ......... 205.1 0.3 9,343.4 15.8 31,440.9 65.2 40,989.4 24.5

 West .......... 50,414.5 83.9 38,083.3 64.6 8,393.3 17.4 96,891.1 57.9

 U.S. Total ...... 60,025.8 100.0 58,931.9 100.0 48,155.6 100.0 167,113.3 100.0

Underground

 Appalachia ..... 16,972.8 15.3 26,518.6 32.2 36,900.6 27.2 80,391.9 24.4

 Interior ......... 1,531.2 1.3 7,708.2 9.3 94,619.2 69.7 103,858.6 31.6

 West .......... 92,261.9 83.2 47,968.2 58.3 4,071.7 3.0 144,301.8 43.9

 U.S. Total ...... 110,765.8 100.0 82,195.0 100.0 135,591.5 100.0 328,552.3 100.0

Total

 Appalachia ..... 26,379.0 15.4 38,023.8 26.9 45,221.9 24.6 109,624.7 22.1

 Interior ......... 1,736.2 1.0 17,051.6 12.0 126,060.2 68.6 144,848.0 29.2

 West .......... 142,676.4 83.5 86,051.5 60.9 12,465.1 6.7 241,192.9 48.6

 U.S. Total ...... 170,791.6 100.0 141,126.9 100.0 183,747.1 100.0 495,665.6 100.0

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

combined into the three qualitative ratings of coal presented here (low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content).

 Notes: Coal supply regions that comprise each coal-producing region above are listed in Table 17. Data may not equal sum of components

due to independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 37

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Coal Reserves: An Update by Heat and Sulfur Content, DOE/EIA-0529(92) (Washington, DC, 35

February 1993) p. 24.

The DRB in the three coal-producing regions of the United will be accessible for future mining. There has been no

States present different profiles (Table 16). In regard to discernible demand for detailed allocation tables of the

overall quantities of coal, estimates for Appalachia are at accessible reserve base, probably because it is an

110 billion short tons, or 22 percent of the DRB. Coal intermediate product. Most data analysts wish either to

resources in the region are almost entirely bituminous. review the DRB itself and, perhaps, make particular

Low-sulfur coal accounts for 24 percent of the region's assumptions and adjustments appropriate for their task,

DRB, medium-sulfur coal for nearly 35 percent, and high- or to use EIA's estimated recoverable reserves directly for

sulfur coal for more than 41 percent. Low-sulfur coal in analyses of future coal supplies which may impose

Appalachia is concentrated in eastern Kentucky, Virginia, additional downstream assumptions. Also, accessibility

southern West Virginia, and in the Pennsylvania anthra- adjustments are recognized in EIA as a useful intercite field. mediate procedure in which to make and document

The Interior Region is estimated to contain 144.8 billion variations from standard DRB criteria due to local mining

short tons, or 29 percent of the DRB of U.S. coal. All of the practice. (For example, in Chapter 2, the exclusion of 42-

DRB coal in the region is bituminous, except for 14 billion inch or thinner beds from underground mining in

short tons of lignite deposits, primarily in Texas, and 0.1 Illinois.)

billion short tons of anthracite in Arkansas. More than 87

percent of the region's DRB is high-sulfur coal and less The accessibility data of most interest are the net accesthan 1 percent is low-sulfur coal. sibility factors compiled or estimated for each coal supply

In the Western Region, the DRB is estimated at 241.2 accessibility factors, are the converse of the “inaccessible

billion short tons, which is 49 percent of the U.S. total. resource factors” listed in earlier versions of this report.

Subbituminous coal is the norm in the West, where it Accessibility factors represent the fraction of the

constitutes 77 percent of the DRB, with the vast majority DRB—surface and underground—that is presently conoccurring in Montana and Wyoming. Lignite makes up sidered accessible for future development. Accessibility

more than 12 percent of the DRB in the West, primarily in factors are usually determined by measuring or

the Fort Union-age geologic deposits of Montana and

North Dakota and the relatively young, Tertiary-age Gulf

Coast deposits of Texas. The remainder, nearly 11 percent

of the Western DRB, is bituminous coal, found mostly in

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, plus small areas of

anthracite in several scattered locations. The EIA estimates

that 59 percent of the DRB coal in the West is low-sulfur,

that 36 percent is medium-sulfur, and that 5 percent is

high-sulfur.

Accessible Resources

Although the 496 billion short tons of coal in the DRB is

more than 480 times the Nation's coal production in 1995,

almost half of the DRB is not expected to be recovered.

First, more than 16 percent of the DRB is estimated as

inaccessible for mining. Then, of the accessible portion of

the DRB, EIA estimates that only 66 percent can actually

be recovered by mining, with the other 34 percent likely

to be lost in the mining process, based on recent mining

experience. The result is that only a net 55 percent of the

DRB is believed to be recoverable.

The EIA no longer publishes the accessible reserve base,

that is, the allocated tonnages of the DRB that it estimates

internal adjustments to the DRB that account for

region ( Table 17). Note that the data reported, i.e., the

estimating the areas or tonnages of inaccessible coal

resources in a study area, but accessibility factors are

applicable directly to adjustments to the DRB and other

coal resources and are closely comparable with U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) Coal Availability Study data.

Recovery factors (Table 17) follow the same format.

Estimated Recoverable Reserves

The estimated recoverable reserves of coal in the United

States (Table B2) represent the estimated portion of the

DRB, allocated by Btu and sulfur ranges, that can be

recovered by standard mining technologies, assuming a

market and an adequate selling price at the time of

mining. These reserves are summarized by low-, medium-, and high-sulfur levels in Table 18.

The 1995 estimated recoverable reserves are 9.2 billion

short tons, or 3.4 percent, larger than the previous

recoverable reserve estimates, for 1992. At 37 percent, 35

low-sulfur estimated recoverable reserves make up the

largest part of the total. Medium- and high-sulfur reserves

each make up about 31.5 percent. Based on current

mining trends, however, (see Chapter 4) much of the 63
38 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Coal-Producing Region 

State 

Accessibility Factor Recovery Factor

Surface Underground Surface Underground

Appalachia

 Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 90 86 56

 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 80 50

 Kentucky, Eastern . . . . . . . . 71 91 79 62

 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 80 61

 North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 80 50

 Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 88 80 50

 Pennsylvania, Anthracite . . 14 18 90 50

 Pennsylvania, Bituminous . . 85 90 82 59

 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 80 61

 Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 90 80 62

 West Virginia, Northern . . . . 75 90 79 59

 West Virginia, Southern . . . 82 90 79 59

Interior

 Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 82 52

 Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 67 76 50

 Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 80 82 52

 Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 82 52

 Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 82 60

 Kentucky, Western . . . . . . . 75 80 83 53

 Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 82 60

 Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 80 50

 Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 82 52

 Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 82 52

 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 86 60

Western

 Alaska, Northern . . . . . . . . . 50 50 00 00

 Alaska, Southern . . . . . . . . . 90 90 88 56

 Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 88 56

 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 90 88 58

 Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 90 80 50

 Montana, Eastern . . . . . . . . 86 90 91 56

 Montana, Western . . . . . . . . 90 90 91 56

 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 88 56

 North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 90 90 50

 Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 80 50

 South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 90 90 60

 Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 88 54

 Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 90 88 56

 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 90 89 60

 Sources: Energy Information Administration, Estimation of U.S. Coal Reserves by Coal Type: Heat and Sulfur Content, 1987

data (1989); also Coal Reserves Data Base Program, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels (1996) and Form EIA-7A,

“Coal Production Report” (1992).

Table 17. Net Accessibility and Recovery Factors for Coal Resources, by Coal-Producing Region
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 39

As the results of more USGS Coal Availability Studies become available and, in general, as more up-to-date accessibility estimates are 36

made, it is likely that additional instances of diminished accessibility to coal resources will be determined in Appalachia.

Table 18. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal in the United States by Sulfur Range and Major Region

(Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

Coal-Producing

Region

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Low Sulfur

(# 0.60) ($ 1.68)

Medium Sulfur

(0.61-1.67) Total

High Sulfur

Million Percent Million Percent Million Percent Million Percent

Short Tons of Total Short Tons of Total Short Tons of Total Short Tons of Total

Surface

Appalachia .... 4,399.5 9.5 6,880.6 15.3 5,238.0 16.3 16,518.1 13.4

Interior ........ 131.0 0.2 7,081.7 15.8 20,048.5 62.6 27,261.2 22.1

West ......... 41,647.3 0.1 30,766.8 68.7 6,731.4 21.0 79,145.5 64.3

U.S. Total ..... 46,177.9 100.0 44,729.1 100.0 32,017.9 100.0 122,924.9 100.0

Underground

Appalachia .... 7,561.4 13.7 13,809.2 33.2 18,260.3 33.5 39,630.9 26.2

Interior ........ 527.3 0.9 2,900.0 6.9 34,064.3 62.6 37,491.6 24.8

West ......... 46,889.9 85.2 24,884.4 59.8 2,091.2 3.8 73,865.5 48.9

U.S. Total ..... 54,978.6 100.0 41,593.6 100.0 54,415.8 100.0 150,988.0 100.0

Total

Appalachia .... 11,961.0 11.8 20,689.8 23.9 23,498.3 27.1 56,149.1 20.4

Interior ........ 658.4 0.6 9,981.7 11.5 54,112.8 62.6 64,752.8 23.6

West ......... 88,537.2 87.5 55,651.2 64.4 8,822.7 10.2 153,011.0 55.8

U.S. Total ..... 101,156.5 100.0 86,322.7 100.0 86,433.7 100.0 273,912.9 100.0

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

combined into the three qualitative ratings of coal presented here (low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content).

 Notes: Coal supply regions that comprise each coal-producing region above are listed in Table 17. Data may not equal sum of components

due to independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration.

percent of recoverable coal reserves containing medium makes up a higher portion—64 percent—of the estimated

and high sulfur levels may not soon be mined because of U.S. recoverable reserves. The differences between DRB

unfavorable quality, prices, mining costs, location, and/or and recoverable reserve portions reflect accessibility and

transportation infrastructure. These aspects are extremely recovery rate differences.

important in meeting the environmental requirements of

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and in addressing In Appalachia, the surface accessibility factors average

concerns over global warming and greenhouse gas emis- only 70 percent. They are lower than in the West because

sions. of more land use constraints and physical minability

Although the summary data in Tables 16 and 18 are both by the extremely low rate of accessibility in the Pennderived from the DRB database, they do not follow sylvania anthracite region (14 percent). With that region

precisely the same distribution. Certain characteristics of excluded, the surface accessibility factor would rise to 77

the mines and coal types in the three regions may be percent. Surface accessibility in eastern Kentucky at 71

discerned in these summary tables. For example, the percent is also well below the regional average. This low

surface-minable DRB in Appalachia constitutes 17 percent percentage reflects the fact that in eastern Kentucky (see

of the DRB of the United States but only 13 percent of the Chapter 2) many of the thin coalbeds in the surfaceestimated recoverable reserves, while in the West the minable DRB are mined only selectively. The DRB for

surface-minable DRB is 58 percent of the national DRB but thin coalbeds in districts and thicknesses currently not

restrictions. The Appalachian accessibility is also skewed

36
40 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Energy Information Administration, Coal Industry Annual 1994, DOE/EIA-0584(94) (Washington, D.C. October 1995), p. 12. 37

Ibid. p. 40. 38

Ibid. p. 152. 39

commercially minable in eastern Kentucky was con- with 20 percent or more ash-forming material and lower

sidered to be presently inaccessible. heat value than if they were cleaned. The reported rates

Finally, the rates of recovery are lower in Appalachia are therefore very high.

owing to the need to mine in thinner beds and (to varying

degrees) in more difficult topography, in more indurated Another case in which differences in the DRB/reserves

overburdens, and with more frequent groundwater and profiles indicate differences in coal types, markets, and

surface water concerns than in the major Western coal mining patterns is the comparison of underground DRB

supply areas. Appalachian recovery rates average about and estimated recoverable reserves in Appalachia and the

81 percent for the coal resources considered accessible. Interior (Tables 16 and 18). Appalachian underground

In the West the accessibility factors average 91 percent. percent of the estimated U.S. recoverable reserves.

They are relatively high primarily because of fewer land Accessibility is not as restricted for underground mining

use constraints and fewer known physical minability in Appalachia and has fewer restrictions than the surface

restrictions than in the East. The Geological Survey of mines of the region. Again, the exception to the rule is

Wyoming has estimated that 98 percent of the DRB in that Pennsylvania anthracite, where access for deep mining is

State may be accessible. Only in northern Alaska has EIA severely restricted now and for the foreseeable future as

estimated a low rate of accessibility (50 percent), because a result of catastrophic flooding that occurred years ago,

of the difficulties of mining in tundra and permafrost and drowning many of the mines and impairing adjacent

the lack of recent experience mining under those con- resources. In general, however, net recovery of Appaditions in the United States. lachian deep coal deposits is good, primarily because

The rates of surface recovery are also high in the West, high-Btu fuel. This coal fetches prices that can support

averaging 90 percent for accessible coal resources. Many more costly mining technologies, including longwalls (67

of the most productive mines recover thick coalbeds (40 to percent of U.S. longwall production is in Appalachia ).

100 feet are not uncommon) with relatively thin overburden developed in soft types of rock or unconsolidated By contrast, 32 percent of the national DRB for undersediments. Even in harder rock, where more blasting is ground mining is found in the Interior Region, but the

required, the overburden ratios tend to be low and the estimated recoverable reserves constitute only 25 percent.

mechanical loading of the thicker coalbeds efficient. Net The coalbeds in the Interior include a high percentage of

recovery rates in Western coals may also tend to be higher thick beds, yet their net recovery is relatively low (51

because the coal in some areas, such as New Mexico and percent versus 58 percent in Appalachia ). This lower

Washington, contain thin partings of shale that cannot be recovery correlates with a region of high average sulfur

avoided by mining equipment. These rock contaminants contents, flat markets, and relatively low prices ($24.31 for

are mined through, raising the tonnage mined and the Interior bituminous versus $28.01 for Appalachian

rate of recovery, and the coal is generally not washed. bituminous, mined underground, average price per ton

Consequently, some coals are accepted for combustion for calendar year 1994 ).

of recovery, with no losses of product due to coal cleaning,

coal makes up 24 percent of the DRB but accounts for 26

much of the coal being mined is relatively high-quality,

37

38

39
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 41

In this section, active mines represent mines that produced coal in 1994, and coal reserves represent the quantity of coal that can be recovered 40

(i.e., mined) from the total in-situ quantity of coal located at these mines in 1994, as reported at year’s end by U.S. coal producers on Energy

Information Administration Form EIA-7A, “Coal Production Report.” For the years 1995 through 2015, coal reserves, as used in this analysis,

represent the quantity of reserves at active mines in 1994 less the amount of cumulative production as projected in the reference case forecast

published in the Annual Energy Outlook 1996. For example:

Coal reserves for 1996 (year end)

 = coal reserves at active mines in 1994 (year end) – projected production for 1995 – projected production for 1996

For 1994, reserves were reported by or estimated for 1,331 mines, representing 70 percent of the mines whose production was 10,000 or more 41

short tons. In turn, these mines produced 973.6 million short tons, or 94 percent of total U.S. coal production

The 8.3 billion short tons of bituminous coal reserves include a small amount of anthracite. The data for reserves by coal rank exclude data 42

for Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and Louisiana, which were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. At the end of 1994, recoverable

reserves at active mines in these States totaled 163.3 million short tons. 43The four CMM heat content categories include: two for bituminous coal; one for subbituminous coal; and one for lignite. The four CMM

sulfur content categories include: one for low-sulfur, two for medium-sulfur, and one for high-sulfur.

4. Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Mines

Overview

Active coal mines and their associated reserves represent 40

real financial commitments of U.S. coal producers.

Substantial investments in capital equipment and other

mine development activities have been committed to

produce coal from specific blocks of reserves. Although

changing market conditions or unforeseen geological

conditions may result in premature closing of a coal mine,

existing mines are a good gauge of where production will

originate from in coming years. 

As of December 31, 1994, U.S. coal producers reported

21.0 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves at active

mines (Table 19 and Figure 6). By mining method, 6.0 41

billion short tons were at underground coal mines, and

15.0 billion short tons were at surface mines. By rank, the

distribution of recoverable reserves was: bituminous, 8.3

billion short tons; subbituminous, 9.8 billion short tons;

and lignite, 2.7 billion short tons. Virtually all of the 42

subbituminous and lignite reserves were associated with

surface mines. By contrast, 72 percent of the bituminous

reserves were at underground mines.

In this chapter, recoverable reserves at existing active

mines are linked to mid-term projections of coal supply

and demand from EIA's National Energy Modeling

System’s (NEMS) Coal Market Module (CMM) to estimate

where additional investments by the coal mining industry

may be needed. In essence, existing coal mines represent

committed investments on the supply side, and the NEMS

CMM forecasts provide a link between these investments

and projected market conditions in future years. The

analysis makes use of the reference case projections

published in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1996 (AEO96),

which provides an integrated forecast of U.S. energy

demand, supply, distribution, and prices for all marketbased sources of energy through 2015.

Estimation of U.S. Coal Production and

Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines by

Heat and Sulfur Content

Coal quality information for recoverable coal reserves at

active mines is not collected on any EIA energy surveys.

For purposes of this analysis, recoverable reserves at

active mines for 1994, aggregated by supply region and

mining method, are allocated to sulfur content categories

using the distribution estimated for U.S. coal production

in 1994. Three sulfur content categories are represented:

(1) low-sulfur (# 0.6 pounds of sulfur per million Btu

(MMBtu)); (2) medium-sulfur (>0.6 – #1.67 pounds of

sulfur per MMBtu); and (3) high-sulfur (>1.67 pounds of

sulfur per MMBtu).

Estimates of U.S. coal production by heat and sulfur

content are a required input to the CMM. The CMM

projects U.S. coal production for 16 supply regions, by 16

coal types (combinations of four heat and four sulfur

content categories) and two mining methods (underground and surface). Data collected on Form EIA-7A, 43

Coal Production Report, provides information on U.S. coal

production by region, mining method, and coal rank.
42 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Coal quality data are derived using information from the following energy surveys: 1) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Form-423, 44

“Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants”; 2) Form EIA-867, “Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report”; 3) Form EIA-3A,

“Annual Coal Quality Report—Manufacturing Plants”; 4) Form EIA-5A, “Annual Coal Quality Report—Coke Plants”; and 5) Form EIA-6, “Coal

Distribution Report.” For receipts of coal at coke plants, EIA collects quality data on volatile matter, sulfur content, and ash content, but not on

heat content. Heat content of coking coal is assumed to be 26.8 million Btu per short ton. 

Table 19. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Sulfur Range,

Coal-Producing Region, and Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons, as of December 31, 1994)

Coal-Producing

Region

Summary Sulfur Content Categoriesa

(Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Low Sulfur

(# 0.60)

Medium Sulfur

(0.61-1.67)

High Sulfur

($ 1.68) Total

Million

Short Tons

Percent

of Total

Million

Short Tons

Percent

of Total

Million

Short Tons

Percent

of Total

Million

Short Tons

Percent

of Total

Surface

 Appalachia . . 252.4 3.0 599.9 11.5 274.1 23.8 1,126.4 7.6

 Interior . . . . . . 7.8 0.1 711.8 13.7 787.5 68.4 1,507.2 10.1

 West ....... 8,245.0 96.9 3,887.4 74.8 89.5 7.8 12,221.8 82.3

 U.S. Total . . . 8,505.1 100.0 5,199.1 100.0 1,151.1 100.0 14,855.3 100.0

Underground

 Appalachia . . 1,304.0 60.1 1,668.2 77.7 756.5 45.0 3,728.7 62.2

 Interior ...... 56.0 2.6 417.2 19.4 925.1 55.0 1,398.3 23.3

 West ....... 810.2 37.3 60.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 870.9 14.5

 U.S. Total . . . 2,170.3 100.0 2,146.1 100.0 1,681.5 100.0 5,997.9 100.0

Total

 Appalachia . . 1,556.4 14.6 2,268.1 30.9 1,030.5 36.4 4,855.0 23.3

 Interior ...... 63.8 0.6 1,129.0 15.4 1,712.6 60.5 2,905.4 13.9

 West ....... 9,055.2 84.8 3,948.1 53.8 89.5 3.2 13,092.7 62.8

 U.S. Total . . . 10,675.4 100.0 7,345.2 100.0 2,832.6 100.0 20,853.2 100.0

 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 coal presented here ( low-, medium-, and high-sulfur content).

 Notes: Coal supply regions that comprise each coal-producing region above are listed in Table 17. Totals exclude data for

Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and Louisiana, which were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. At the end of 1994,

reserves at active mines in these States totaled 163.3 million short tons. Data may not equal sum of components due to independent

rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration.

Comprehensive data on coal quality, however, are not By applying this distribution of U.S. coal production to

available. Estimates of U.S. coal production by heat and recoverable reserves at active mines (year-end 1994), an

sulfur content are developed using quality data collected estimate of reserves by sulfur content is obtained. For

for coal distributed to electric utilities, independent power underground mines, the estimated distribution of

producers, industrial consumers, and coke plants. Coal recoverable reserves at active mines by sulfur content is as 44

quality data are not available for coal exports or for coal follows: low-sulfur, 2.2 billion short tons; medium-sulfur,

consumed in the residential/commercial sector. 2.1 billion short tons; and high-sulfur, 1.7 billion short
AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AA

AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA

AA

AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAA

AA

AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA

AA

Mining Method

Supply Region

Coal Rank

Sulfur Content

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Billion Short Tons

Surface

Total

Total

Total

Total

Low

Underground

Subbituminous

Lignite

High Medium

West

Interior Appalachia

All Mines

Bituminous

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

Supply Region

Coal Rank

Sulfur Content

0 5 10 15 20

Billion Short Tons

Total

Total

Total

Appalachia

Interior

West

Medium

High

Subbituminous

Bituminous

Lignite

Low

Surface Mines

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAAA

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

A

A

A

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

A

A

A

Supply Region

Coal Rank

Sulfur Content

0 2 4 6 8 10

Billion Short Tons

Underground Mines

Appalachia

Interior

West

Total

Bituminous

Total

Low

Medium

High

Total

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 43

This report is limited to an analysis of recoverable reserves at active mines, not extending to the reserves which will be brought on by new 45

mines in the future. Data needed to evaluate reserves at future mines are neither readily available nor comprehensive. These data include factors

such as the age profile of existing coal mines, expectations of future coal prices and production costs, and the average reserve block size for new

mines.

Figure 6. Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active

Mines, 1994

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA7A, “Coal Production Report,” and Table B3.

tons. For surface mines, the estimated distribution of

recoverable reserves by sulfur content is: low-sulfur, 8.5

billion short tons; medium-sulfur, 5.2 billion short tons;

and high-sulfur, 1.2 billion short tons. Surface mines in

eastern Wyoming were estimated to have 6.3 billion short

tons of low-sulfur recoverable coal reserves in 1994,

representing 74 percent of total low-sulfur recoverable

reserves at active surface mines. In Appendix B, an

estimation of recoverable reserves at active mines is

provided by region, type of mining, coal rank, and sulfur

content (Table B3). 

Analysis Description and Structure 

This analysis assumes that no new mines will be opened

until recoverable reserves at active mines (i.e., those active

in 1994) are completely exhausted. Recoverable reserves at

active mines are assumed to be depleted based on

projected levels of production from the AEO96 reference

case forecast. In reality, new mines are opened every year,

supplementing production from existing mines. There- 45

fore, it is inappropriate to conclude that recoverable

reserves at active mines for a particular region, mining

method, and coal type will be exhausted in a specific year.

Rather, the reserves currently reported at active mines and

the years of production they can support are used to

provide some indication of where and how much new

mine capacity may be needed to meet the projected levels

of demand.

The projected quantities of remaining recoverable reserves

at active mines are presented as a time series by region,

mining method, and sulfur content. To avoid the disclosure of individual company data, it was necessary to

combine some of the 16 regions represented in the NEMS

CMM. As a result, 11 regions are represented in the

analysis (Table 20). The projections are reported by sulfur

content to capture the relative impact of the more stringent

restrictions on sulfur dioxide emissions legislated by the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA90). Also

presented are the associated levels of average annual

production between 1995 and 2015.

Implications for New Mine Capacity

Summary of the AEO96 Reference Case

The AEO96 reference case forecast is the basis for which

recoverable reserves at active mines are evaluated. In the
44 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Table 20. Coal Supply Regionsa

Region Number Included Sub-Regions

Appalachia

 Northern Appalachia 1 Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland

2 West Virginia (north)

 Central Appalachia 3 West Virginia (south)

4 Kentucky (east)

5 Virginia, Tennessee

 Southern Appalachia 6 Alabama

Interior

 Illinois Basin and West Interior 7 Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky (west), Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas,

Missouri, Oklahoma

 Gulf Lignite 8 Texas, Louisiana

West

 Powder River Basin North and Fort

 Union Lignite

9 Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota

 Powder River Basin South 10 Wyoming (east)

 Other West 11 Wyoming (west), Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah,

Washington, Alaska

 Adjusted supply regions, aggregated for this analysis to avoid disclosure of company-confidential reserve data. a

 Source: Energy Information Administration.

AEO96 reference case, U.S. coal production is projected to

increase from 1,034 million short tons in 1994 to 1,240

million short tons in 2015, an increase of 206 million short

tons. Most of this growth is attributable to increasing

electricity coal consumption. By major supply region,

annual coal production is projected to rise by 103 million

short tons in Appalachia and by 142 million short tons in

the West. In addition to growth in coal consumption for

electricity generation, Appalachian production also

benefits from a projected increase in U.S. coal exports over

the forecast period, as most exports should continue to

originate from mines in this region. Coal production in the

Interior, a predominately high-sulfur coal region, is

projected to decline by 38 million short tons.

Due to the stricter sulfur dioxide emission controls of the

CAAA90, low-sulfur coal displaces high-sulfur coal

throughout the forecast. Medium-sulfur coal production

declines through 2000, and then recovers as compliance

strategies shift from fuel switching to flue gas desulfurization in Phase 2 of CAAA90. Between 1994 and 2015,

low-sulfur coal production is projected to increase by 206

million short tons and medium-sulfur coal by 33 million

short tons. High-sulfur coal production declines by 33

million short tons.

Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active

Underground Mines

The AEO96 reference case forecast for low-sulfur coal million short tons per year.

indicates that substantial investments in new underground mine capacity will be needed in central Appalachia (Regions 3, 4, and 5 of Table 21), because

recoverable reserves at existing mines are sufficient to

meet the projected levels of coal production for only the

next 5 to 10 years. Southern West Virginia (Region 3) is

estimated to require the most investment, as low-sulfur

coal production from underground mines in this region is

expected to average more than 100 million short tons per

year over the forecast period. In the Other West region

(Region 11), underground mines have an estimated 810

million short tons of recoverable low-sulfur coal reserves;

however, projections of increased demand for this region's

low-sulfur coal indicate the need for new mine capacity

toward the end of the forecast.

For medium-sulfur coal, substantial investments in new

underground mine capacity are indicated for Alabama

(Region 6), southern West Virginia, and the Other West

region (Region 11). Alabama is estimated to require the

most investment, as medium-sulfur coal production from

underground mines in this region is expected to average

35 million short tons per year over the forecast.

For high-sulfur coal, the only area where substantial

investments are indicated is the Pennsylvania/Ohio

supply region (Region 1), where recoverable reserves of

high-sulfur coal at underground mines are sufficient to

meet the projected levels of coal production for only about

10 years. In this region, high-sulfur coal production from

underground mines is projected to average more than 30
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 45

Table 21. Remaining Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Underground Mines, 1994-2015

(Million Short Tons at End of Year)

Region 1994 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Average

Annual

Production

1995-2015

Low-Sulfur Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Underground Mines, 1994-2015

1 PA, OH, MD ........................ a 128 122 89 53 21 0 6

2 WV (north) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 56 41 16 0 0 5

3 WV (south) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 400 0 0 0 0 104

4 KY (east) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 168 45 0 0 0 22

5 VA, TN ............................ b 192 177 93 4 0 0 15

6 AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 282 255 218 185 156 6

7 KY (west), IN, IL, AR, IA, KS, MO, OK . . . c 56 56 53 53 53 53 0

11 WY (west), AZ, NM, CO, UT, WA, AK . . . . 810 765 538 296 2 0 54

U.S. Total ........................... 2,170 2,026 1,113 641 261 209 213

Medium-Sulfur Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Underground Mines, 1994-2015

1 PA, OH, MD ........................ a 547 520 386 233 82 0 32

2 WV (north) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 273 190 99 0 0 19

3 WV (south) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 105 23 0 0 0 20

4 KY (east) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 396 276 247 219 173 13

5 VA, TN ............................ b 143 132 75 28 26 19 6

6 AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 110 0 0 0 0 35

7 KY (west), IN, IL, AR, IA, KS, MO, OK .... c 417 393 285 176 80 0 20

11 WY (west), AZ, NM, CO, UT, WA, AK . . . . . 61 41 0 0 0 0 23

U.S. Total ........................... 2,146 1,971 1,235 783 407 192 167

High-Sulfur Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Underground Mines, 1994-2015

1 PA, OH, MD ........................ a 353 334 202 39 0 0 32

2 WV (north) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 378 280 189 103 20 18

3 WV (south) .......................... 0d 0 0 0 0 01

4 KY (east) ........................... 3 2 0 0 0 0 2

5 VA, TN ............................ b 2 2 1 0 0 00

6 AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

7 KY (west), IN, IL, AR, IA, KS, MO, OK .... c 925 875 643 452 281 132 38

U.S. Total ........................... 1,682 1,592 1,127 681 385 153 93

 PA, OH, MD excludes reserves data for Maryland. a

 VA, TN includes reserves data for Maryland to avoid disclosure of individual company data. b

 Data for Arkansas, Iowa, and Kansas were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. c

 Less than 500,000 short tons. d

 Note: Remaining recoverable coal reserves represent the amount of recoverable reserves estimated at active mines in 1994, less the amount of

cumulative production projected in the reference case forecast of the Annual Energy Outlook 1996.

 Source: Coal Reserves: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-7A, “Coal Production Report”; Form EIA-3A, “Annual Coal Quality

Report–Manufacturing Plants”; Form EIA-5A, “Annual Coal Quality Report–Coke Plants”; Form EIA-6, “Coal Distribution Report”; Form EIA-867, “Annual

Nonutility Power Producer Report”; and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Form-423, “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric

Plants.” Production Forecast: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1996, reference case forecast, National Energy Modeling

System run AEO96B.D101995C.
46 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal Report, October-December 1992, DOE/EIA-0121(92/4Q) (Washington, DC, May 1993), Table 46

35 and Quarterly Coal Report, October-December 1995, DOE/EIA-0121(95/4Q) (Washington, DC, May 1996), Table 35.

Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1996, reference case forecast, National Energy Modeling System run 47

AEO96B.D101995C.

Science Applications International Corporation, “Development of Resource Allocation and Mine Costing Model Longwall Model Mines,” 48

Unpublished final report prepared for the Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric and Alternate Fuels (Norristown,

PA, March 1991), pp. 6, 144-147, and 176-178.

As discussed above, continued growth in coal con- in production projected for this region implies that some

sumption for electricity generation and the response of new mines with additional reserves will be needed.

electric utilities to CAAA90 are the two key determinants

of future coal usage in the AEO96 reference case forecast.

In recent years, demand for high-sulfur coal has declined

substantially as the result of actions taken by utilities to

meet the requirements of CAAA90. The share of total

receipts of coal at electric utilities in the high-sulfur

category has declined from 26 percent in 1992 to 19

percent in 1995. During this same period, low-sulfur's 46

share of total receipts has increased from 37 percent to 47

percent. Over the forecast period, some further decline in

the use of high-sulfur coal in the electricity sector is

projected. More importantly, however, is the substantial

growth in low-sulfur coal usage that is expected to occur.

By 2015, high-sulfur coal is projected to account for only

14 percent of total electricity coal consumption, compared

with 61 percent for low-sulfur coal.47

Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active

Surface Mines

The AEO96 reference case forecast for low-sulfur coal

indicates that substantial investments in new surface mine

capacity will likely be needed in Montana/North Dakota

(Region 9) (Table 22). Although existing surface mines in been described in light of the AEO96 reference case

this region currently have nearly 700 million short tons of forecast and the current stock of recoverable reserves at

low-sulfur recoverable reserves, this amount would active mines, it is not feasible to provide firm estimates of

satisfy the projected levels of production for only a little the capital and mine development investment funds

more than 10 years. In Appalachia, some investments in required to bring this new capacity on-line. However, a

new mine capacity are indicated for eastern Kentucky and paper presented at a recent coal conference provides a

Virginia/Tennessee (Regions 4 and 5). Estimated recover- range of cost estimates for selected complements of

able reserves at active surface mines in these regions, production equipment (Table 23). Costs are shown to vary

however, are small, reflecting the relatively small minable substantially for different types of mines, ranging from a

reserve blocks associated with surface mines in low of approximately $2 million for an average-sized

Appalachia. continuous miner operation with shuttle cars or conOf the predominately low-sulfur regions, eastern Wyo- surface mine dragline operation with an annual run of

ming, with 6.3 billion short tons of low-sulfur coal mine (ROM) production capacity of 8 million short tons.

reserves at its existing surface mines, is best positioned to

meet increasing demand for low-sulfur coal. For example, In a report prepared for EIA in 1991, initial capital costs

these amounts of low-sulfur reserves are larger than the for a typical eastern longwall operation (shaft/slope

5.6 billion short tons of cumulative low-sulfur coal mine) were estimated at $56 million (in 1996 dollars) and

production projected between 1995 and 2015 from eastern capital costs for a typical western longwall (drift mine)

Wyoming's surface mines. However, substantial growth were estimated at $37 million. The ROM production

For medium-sulfur coal, substantial investments in new

surface mine capacity are indicated for eastern Kentucky,

while somewhat smaller investments are indicated for

Virginia/Tennessee and Alabama. Like reserves of lowsulfur coal, recoverable reserves of medium-sulfur coal at

active surface mines in these regions are also small. For

high-sulfur coal, recoverable reserves at active surface

mines are sufficient to meet projected demand in all

supply regions over most of the forecast period.

Initial Capital and Mine Development Costs

Initial capital and mine development costs represent a

significant portion of total coal mining costs. Some of the

capital and mine development costs of opening a new

mine include the costs of production equipment, costs

associated with the construction of shafts and slopes for

seam access and mine ventilation, costs of preparation and

loading facilities, and costs associated with the construction of haul roads or rail transport. 

Although future requirements of new mine capacity have

tinuous haulage equipment, to a high of $54 million for a

48
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 47

Table 22. Remaining Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Surface Mines, 1994-2015

(Million Short Tons at End of Year)

Region 1994 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Average

Annual

Production

1995-2015

Low-Sulfur Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Surface Mines, 1994-2015

1 PA, OH, MD ........................ a 12 12 9 1 0 0 1

2 WV (north) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 15 1 0 0 0 3

3 WV (south) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 161 89 65 18 0 13

4 KY (east) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 19 0 0 0 0 18

5 VA, TN ............................ b 5100004

6 AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 766660

7 KY (west), IN, IL, AR, IA, KS, MO, OK .... c 8510002

9 MT, ND ............................ e 663 620 364 76 0 0 57

10 WY (east) ........................... 6,327 6,108 4,931 3,535 2,105 675 269

11 WY (west), AZ, NM, CO, UT, WA, AK ..... 1,255 1,223 1,061 900 744 598 31

U.S. Total ........................... 8,505 8,170 6,462 4,583 2,873 1,278 399

Medium-Sulfur Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Surface Mines, 1994-2015

1 PA, OH, MD ........................ a 127 124 108 67 26 0 8

2 WV (north) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 55 28 0 0 0 6

3 WV (south) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 197 158 98 31 0 12

4 KY (east) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 82 0 0 0 0 35

5 VA, TN ............................ b 25 14 0 0 0 0 14

6 AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 19 0 0 0 0 8

7 KY (west), IN, IL, AR, IA, KS, MO, OK .... c 54 46 19 0 0 0 6

8 TX, LA ............................. d 658 623 450 261 14 0 43

9 MT, ND ............................ e 2,224 2,183 1,981 1,784 1,595 1,397 39

10 WY (east) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 199 157 112 64 0 10

11 WY (west), AZ, NM, CO, UT, WA, AK ..... 1,458 1,441 1,354 1,258 1,175 1,089 18

U.S. Total ........................... 5,199 4,983 4,255 3,580 2,904 2,487 198

High-Sulfur Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Surface Mines, 1994-2015

1 PA, OH, MD ........................ a 226 202 136 135 57 0 12

2 WV (north) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 38 34 30 26 22 1

3 WV (south) .......................... 1 100001

4 KY (east) ........................... 4 300005

5 VA, TN ............................ b 0f 000001

6 AL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 300001

7 KY (west), IN, IL, AR, IA, KS, MO, OK .... c 419 391 267 174 82 0 20

8 TX, LA ............................ d 368 350 259 168 72 0 19

9 MT, ND ............................ e 89 88 80 80 73 65 1

U.S. Total ........................... 1,151 1,076 776 587 310 87 60

 PA, OH, MD excludes reserves data for Maryland. a

 VA, TN includes reserves data for Maryland to avoid disclosure of individual company data. b

 Data for Arkansas, Iowa, and Kansas were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. c

 Data for Louisiana were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. d

 South Dakota is in this region but has no active mines, hence no reserves at active mines. e

 Less than 500,000 short tons. e

 Note: Remaining recoverable coal reserves represent the amount of recoverable reserves estimated at active mines in 1994 less the amount of

cumulative production projected in the reference case forecast of the Annual Energy Outlook 1996.

 Source: Coal Reserves: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-7A, “Coal Production Report”; Form EIA-3A, “Annual Coal Quality

Report–Manufacturing Plants”; Form EIA-5A, “Annual Coal Quality Report–Coke Plants”; Form EIA-6, “Coal Distribution Report”; Form EIA-867,

“Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report”; and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Form-423, “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels

for Electric Plants.” Production Forecast: Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 1996, reference case forecast, National Energy

Modeling System run AEO96B.D101995C.
48 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Energy Information Administration, Coal Production 1990, “A Profile of New Coal Mines in the 1980's,” DOE/EIA-0118(90) (Washington, 49

DC, September 1991), pp. 1-12. Data for mines that did not produce at least 50,000 short tons or more of coal in any single year were excluded.

The share of total U.S. coal production accounted for by excluded mines ranged from a high of 4.7 percent in 1981 to a low of 1.8 percent in 1989.

Mine life was estimated by dividing recoverable reserves at active mines in 1989 by annual production in 1989. 50

Assuming that no existing mines close prematurely, the change in reserves over time should be equal to reserves at new mines at the end 51

of the period minus cumulative production. Other factors that can affect estimates of reserves over time include: 1) re-estimations of in-mine

reserves by reporting companies; 2) the acquisition of additional reserves by existing mines; and 3) the accuracy with which reserves are estimated.

Table 23. Range of Capital Costs for Selected Complements of Production Equipment

Mining Method Low High Low High

Capital Costs Production Capacity

(million 1996 dollars) (thousand short tons)

Annual

Underground

 Basic Continuous Miner With Shuttle Cars . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 2.3 400 700

 Basic Continuous Miner With Continuous Haulage . . . . 1.9 2.3 600 1,000

 Longwall With 3 Continuous Miner Support Units ..... 23.7 30.9 3,000 6,000

Surface

 Basic Large Loader/Dozer/Trucks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 13.1 500 800

 Basic Shovel Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 14.1 500 1,000

 Dragline Operation .............................. 22.4 54.0 2,000 8,000

 Add – Highwall Miner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 4.0 500 800

 Source: Alan K. Stagg, Stagg Engineering Services, Inc., “U.S. Coal Production for the Next Decade: Where Will It Come From and

What Will It Cost?,” unpublished paper presented at the 14th Annual World Coal Conference, New Orleans, LA, February 14-16, 1996.

capacity for these mines were 3.0 million short tons for the In Appalachia, the substantial decline in recoverable

eastern mine and 2.6 million short tons for the western reserves at underground mines would appear to indicate

mine. These cost estimates are not directly comparable to that there was little investment in new mining operations.

those provided in Table 23, because they include costs To the contrary, an analysis completed by EIA in 1991

associated with additional equipment and structures. The found that many new mines actually were opened during

longwall cost estimates provided for EIA include all of the the 1980s. By 1989, production from more than 800 new

underground and surface equipment used to support the underground mines that opened during the 1980s in

production and development units, as well as all surface Appalachia amounted to 124 million short tons. Recoverfacilities exclusive of the preparation plant. able reserves associated with these new mines were

Historical Perspective

Between 1980 and 1994, recoverable reserves at active

mines declined from 26.6 billion short tons to 21.0 billion

short tons, a decrease of 5.6 billion short tons (Figure 7).

Despite this substantial decline, cumulative coal production (1980 through 1994) amounted to 13.8 billion

short tons, indicating the fact that new mines, with

additional reserves, were opened during this period. By

region and type of mining, two trends are noteworthy. In

Appalachia, recoverable reserves at active mines declined

steadily, decreasing by 5.3 billion short tons between 1980

and 1994. In the West, however, recoverable reserves at

active surface mines grew substantially between 1980 and

1985, increasing by 2.3 billion short tons, but have

changed by little thereafter.

49

estimated at 0.9 billion short tons, reflecting a relatively

short remaining mine life of only 7 years. By contrast, 50

reserves at underground mines in Appalachia in 1980

corresponded to a much longer mine life of 39 years,

indicating that mine operators in this region secured much

larger blocks of reserves in the past.

A number of factors affected the Appalachian coal

industry during the 1980s, resulting in many premature

mine closings. Thus, recoverable reserves at active mines

declined by much more than would be indicated by the

quantities of cumulative production and additions to

reserves from the opening of new mines. Factors 51

affecting the Appalachian coal industry included:

 1. Excess production capacity that resulted from the

opening of many new mines during the late 1970s,
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Billion Short Tons

U.S. Total

Appalachia

Interior

West

All Mines

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 49

Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines by

Region, 1980-1994

Coal Production by Region, 1980-1994

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-7A, “Coal Production Report.”

Figure 7. Comparative Trends in Recoverable Coal Reserves at Active Mines and Production, 1980-1994
50 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

to meet an increase in demand that did not exhausted and that new mine capacity will be needed in

materialize to the extent expected many areas of the country. Projections of increased

 2. A substantial decline in industrial coal demand substantial amounts of new mine capacity in low-sulfur

(particularly at coke plants)—a market for which coal regions, mostly in central Appalachia. Investments in

Appalachian producers are the principal sup- new low-sulfur capacity are most critical in southern West

pliers Virginia, where low-sulfur production at underground

 3. The rapid penetration of longwall mines, whose tons per year over the forecast period. The estimated

lower production costs forced some existing recoverable reserves of low-sulfur coal at existing active

mines out of business underground mines in this region can support the

 4. Continuing penetration of lower-cost coal from the

Powder River Basin into midwestern coal markets, Of the predominately low-sulfur regions, eastern Wyodisplacing some production from Appalachian ming is best positioned to meet the increasing demand for

mines. low-sulfur coal over the forecast period. Active mines in

For the West, the EIA study regarding new mines tons of recoverable low-sulfur reserves, which represents

revealed a different story. By 1989, production from 17 nearly 75 percent of the low-sulfur reserves at surface

new surface mines in the West amounted to 59 million mines and almost 60 percent of low-sulfur reserves at all

short tons. The recoverable reserves associated with these mines. For medium- and high-sulfur coal, projections for

new mines amounted to 2.7 billion short tons, reflecting a an expanding coal market and increased use of flue gas

very long average mine life of 46 years. Like Appalachia, desulfurization equipment create a relatively stable

an overly optimistic outlook for coal demand also led to market for these coal types. To meet demand, some new

the development of excess mining capacity in the West investments in medium-sulfur coal are indicated over the

during the 1980s. However, unlike Appalachia, produc- forecast period, primarily in Appalachia.

tion from this region increased substantially, as

continuing declines in both mining and transportation Investments in the coal industry have different implicacosts allowed coal from this region to penetrate into tions by region and type of mining. Initial capital

markets historically served by coal producers in the investments are relatively low for underground mines

Appalachian and Interior Regions. Between 1980 and employing continuous miner units for both mine

1989, Western coal production increased by 108 million development and production activities. On the other

short tons (Figure 4). This compares with increases of 25 hand, initial capital costs for underground mines using a

million short tons for Appalachia and 19 million short tons longwall unit for production and continuous miner units

for the Interior Region. for mine development work are much higher. Surface

Conclusion

The analysis indicates that recoverable reserves at existing

active mines for some coal types and regions will be

demand for low-sulfur coal indicate the need for

mines is projected to average more than 100 million short

projected levels of production for only about 5 years.

eastern Wyoming report an estimated 6.3 billion short

mines are very capital-intensive operations. For example,

initial capital costs for production equipment at a large

dragline operation are estimated to exceed $50 million.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 51

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used

AEO 96 Annual Energy Outlook 1996

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BOM U.S. Bureau of Mines

CAAA90 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

CAS USGS Coal Availability Studies

CMM Coal Market Module

CRDB Coal Reserves Data Base

CRS BOM Coal Recoverability Studies

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DRB demonstrated reserve base

EIA Energy Information Administration

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GIS geographic information systems

ISGS Illinois State Geological Survey

KDMM Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals

KGS Kentucky Geological Survey

NCRA National Coal Resource Assessment

NCRDS National Coal Resource Data System

NEMS National Energy Modeling System

NMBMMR New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources

RAMC Resource Allocation and Mine Costing

ROM run of mine

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 53

Glossary of Selected Coal Classification Terms

accessed—Coal deposits that have been prepared for available resources—In U.S. Geological Survey studies,

mining by construction of portals, shafts, slopes, drifts,

and haulage ways; by removal of overburden; or by

partial mining (see also virgin coal). determination after adjusting for geologic considerations,

accessibility—In reference to coal resources (core

meaning), the absence of land use restrictions and the

assumption that ownership or leaseholds will be

obtainable for mining (see also environmental restrictions, industrial restrictions). Many technological

restrictions were traditionally applied as demonstrated

reserve base criteria, but (extended meaning) with the

advent of available resource studies, specific technologic

restrictions may be incorporated in accessibility factors

(see also restricted resources).

accessibility factor—The estimated regional ratio of

accessible reserve base to the demonstrated reserve base

or of accessible resources to identified resources.

accessible reserve base—The portion of the

demonstrated reserve base estimated by EIA to be

accessible, determined by application of one or more

accessibility factors within an area. An accessible reserve

base may be referred to as accessible resources because it estimates unless the ash is largely in associated partings so

is a subset of accessible resources and is usually part of a

single resource study.

accessible resources—The portion of identified resources

estimated to be accessible, determined by application of

one or more accessibility factors within an area.

as-received condition or as-received basis—Represents

an analysis of a sample as received at a laboratory.

availability—In reference to coal resources, the absence

of land-use or environmental restrictions and tech- Many of the processes separate rock, clay, and other

nological restrictions.

available reserves—In EIA coal supply modeling, the

difference between estimated recoverable reserves and

recoverable reserves at active mines; in modeling

context, these reserves are considered not presently

obligated for existing mines and, therefore, would be

available to supply new mines in the future.

the quantity of remaining identified resources available

for development and potential extraction at the time of

land-use restrictions, and/or technological restrictions

(see also accessible reserve base).

bed—All the coal and partings lying between a roof and

floor.

bench—A subdivision and (or) layer of a coal bed

separated from other layers by partings of non-coal rock.

coal—A readily combustible rock containing more than 50

percent by weight and more than 70 percent by volume of

carbonaceous material, including inherent moisture. It is

formed from plant remains that have been compacted,

indurated, chemically altered, and metamorphosed by

heat and pressure during geologic time. Discussion:

Differences in the kinds of plant materials, in the degree

of metamorphism (rank), and in the range of impurities

are characteristic of coal and are used in coal classification.

Impure coal/coaly material containing more than 33

weight percent ash is excluded from resources and reserve

that the coal is cleanable to less than 33 weight percent ash.

coal preparation/washing—The treatment of coal to reject

waste. In its broadest sense, preparation is any processing

of mined coal to prepare it for market, including crushing

and screening or sieving the coal to reach a uniform size,

which normally results in removal of some non-coal

material. The term coal preparation most commonly refers

to processing, including crushing and screening, passing

the material through one or more processes to remove

impurities, sizing the product, and loading for shipment.

minerals from coal in a liquid medium; hence the term

washing is widely used. In some cases coal passes through

a drying step before loading.

coal-producing region—An area that collectively

encompasses a group of geographically contiguous or

logically associated States or areas that currently or

historically mine and market coal.
54 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

coal supply region—An area in which the EIA coal depletion—The subtraction of both the tonnage produced

reserves data are aggregated and allocated to a set of

uniform, typical criteria for purposes of modeling. The

criteria of a coal supply region may include coal heat and

sulfur content or other quality parameters, coal rank,

geographic continuity, traditional mining regions, State or

county boundaries, transportation corridors and barriers,

and marketing factors. Coal supply regions may vary for

different modeling criteria; they may include the coal

reserves of an entire State or a contiguous group of States;

some major producing States may be split into more than

one region.

coal zone—A series of laterally extensive and (or)

lenticular coal beds and associated strata that arbitrarily

can be viewed as a unit. Generally, the coal beds in a coal

zone are assigned to the same geologic member or

formation.

committed reserves—In EIA coal supply modeling,

synonymous with recoverable reserves at active mines;

in modeling context, these reserves are considered

obligated for existing mines and, therefore, not part of the

reserves that would be available to supply new mines in

the future.

compliance coal—A coal or a blend of coals that meets

sulfur dioxide emission standards for air quality without

the need for flue gas desulfurization.

cumulative depletion—The sum in tons of coal extracted

and lost in mining to a stated date for a specified area or

a specified coal bed.

demonstrated reserve base (DRB)—A collective term for

the sum of coal in both measured and indicated resource

categories of reliability; the DRB represents 100 percent of

coal in place as of a certain date. Includes beds 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 resources—Same qualifications as identified resources, but includes measured and indicated

degrees of geologic assurance and excludes the inferred.

depleted resources—Resources that have been mined;

includes coal recovered, coal lost in mining, and coal

reclassified as subeconomic because of mining. See

cumulative depletion. control, abundance, and quality of geologic data increases.

and the tonnage lost in 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 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.

dry, mineral-matter-free basis—A type of calculated

analytical value of a coal sample expressed as if the total

moisture and mineral matter had been removed. Mineral

matter free is not the same as ash free.

economic—Term that implies that profitable extraction or

production under realistic investment assumptions has

been established, analytically demonstrated, or assumed

with reasonable certainty.

environmental restrictions—Land-use restrictions that

constrain, postpone, or prohibit mining in order to protect

environmental resources of an area; for example, surfaceor groundwater quality, air quality affected by mining, or

plants or animals or their habitats. 

estimate—A determination as to the amount or tonnage

of coal in an area. The term estimate indicates that the

quantities of resources are known imprecisely. An

estimate differs from an assessment, which is an analysis

of all data concerning an area's coal resources and

reserves with the objective of reaching a judgment about

the geologic nature and economic potential of the coal

resources and reserves of the area.

estimated recoverable reserves—See recoverable

reserves.

floor--The upper surface of the stratum underlying a coal

seam. In coals that were formed in persistent swamp

environments, the floor is typically a bed of clay, known

as "underclay," representing the soil in which the trees or

other coal-forming swamp vegetation was rooted.

geologic assurance—State of sureness, confidence, or

certainty of the existence of a quantity of resources based

on the distance from points where coal is measured or

sampled and on the abundance and quality of geologic

data as related to thickness of overburden, rank, quality,

thickness of coal, areal extent, geologic history, structure,

and correlations of coal beds and enclosing rocks. The

degree of assurance increases as the nearness to points of
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 55

geologic considerations—Conditions in the coal deposit inferred reserve base—the resources in the inferred

or in the rocks in which it occurs that may complicate or reliability category that meet the same criteria of bed

preclude mining. Geologic considerations are evaluated in

the context of the current state of technology and

regulations, so the impact on mining may change with

time.

hypothetical resources—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.

identified resources—Specific bodies of coal whose

location, rank, quality, and quantity are known from

geologic evidence supported by engineering measurements. Included are beds of bituminous coal and

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

rank, quality, and quantity have been computed partly

from sample analyses and measurements and partly from

reasonable geologic projections. Indicated resources are

computed partly from specified measurements and partly

from projection of visible data for a reasonable distance on

the basis of geologic evidence. The points of observation

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.

industrial restrictions—Land-use restrictions that constrain, postpone, or prohibit mining in order to meet other

industrial needs or goals; for example, resources not

mined due to safety concerns or due to industrial or

societal priorities, such as to preserve oil or gas wells that

penetrate the coal reserves; to protect surface features

such as pipelines, power lines, or company facilities; or to minable—Capable of being mined under current mining

preserve public or private assets, such as highways, technology and environmental and legal restrictions,

railroads, parks, or buildings. rules, and regulations.

thickness and depth from surface as the demonstrated

reserve base.

inferred resources—Coal 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 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.

isopach—A line on a map drawn through points of equal

thickness of a designated unit (such as a coal bed).

land-use restrictions—Constraints placed upon mining

by societal policies to protect surface features or entities

that could be affected by mining. Because laws and

regulations may be modified or repealed, the restrictions,

including industrial and environmental restrictions, are

subject to change.

marginal reserves—Borders on being economic. See

economic.

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 no longer considered reliable for most measured

resources). 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-wide belt from the outcrop or points of

observation or measurement.
56 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

original (resources/reserves)—The amount of coal in the recoverable reserves at active mines—The amount of in

ground before any production. situ coal that can be recovered by mining existing reserves

overburden—Any material, consolidated or unconsolidated, that lies between a coal deposit and the surface.

Overburden is reported in feet and (or) meters and used to

classify the depth to an underlying coal bed.

preparation plant—Broadly speaking, any facility where

coal is prepared for market; usual accepted meaning is a

rather elaborate collection of facilities where coal is

separated from its impurities, washed and sized, and

loaded for shipment. Also known as a wash plant or coal

washer.

quality or grade—An informal classification of coal

relating to its suitability for use for a particular purpose.

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 special purposes as

metallurgical, gas, petrochemical, and blending usages.

rank—The classification of coal relative to other coals,

according to their degree of metamorphism, or progressive alteration, in the natural series from lignite to

anthracite (Standard Classification of Coal by Rank, 1992,

American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM

Designation D–388–91a).

recoverability—In reference to accessible coal resources,

the condition of being physically, technologically, and

economically minable. Recovery rates and recovery

factors may be determined or estimated for coal resources

without certain knowledge of their economic minability;

therefore, the availability of recovery rates or factors does

not predict recoverability.

recoverable coal—Coal that is, or can be, extracted from

a coal bed during mining.

recoverable reserves, estimated recoverable reserves—Reserve estimates (broad meaning) based on a

demonstrated reserve base adjusted for assumed

accessibility factors and recovery factors. The term is

used by EIA to distinguish estimated recoverable reserves,

which are derived without specific economic feasibility

criteria by factoring (downward) from a demonstrated

reserve base for one or more study areas or regions, from

recoverable reserves at active mines, which are

aggregated (upward) from reserve estimates reported by

currently active, economically viable mines on Form

EIA–7A.

at mines reporting on Form EIA-7A (see committed

reserves).

recovery factor—The percentage of total tons of coal

estimated to be recoverable from a given area in relation

to the total tonnage estimated to be in the demonstrated

reserve base. For the purpose of calculating depletion

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 recovery factors

can be computed by determining the total coal in place

and the total coal recoverable in any specific locale.

recovery percentage/rate—The ratio of coal extracted

from a bed as compared to the total quantity of coal

originally in the bed.

remaining (resources/reserves)—The amount of coal in

the ground after some mining, excluding coal in the

ground spoiled or left in place for which later recovery is

not feasible.

reserve(s)—Root meaning: The amount of in-situ coal in

a defined area that can be recovered by mining at a

sustainable profit at the time of determination. Broad

meaning: That portion of the demonstrated reserve base

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.

resources—Naturally occurring concentrations or deposits

of coal in the Earth's crust, in such forms and amounts that

economic extraction is currently or potentially feasible.

restricted coal resources—In U.S. Geological Survey

studies, the quantity of remaining resources that is not

available for development at the time of determination

because of geologic considerations, land-use restrictions,

and/or technological restrictions.

restricted resources—Those parts of any resource

category that are restricted or prohibited from extraction

by laws or regulations. Also, coal or a portion of the coal

in categorically minable depths or thicknesses that is not

economic at the time of determination.

roof—The rock immediately above a coal seam. The roof

is commonly a shale, often carbonaceous and softer than

rocks higher up in the roof strata.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 57

run-of-mine—The raw coal recovered from a mine, prior strip or surface mining—The extraction of coal by using

to any treatment. surface mining methods such as area strip mining,

salable coal—The shippable product of a coal mine or

preparation plant. Depending on customer specifications,

salable coal may be run-of-mine, crushed-and-screened

(sized) coal, or the clean coal yield from a preparation

plant. 

sample—A representative fraction of a coal bed collected

by approved methods, guarded against contamination or

adulteration, and analyzed to determine the nature;

chemical, mineralogic, and (or) petrographic composition;

percentage or parts-per-million content of specified

constituents; heat value; and possibly the reactivity of the

coal or its constituents.

seam—A bed of coal lying between a roof and floor.

Equivalent term to bed, commonly used by industry.

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.

strip or stripping ratio—The amount of overburden that

must be removed to gain access to a unit amount of coal.

Discussion: A stripping ratio may be

expressed as (1) thickness of overburden to thickness of coal, (2)

volume of overburden to volume

coal, (3) weight of overburden to

weight of coal, or (4) cubic yards of

overburden to tons of coal. A

stripping ratio commonly is used to

express the maximum thickness,

volume, or weight of overburden

that can be profitably removed to virgin coal—Coal that has not been accessed by mining.

obtain a unit amount of coal.

contour strip mining, or open-pit mining. The overburden

covering the coal is removed and the coal extracted using

power shovels, front-end loaders, or similar heavy

equipment.

technological restrictions—Constraints related to economics and safety placed upon mining by contemporary

technology or prescribed by law; the restrictions may

change with advances in science or modifications in the

law. For purposes of assessing impacts on minability,

geologic considerations are included as technological

restrictions. A secondary basis for accessibility is the technological restrictions that may affect economic minability of

specific coal resources in a locality at the time of the

evaluation. Technological restrictions include constraints on

the economic or safe mining of the coal with contemporary technologies, which constraints are related to

the nature of the coalbeds or local geology; for example,

specific coalbed thickness or overburden characteristics

known to deter economic mining of coal meeting broad

regional DRB criteria, localized geologic structural

problems, or unsafe or illegal proximity to another mine.

underground mining—The extraction of coal or its

products from between enclosing rock strata by

underground mining methods, such as room and pillar,

longwall, and shortwall, or through in-situ gasification.

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.

See accessed.
Appendix A

Review of U.S. Coal

Resource and Reserve

Data Criteria and

Terminology
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 61

 Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of the Interior, Coal

Resource Classification System of the U.S. Geological Survey,

Geological Survey Circular 891 (1983).

Appendix A

Review of U.S. Coal Resource and

Reserve Data Criteria and Terminology

This appendix contains a review of the coal classification

system used by EIA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),

and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM). It also details the Points of Measurement

criteria used by those three agencies for coal resources and

reserve assessments, including the demonstrated reserve

base (DRB) of coal and EIA’s estimated recoverable

reserves of coal. Finally, it reviews the status of EIA’s

updates to the DRB and estimated recoverable reserves

and of other data sources that have been or may be useful

to improve EIA’s Coal Reserves Data Base (CRDB).

Finally, this appendix includes a discussion of the terms

and contacts that apply to EIA, USGS, and BOM coal data.

Coal resources are naturally occurring concentrations or

deposits of coal in the Earth's crust, in such forms that

economic extraction is currently or potentially feasible.

Efforts to quantify coal resources are based on observations and, more importantly, measurements of coal

deposits: the thicknesses of the bedded deposits and of

any noncoal materials within the coalbeds, the depths and

elevations of the coalbeds, and the locations of the

measurements, along with descriptions and samples

representative of the coal deposits. Similar data are

collected about the rocks within which the coal occurs and

the topography, hydrology, and other geologic features

that may affect minability. The precision and the level of

confidence attributable to a resource estimate derive from

the number of measurement points, including their

locations relative to each other and to pertinent geologic

features, and from carefully taken and properly recorded

data. The spatial relationships of qualified coal

measurement points and the standard USGS resource

reliability categories are illustrated as a diagrammatic

map in Figure A1.

The USGS originated a basic coal resource classification

diagram that serves to this day, with minor modifications.

In Figure A2 EIA has combined elements from several

USGS diagrams and its own applications to diagram the

hierarchy of coal resource data reliability and minability

categories. Figure A2 represents resources conceptually

Figure A1. Diagram of Coal Resource Reliability

Categories Based on Distances From

and qualitatively. It does not indicate the specific sizes,

thicknesses, depths, or geometries of coal deposits. The

classification scheme is based on the relative degrees of

assurance that coal resources do exist and extend

throughout an area, at progressive levels of economic

suitability for mining. These classes are, in turn, defined
UNDISCOVERED

MEASURED HYPOTHETICAL INDICATED

INFERRED

SPECULATIVE

ECONOMIC

SUBECONOMIC

Increasing degree of economic feasibility

TOTAL RESOURCES OF COAL

Increasing degree of geologic assurance

IDENTIFIED

PROBABILITY RANGE

OTHER

OCCURRENCES

INCLUDES NONCONVENTIONAL MATERIALS

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

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

MARGINALLY

ECONOMIC

INFERRED

SUBECONOMIC

RESOURCES

SUBECONOMIC

RESOURCES

R E S E R V E S

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

INFERRED

RESERVE

BASE

DEMONSTRATED

62 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

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

conceptually and qualitatively. It does not indicate the specific sizes, thicknesses, depths, or geometries of coal deposits. 

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

Circular 891 (1983) and U.S. Geological Survey, Principles of the Mineral Resource Classification System of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and U.S.

Geological Survey, Bulletin 1450-A (1976). 

Figure A2. Classification of Coal Resources and Reserves

by criteria such as: coal deposit size; bed thickness, depth, broad physical and coal grade criteria for coalbeds from

or geometry; geologic considerations; and the quality or which reserves would most likely be mined. The DRB

marketability of the coal—all of which can and do change minability criteria were selected from the contemporary

over time. The classification is a framework in which to resource assessment standards available in the 1970s

catalog the data on coal resources, whether or not data are (Figure A3). In general, they include measured and

available in all places. indicated resources in medium-to-thick beds at depths of

DRB Criteria

The demonstrated reserve base, or DRB, is EIA's baseline

of coal resource data that underlies projections of future

coal supplies and other analyses. The DRB includes only

resources of measured and indicated reliability meeting

1,000 feet or less from the surface. For surface mining, the

minable depths extend only to 200 feet or less and also

include thin beds in some regions. Still thinner and/or

deeper resources are included, if data are available, in

locations where there is evidence that they are or could be

mined commercially at this time. For bituminous coal and

anthracite, coal 28 or more inches thick is generally

included in the surface DRB in Appalachia and the
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 63

Figure A3. 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 broad criteria for minability. In the nonshaded blocks,

measured and indicated resources are included in the DRB. In nonshaded partial blocks, measured and indicated resources are included in

the DRB in specific locations only, where there is evidence that thinner and/or deeper beds could be mined commercially at this time. In

shaded areas, coalbed rank, thickness, and depth combinations for 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.

Interior States. For subbituminous coal, beds 60 or more mining practice, technology, and (indirectly) economics.

inches thick are included in both the surface and the Including measured and indicated resources and accomunderground DRB. For lignite, beds 60 or more inches modating regional mining variations do not imply that

thick are included in the surface DRB (lignite is not those resources will be legally available, economically

currently mined underground in the United States) and marketable, or technologically minable. Detailed local

beds 30 to 60 inches thick are included in certain areas. evaluations are normally required to determine ownerThe DRB is not re-estimated when economic conditions, to evaluate the quality of the coal and its value in current

such as coal prices, change. Changing economic con- markets, and to detect impediments from natural geologic

ditions, as well as laws and regulations governing coal conditions (for example, weak roof rock or instability due

supply, are analytical variables to be evaluated for a to faulting) or societal restrictions (for example, in national

particular issue, and are not directly related to the criteria parks).

for the DRB. To the extent possible, reliability and minability criteria have been applied uniformly nationwide in The actual amount of coal recoverable from the DRB has

order to maintain data compatibility and objectivity. always been speculative. For many years, engineering

Even though changing economic factors cannot be taken operators and government geologists and mining engiinto account in routine DRB updates, the physical DRB neers, sufficed (especially in the eastern half of the United

criteria can be amended to allow for enduring changes in States). Roughly 50 percent of the DRB was thought to be

ship and regulatory limitations that may apply to the coal,

judgment, based on the cumulative experience of mine
64 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

The standard USGS quadrangle today is the 7.5–minute quadrangle, a nearly rectangular area bounded by 7.5 minutes of latitude and 52

7.5 minutes of longitude. In the coterminous United States this area averages about 6.5 miles east to west and 8.5 miles north to south, covering

55 to 56 square miles, but ranging from 66 square miles in south Texas to 49 square miles in northern Montana.

recoverable nationally. In the late 1970's, separate per- recent EIA sources incorporate some data from older

centages were estimated for the legal-to-mine fraction and studies.

the recoverable fraction of the surface-minable and deepminable DRB of coal supply regions, for use in coal supply

analyses. Recent EIA updates to coal resource data include

data for the DRB, as well as new, more detailed factors for

resource accessibility, and field data for coal quality.

Updated average mine-level recovery rates come from

EIA mine production reports and from the experience of

geologists in the region. 

Resource-Based Estimates

The DRB reports selected coal resources. Estimates of the

reserves that will be recoverable from those resources are

considered to be “resource-based” reserve estimates. Coal

resource estimates are, in fact, of interest primarily to

determine where coal is located and how much can be

mined. Detailed assessments of reserves, with sufficient

detail to ascertain coal quantities, characteristics, and

values or marketability would be very instructive, but the

economic and engineering data supporting the coal

reserve assessments by owners or leaseholders are

confidential and not available for Government databases.

The only “reserve-based” reserve estimates EIA is authorized to collect are simple statistics on the remaining

reserves and rates of recovery estimated by active mine

operators each year. All EIA recoverable reserve data

beyond outside current mining operations are derived

from “resource-based estimates.”

Published Resource Data Sources

Published studies are the sources for currently available

national estimates of total resources and identified

resources and for most of the data currently in the DRB.

The published studies include reports from the USGS,

BOM, State geological and mining agencies, EIA, and the

U.S. Department of Energy. They also include reports in

professional journals and, rarely, mining and engineering

studies. Some studies cover the important coal resources

of an entire State; others cover only resources in a county,

a coalfield, a political jurisdiction, or a USGS quadrangle52

mapping area. The ages of the source studies for the DRB

date from 1907 for three counties of West Virginia to 1995

for Illinois. The ages of the USGS source studies for total

and identified resources date from 1940 in West Virginia

to 1975 in Colorado. Many of the USGS and the more

Computerized Resource Data Sources

Recent updates to the DRB have relied increasingly on

computerized resource data. About 1980, coal resource

data were becoming available through computerized

databases, with or without descriptive reports. These databases were pioneered by the Illinois State Geological

Survey (ISGS) and by the USGS in its National Coal

Resources Data System (NCRDS). The NCRDS supplied

partial funding through cooperative agreements with

many State geological surveys for coal resource

assessments between 1975 and the present. Both the ISGS

and the USGS systems entered coal and stratigraphic data

at measurement points and incorporated locational data

in computerized map files.

The capabilities of the mapping systems improved over

the years and were reengineered repeatedly to accommodate changing technology. Because NCRDS participation was requisite for the cooperative agreements, many

States adopted the USGS technology and standards, but

because the program was centrally coordinated and all

data were for many years processed only through USGS

computers, data processing delays were inevitable. The

NCRDS program now incorporates mini-computer work

stations, personal computer adaptations, and advances in

commercial geographic information systems (GIS). At this

time, only Kentucky, Illinois, and New Mexico, through

their own systems, have processed enough data to update

the resources for all economically important coal deposits

of each State.

Accessibility and

Recoverability Adjustments

During the past decade, significant improvements have

been initiated to develop better data for coal resource

accessibility and recoverability. Accessibility and recoverability factors are usually rooted in measurements or

observations within representative coal resource study

areas and are applied throughout entire coal resource

supply areas.

During the late 1970s, for the Resource Allocation and

Mine Costing (RAMC) model, EIA had developed
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 65

U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1055, Coal Resources Available for Development--A Methodology and Pilot Study (Reston, VA 1990). 53

Personal communication with M. Devereux Carter, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April 1996. 54

Land Use Restrictions

Cemeteries

Streams, lakes, and reservoirs

Residences, towns, and public buildings

Historic sites and non-Federal public parks

Highways and railroads

Powerlines and pipelines

Federal lands and endangered species habitat

Oil and gas wells

Technological Restrictions

Coalbed depth and thickness

Geologic conditions that impact mining

Proximity to another coalbed or mine

 Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Circular 1055, Coal Resources

Available for Development.

U.S. Geological Survey

Factors Affecting Coal Availability

regional estimates of the proportion of resources expected

to be free of environmental and land use restrictions and,

thus, be accessible for mining by surface and underground methods. These estimates were based primarily on

the professional judgment of analysts experienced in coal

mining and coal supply modeling. Accessibility fractions

were applied to the surface and underground DRB. The

resulting accessible reserve base estimates were further

adjusted by recovery factors for surface and underground

mining. The recovery factors were based on recovery rates

at operating mines reporting on Form EIA-7A, the annual

Coal Production Report, averaged over mining provinces.

Starting in 1990, accessibility factors were updated, along

with coal resource estimates, through EIA Coal Reserves

Data Base (CRDB) studies. CRDB studies in Ohio,

Wyoming, and New Mexico incorporated State geological

survey resource mapping with available land use information to recalculate average accessibility factors within

the studied area. In these cases, data counts, sampling

studies, and/or area-wide measurements were done to

quantify the impact of mapped surface features or land

use boundaries on surface and underground coal

accessibility. Some assumptions were necessary, based

usually on either Federal regulations or State or local

zoning, as to the effect of certain components on resource

access.

Starting in 1993, EIA’s CRDB studies in certain coal

supply areas (eastern Kentucky and, later, Illinois) were

able to draw on a new source, USGS Coal Availability

Studies (CAS), to update accessibility data. The CAS

started with a pilot study in 1986. The premise of the 53

CAS was that more accurate assessments of the portion of

U.S. coal resources that will be accessible, or available, for

development, can be made if accurate baseline data are

available. Clearly, it would not be fiscally feasible to map

coal resources and availability throughout the vast coal

fields of the United States, but it may be feasible to select

limited areas that typify the various coal provinces and

map them accurately. The results would then be

extrapolated to the coal provinces. Again, this is a

resource-based approach, designed to distinguish the

portion of total resources that is potentially minable from

the portion that is not. The USGS criteria for coal availability consider both land use restrictions and technologic

restrictions:

By May 1996, a total of 35 Coal Availability Studies were

completed, in the States of Kentucky, West Virginia,

Virginia, Illinois Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and

Wyoming. An additional 30 studies are planned or

underway in Kentucky, West Virginia, Tennessee, Illinois,

Indiana, Ohio, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, and

Utah. Thus far, methodologies to extrapolate the results 54

to unstudied portions of the coalfields have not been

completed (a single methodology may not be applicable

from one coal province to another). In the meantime, in

CRDB projects in eastern Kentucky and Illinois, EIA has

employed weighted averages based on completed CAS as

improved bases for accessibility adjustments.

Cross-Boundary Assessments

In the 1990s State and Federal geologists have initiated an

alternative methodology to reassess coal resources, which

may eventually offer an alternative to the DRB as a

national coal resource database.

In 1993, the Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS) began the

first of a planned series of cross-boundary coal resource

mapping projects, the Fire Clay coal resource study. Most

resource assessments of the past studied all the coalbeds

in a geographic area and mapped and calculated

resources for all beds thicker than a standard cutoff, such
66 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Personal communication with Harold Gluskoter, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, April 1996. 55

Energy Information Administration, “Coal Production Report,” Form EIA-7A, data request terminology in “Recoverable Reserves” 56

section of questionnaire (Washington, DC, December 1995) p. 2.

as 14 inches, occurring within a certain depth from the identified resource data, although it will not include as

surface, such as 3,000 feet (in practice, reliable coal many coalbeds as did the 1975 sources. However, with

measurement points deeper than 1,000 feet are relatively more data points, more coverage, and better map bases

few in most regions). Knowing that funds to conduct coal and available geologic mapping, the NCRA is expected to

resource assessments have declined steadily during the produce a more accurate and versatile database for

past 15 years, the KGS inferred that any study that would reliable (identified or better) resources of coal for use in

collect new data and conduct assessments on scores of the first quarter of the 21st century. It may be possible to

coalbeds would probably never be completed. develop a uniformly updated database for the coal that

The KGS considered the most significant coalbeds in In that case, the older data for the other 10-15 percent

eastern Kentucky and set out to bring mapping and would be a minor concern.

resource calculations for at least one of those beds up to

modern standards—including coal quality, geologic and The NCRA is currently the highest-priority coal resource

structural information, environmental data, and digital program at USGS. If completed, the NCRA program will

elevation data. Although older resource mapping is far include coal resources in five major regions by 1999. The

from complete, there are enough production data and regions being reassessed are: the central and northern

geologic information to surmise which coalbeds in Appalachian Basin, the Illinois Basin, the onshore Gulf of

unmapped areas are likely to be thick, persistent, and Mexico sediments, the Powder River Basin/northern

high-quality. On those bases, the KGS identified the Great Plains, and the Rocky Mountains/Colorado

coalbeds that it expects to contain most of the coal minable Plateau. In the meantime, EIA will continue to maintain

in the next 30 years. the DRB and estimated recoverable reserves. Even if the

In the initial cross-boundary study, the KGS has mapped alternative national database would require extensive

the Fire Clay coalbed over an area of occurrence in eastern reengineering of applications and may not fill every need.

Kentucky crossing several county boundaries. The study

area includes fifteen 7.5-minute quadrangles where the

Fire Clay lies within 1,200 feet of the surface. This study

will give a much more accurate profile of the resources

and reserve potential of the coal, including well integrated

data on the thickness, depth, roof and floor rocks, and

quality of the Fire Clay coal. One outcome of this study

will be a test of the quantitative and qualitative

differences that may be expected when a single coalbed is

assessed with modern mapping and geologic data and

completed in a relatively brief period of intense study.

Total resources of coal in the United States, including

identified resources, were last compiled by the USGS in

1975, from published source studies dating from 1940

through 1975. In 1993, the USGS announced plans to

initiate a National Coal Resource Assessment (NCRA) to

provide a new national database of identified resources.

Total resources (i.e., the hypothetical and speculative

resources, in addition to the identified) are not part of the

NCRA because of their lack of relevance to near- and midterm planning.

The NCRA will be a series of cross-boundary studies of

the currently important coals in the United States. The

results of the NCRA are expected to supplant the 1975

will supply 85-90 percent of the production through 2025.

55

NCRA is completed on schedule, the transition to an

Reserve-Based Estimates

The term “reserve-based estimates” is used to describe

estimates of coal reserves that are compiled from coal

reserves data. The most extensive reserve-based estimate

is EIA's recoverable reserves at active mines. It is compiled from estimates of the in situ coal that can be

recovered from the active mines reporting each year on

Form EIA-7A. Although extensive, this estimate holds no

data on reserves controlled by parties who are not

presently mining or not permitted to mine those reserves.

Coal mining companies are not subject to legally binding

reporting requirements, as in the oil and natural gas

industries. In 1994, estimated reserves were actually

reported by or estimated for only 70 percent of resource

mapping projects, the Fire Clay coal resource mapping

projects, the Fire Clay coal resource of the coal industry in

regard to economic data, the two data elements actually

reported are nominal, defined as : 56

(1). . . the coal tonnage representing that portion of

coal reserves remaining at this mine at the end of the

reporting year that you estimate can be recovered

(mined) in the future, and
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 67

U.S. Bureau of Mines, Coal Resource Recoverability: A Methodology, Information Circular 9638 (Washington, DC, 1993), pp. 5-17. 57

Electric Power Research Institute, Central Appalachia: Production Potential of Low-Sulfur Coal, Volume I: Ten Counties in Core Low-Sulfur 58

Region, prepared by Hill & Associates, Inc., Annapolis, MD (Palo Alto, CA, September 1991).

(2) . . . the recovery percentage used in estimating data collection, with field observations and interviews by

recoverable reserves in this mine. mining engineers with industry experience, working with

A second species of reserve-based estimates with potential how much support for additional CRS will be available or

applicability to EIA recoverable reserve estimates was whether a scientifically validated program can be

initiated by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM) between 1989 developed to extend the results to areas beyond the CRS

and 1995, during its participation in the Coal Recover- quadrangles.

ability Studies (CRS) program. The CRS program was an

outgrowth of BOM experience in coal mining cost studies

done for the U.S. Department of Commerce and was

designed to complement the results of USGS Coal Availability Studies with a methodology for reliable estimates

of the economically recoverable coal in the CAS

quadrangles studied. The BOM methodology incor- 57

porated the coal resource and availability mapping from

a completed CAS and refined those data by factoring in

data on the volume and density of in-seam partings and

data on coal mining economics and recovery rates in the

study area. For analysis of mining economics and

recovery, the BOM collected mine-level operational data

under its strict, non-disclosure authority.

Data collection by the BOM entailed thorough investigations of actual mining and coal preparation economics

and techniques in specific coal resource areas. The

investigations included touring the quadrangle and

adjacent areas to inventory all active mines, wash plants,

railroads, haulage roads, streams and rivers, trends in

terrain affecting mining and haulage, and other pertinent

infrastructure. BOM mining engineers visited mines

representative of all mining techniques in the study area

and collected detailed operational data on machinery,

efficiency, and operating costs, as well as information on

mining restrictions, coal quality, and coal marketability.

These data were supplemented with data on equipment

costs and cost indexes, productivity, transportation costs,

coal quality versus realization, taxation, and other factors

from industry and government sources. As noted, the raw

data from the mine and wash plant operators was

restricted, but the BOM results and the software they

developed are available and represent much-needed, upto-date ground truth data. 

The down side of this program is that the BOM completed

CRS in only 15 quadrangles before the agency was

virtually shut down at the end of 1995. The USGS plans

to maintain the CRS program at a minimal level, subject to

budget restrictions. Further, the CRS output data are only

as good as the input information, which would need to be

updated occasionally. The results depended on intensive

mining-oriented computer specialists. It is not known

Finally, a third species of reserve-based data exists that

has not been used by EIA. This is private assessments

done by mining companies and reserve holders, including

related proprietary studies by energy consulting

companies. The private assessments generally are not

available to the Federal Government or are not disclosable

if they are available. Private assessments usually include

resources and reserves. Reserves data may be developed

only in selected, better-explored sections of the resource

area, as mining companies have little incentive to do

expensive drilling to prove up reserves that would not be

needed for many years.

Proprietary studies by consulting companies are based on

company resource and reserve data, collected under strict

arrangements to protect identifiable data from disclosure.

Access to these studies could be purchased by the Federal

Government, but the results could not be disclosed in any

way due to copyright protection. Cooperating coal

companies benefit by getting access to regional coal

resource estimates, which may improve their perspective

on their own place in the region and aid them in planning.

An example is the study of the low-sulfur coal resources

of 14 counties in eastern Kentucky, southern West

Virginia, and western Virginia done by Hill and

Associates in the early 1990s. The data were assembled 58

by interviewing major resource holders and landowners,

by tracing property ownership records for smaller parcels,

by compiling all data on regional maps, and by screening

and interpolating to derive estimates of remaining

reserves in each county. This information was

supplemented with data on coal quality, preparation, and

markets, much of which is also confidential.

Coal Quality Applications

According to accepted USGS classification criteria, for

resources usable in a DRB, coal rank and quality may be

based on sampling within the resource body or may be

inferred from other parts of the resource body or from
68 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

adjacent bodies. Because most coal resources in the United For reassessments of coal resources, however, as in EIA's

States occur in broad tabular beds or in fairly persistent Coal Reserves Data Base program, quality factors can be

zones of intermittent beds, the areal extents and volumes allocated with the benefit of field data and the local

of coal can be estimated by mapping with relatively few experience of State geological staff and their contacts at

measurement points. Coal rank does not change rapidly mines and undeveloped properties. State data may inover distance in most geological environments, so data on clude drill hole samples in resources not yet being mined.

the rank of coal sufficient for mapping large deposits can Also, because the field data can be plotted and correlated

be drawn from one or two samples plus knowledge of the with the coal resource mapping, trends in coal can be

local geology. Some aspects of the quality of coal discovered and resource quantities directly allocated by

resources, however, may vary widely from one location to coal quality trends. That type of allocation was used in

another or from one level in a bed to another level in the the CRDB studies in New Mexico and Illinois and, in

same coalbed. Among the common measures of quality modified form, in eastern Kentucky (see Chapter 2). In

that vary widely are heat value, ash content, and sulfur other cases, circumstances and professional judgment

content. have led to other appropriate allocation methods. 

In Federal Government coal resource assessments, sam- In the Ohio CRDB project, completed in 1991, the State

ples collected and analyzed for coal quality factors are geological staff used both BOM and State field data, but

relatively sparse because coal quality sampling was not geodetic coordinates were only partially available and the

done at most coal measurement points. Coal quality is resource mapping was not automated. In that case it was

estimated largely after the fact, based on later sampling preferable to use a weighted statistical distribution of all

projects either at natural outcrops and exposed coal in valid samples, based on EIA's methods, to characterize

mines, or from drilled cores, which are relatively expen- coal quality. In the Wyoming CRDB study, completed at

sive and therefore rare. Coal can also be sampled at the the end of 1991, the new resource data were allocated by

tipple, as it is loaded onto barges or trains. In nearly all correlation of mapped areas with available samples. There

cases there are too few reliable coal samples available to were not enough field samples to determine coal quality

characterize the range of values that may occur within a trends in some areas, so sample points were used as

coal deposit in the ground. In the CRS quadrangles, for control points and were supplemented by hundreds of

example, the BOM found that the final step in its quality analyses from specific mines over a number of

evaluations of economic recoverability was constrained by months or years. These data came from Federal Energy

lack of quality data. Too few coal samples were available Regulatory Commission Form 423 (FERC-423), for fuel

to determine reliably the variability among samples and deliveries to electric power plants. The coals from this

within the resource quantities. The BOM used the avail- source were sampled at the power plants, where they

able sample data and general background data on the were delivered in essentially “as mined” condition. 

local coal quality to assign calculated reserves to broad

coal quality ranges. In Chapter 4 of this report, recoverable coal reserves at

For most of the DRB, Btu and sulfur ranges are allocated

based on data in EIA files for coal mined in the same

counties and purchased by the U.S. Government. Samples

from the same bed are used, where available, and are

supplemented with data from other nearby samples from

the same bed (some in adjoining counties) or from

adjacent coalbeds where more specific data are lacking.

Thirty percent of the EIA samples used in allocations are

weighted averages that represent multiple samples taken

over an entire year. Any allocating of future reserves by

quality factors is conjectural when based on data collected

from other mines in the past. Such allocations at EIA have

been tempered by judgment and data selectivity. EIA

believes, however, that the use of samples that represent

coal produced over a period of time is a reasonable means

to estimate broad-range quality factors that would apply

to future mining of analogous reserves over time. The

critical judgment in this approach is in deciding which

samples and reserves are analogous.

active mines are reported for the first time by coal ranks

and sulfur ranges. As described there more fully, data on

coal quality are not reported for the reserves on Form EIA7A. Since no quality data can be collected for recoverable

reserves at active mines, EIA has turned to the Btu and

sulfur content data reported for coal distributed to electric

utilities, independent power producers, industrial consumers, and coke plants. These deliveries originate at

many of the mines reporting reserves on Form EIA-7A.

EIA uses these data as reasonable indicators of the quality

of the reserves at the active mines. The quality produced

at a mine may vary from week to week, or from year to

year, but in composite, the quality of coal reported on

Form 423 is remarkably consistent from supply area to

supply area over time. We accept this as indicative that

reserves of similar quality will be available in the near

term from the currently active mines. We also note that,

in many coal supply regions, the quality of coal reported

on Form 423 is the quality that can be produced, taking

advantage of coal washing and of blending of coal from
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 69

several mines. These coal quality data represent reserves related either to EIA's DRB or Coal Reserves Data Base

of salable coal, although in situ they may be found mostly (CRDB), or to USGS CAS or BOM CRS, especially in those

in less pure forms, in a wider range of pre-blending topics pertinent to EIA in updating U.S. coal reserves data.

qualities.

Status of EIA’s

Coal Reserves Data Base

The CRDB program is EIA’s vehicle for future revisions of

the DRB and estimated recoverable reserves with coal

quality allocations. The CRDB data are improved by new

coal resource data, using coal quality analyses sampled in

and selected for their applicability to the coal resources.

On the other hand, for the coal supply areas for which

CRDB projects are not currently feasible, the EIA continues periodic adjustments of the existing data to account

for resource depletion. This is done to maintain a unified

national database of the remaining DRB and estimated

recoverable reserves adjusted to the latest common

effective date. 

A “base year” (Table A1) is the effective date of the

detailed resource assessment for a DRB resource area,

including adjustments for all known coal mined out

and/or lost to mining (as of the base year). The source

studies on which the DRB was based may be much older

and, in many cases, were done at various times over a

range of years. A latest common effective date is used to

maintain database compatibility. It is the date to which

data of varying base years, are adjusted to account for

subsequent production and coal lost in mining.

Although major updates are being made in the CRDB,

many important coal supply areas are still based on 1971

base year DRB data and on allocations performed in the

1980s for the EIA's Resource Allocation and Mine Costing

(RAMC) model (Table A1). The DRB covers all States for

which there are sufficient coal resource data to compute a

reserve base. Beginning with the 1992 update year, coal

quality allocations were extended to all DRB data,

including those not used in RAMC, for which allocations

had not previously been done.

Specialized Resource and

Reserve Terminology

Understanding the specialized terminology of coal the old resource data (for example, some sources offer no

resources and reserves and the contexts in which the terms basis for distinguishing surface- from undergroundhave become established at EIA, the USGS, or the BOM is minable resources, and yet both types of mining may

critical for clear comprehension of the information occur). EIA has drawn selectively on the inferred reserve

presented in this report. These specialized terms are base to document additional reserves in some such

Specialized terms are italicized on initial use in a topical

discussion and can be found in definition form in the

Glossary of Selected Coal Classification Terms following

Chapter 4 of this report.

EIA Terminology

EIA uses coal resources data as a starting point for

projections of coal supplies covering periods of the future

that reasonably can be modeled—usually not more than

about 30 years. Speculative and hypothetical resource

estimates are not relevant for those projections: there is not

enough hard data behind the estimates to define the

thicknesses, quantities, coal characteristics, and mining

conditions that would apply. EIA focuses on resources

such as in the DRB, with physical parameters similar to

coal that is presently being mined, or could be mined at a

profit in the foreseeable future, under reasonable assumptions regarding prices, market conditions, and extraction

systems.

Because reserves are the amount of in situ coal resources

that could be recovered by economical mining at the time

of determination, they can in the strictest sense be defined

only for a specified selling price and at a specified point in

time. For coal, such reserve estimates might be done for

mine planning. Still, many mines do not develop them,

and those that do normally do not disclose them to the

Federal Government. Therefore, EIA's broad estimated

recoverable reserves are based on the DRB, consistent with

its definition as that portion of identified resources from

which reserves are calculated.

Underlying the original concept of a DRB was a

reasonable assumption that reserves should be calculated

only from measured and indicated resources because the

quantities and characteristics of those resources are based

on adequate data and are geologically well assured. In

1975, the resources in the earliest DRB (January 1, 1974)

probably encompassed most areas of active mining and

many virgin resource areas. Today, especially where the

DRB is based on the same sources used in 1975, mining

may extend into reserves that are beyond the scope of the

DRB sources. Disparities may be related to the areas

studied, specific coalbeds studied, reassessment of older

areas using additional data, and/or the thoroughness of
70 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Table A1. Summary of 1992 Status of Database Updates for Energy Information Administration (EIA) Coal

Resource and Reserve Data

Update

Year Base Year Lead Agency State or Producing Area Source Comments

1996 1993 Geological Survey Eastern Kentucky field accessibility data.

Kentucky data, EIA recovery and

1983 coal resource data, State

coal analyses, USGS availability

1995 1994 Geological Survey Illinois accessibility standards.

Illinois State State and EIA recovery data and

State coal mapping system, coal

analyses, USGS availability data,

1994 1993 Resources Basin and its southern extensions depletion and recovery data.

New Mexico State mapping system and coal

Bureau of Mines quality data, company data, BLM

and Mineral New Mexico portion of San Juan land use data, State and EIA

1995 1991 EIA New Mexico portion of Raton Basin recovery data.

Resource data from published

report, accessibility estimated, EIA

1992 1981 EIA Pennsylvania (anthracite) recovery estimates.

Resource data and accessibility

from published study, EIA

1992 1991 of Wyoming DRB of major coalfields reserve data.

Geological Survey Wyoming, surface-minable production and active-mines

State coal resource files and

published studies, State coal

analyses and FERC data, USGS

maps for land use, State and EIA

1991 1991 Geological Survey Major coal-bearing counties of Ohio restrictions.

Ohio of National Forest and roadway

Resources from new State data

points, State coal analyses,

except: published study for nonpriority counties; accessibility from

State estimates and EIA analysis

1991 studies) EIA Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon and published coal analyses.

1979 Arkansas, Colorado, New Mexico,

(based on and Virginia (anthracite fields), DRBs allocated to Btu/sulfur

1946-1980 Alaska (northern), Georgia, Idaho, ranges using EIA coal quality data

1980-1986 updates) Model file) Wyoming (underground) small post-1971 studies.

1971, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota,

(based on EIA (core Oklahoma, Pennsylvania Basic Btu/sulfur allocations done

1907-1971 Resource (bituminous), South Dakota, in 1980 and 1986, based on 1971

data and Allocation and Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, DRB and extended to various

1972-1985 Mine Costing Washington, West Virginia, updated DRB estimates from

Alabama, Alaska (southern),

Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky

(western), Louisiana, Maryland,
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 71

The term “demonstrated reserve base (DRB),” or “reserve base” in the standard USGS classification, has been

widely misunderstood, probably since soon after it was introduced in 1975. It is not a database of reserves, as

many assume. Rather, it is made up of resources in the ground and serves as a basis, or base, from which to

calculate reserves. The concept was especially needed for regional estimates (i.e., covering large areas rather

than mine areas), for which earlier assessments of quantities of coal in the ground varied broadly and were

inconsistent, reporting as both reserves and resources. The U.S. Bureau of Mines coined the term “reserve base”

to identify this subset of coal resources. Reasonable mining potential was intended to be the unifying principle. EIA

inherited the DRB and has continued to update it. The DRB data are firmly established at this time and have

consistently followed a defined set of criteria for all updates from 1975 to 1995. 

It is often suggested that “resource base” would be a more appropriate name. The term has become widely used

but appears to be undefined. In most usages it seems to be analogous to the USGS term “total resources,” but

may improperly imply technological or scientific legitimacy (perhaps reminiscent of the idealized term, “knowledge

base”). We believe that the proper role for this term is already filled by the terms “total resources” and, in some

cases, “identified resources.” Further, it would not be preferable to “reserve base” because “resource base” seems

more broadly inclusive than the criteria for the DRB.

regions, where the mining industry is soundly established resources in a locality at the time of the evaluation.

(based on evidence such as infrastructure, current

production levels, recoverable reserves at active mines,

and long-term contracts) and actual mine development

has outpaced publicly available resource data for the

DRB.

The reserves data that EIA develops from the DRB are its

estimated recoverable reserves. The estimated recoverable unsafe or illegal proximity to another mine. Recovery

reserves published in this report (Table B2) include only factors used by EIA to estimate recoverable reserves are

data derived from the DRB; any EIA recoverable reserve

estimates that may be based on inferred data are

exceptional, for use in data-intensive modeling situations.

In previous reports of these data, EIA has used the term

“recoverable reserves.” We have added “estimated” to

emphasize that they are extracted from the DRB using

estimated regional factors to simulate expected accessibility and coal recoverability. The use of the modifier

“recoverable” with reserves is technically redundant, but

has long been preferred by EIA to emphasize that the part

of the DRB that may be recoverable is being estimated.

The estimated recoverable reserves are derived (not

compiled from mine-level data) and are based on regional

aggregations of resource data.

Estimated recoverable reserves are developed by

adjusting the DRB by accessibility factors and recovery

factors. An accessible reserve base is coal resource data

derived by adjusting the DRB by accessibility factors only,

and is a subset of accessible resources. Accessibility of

resources is based primarily on land use restrictions that or fault zones, and to isolate oil and gas wells left in place.

influence whether land areas and underlying coal The traditional recovery factors will be used to update the

resources may legally be available for mining. A sec- DRB for annual depletion until such time as coordinated

ondary basis for accessibility is the technological restrictions

that may affect economic minability of specific coal

Technological restrictions include constraints on the economic or safe mining of the coal with contemporary

technologies, which constraints are related to the nature of

the coalbeds or local geology; for example, specific

coalbed thickness or overburden characteristics known to

deter economic mining of coal meeting broad regional

DRB criteria, localized geologic structural problems, or

based on actual recovery rates reported by mines operating

in the same regions, applied only to DRB coalbed depth

and bed thickness categories that broadly define technologically minable conditions.

In addition, EIA uses traditional regional recovery factors

to update the DRB for the effects of depletion. The traditional recovery factors—50 percent for underground

and 80 percent for most surface mining—may appear

conservative but were meant as reasonable estimates of

net recovery of resources in the ground over a region,

considering the fact that reported production ignores

unmeasured amounts of coal that are left in place. This is

not done just to support the roof. Coal is left in place to

provide solid barriers between adjacent mines, to

maintain barriers and keep mines sealed in sections near

outcrops, and to support surface installations such as

holding ponds and preparation plants. It is also left in place

for safety, or environmental protection in numerous other

circumstances, such as weak floor materials, unstable roof,

accessibility and recovery factors are available for all

major areas and production periods of the DRB and can be
72 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Mined-out areas include coal that has been recovered as well as coal left in pillars or otherwise lost in the mining process. CAS can be 59

conducted only if comprehensive mapping of past mining is available.

applied to revise historic depletion, to maintain yearly mines are derived by two different procedures and the

depletion, and to project forward depletion. data for either source (usually the recoverable reserves at

Land use restrictions make up a major part of EIA’s

accessibility adjustments. They include all legal or cultural

impediments to mining that withhold the actual land area

and/or its underlying coal resources from coal recovery

activities. Land use restrictions may be “environmental

restrictions” (such as endangered species habitat or some

public lands) or “societal restrictions” (such as cemeteries,

historic sites, reservoirs, or highways)—modifiers that

emphasize the environmental or societal values motivating the land use restrictions.

EIA does not classify as environmental restrictions the

environmental regulations that an operator may believe

render a coal uneconomic to mine because of the costs of

compliance, or environmental combustion standards that

may make a coal less desirable and valuable in the

marketplace, or similar environmental regulations that

may affect mining costs or coal selling prices. These can

be serious impediments to the economic mining of specific

coal deposits at certain times, under contemporary mining

and combustion technologies, but they are not related to

land use and cannot readily be estimated from land use

mapping. The costs that environmental regulations add

to mining and the effects of environmental standards on

coal values, however, are factors that EIA attempts to

account for in the mine costing and demand variables for

future coal supply projections.

EIA collects data from mine operators on their estimated

recoverable reserves at active mines. These reserves are based

on estimated recovery rates of coal in place, as reported by

mine operators. In EIA's coal supply models, recoverable

reserves at active mines are also referred to as committed

reserves. “Committed reserves” is used to identify the

quantity of reserves known to exist at currently active

mines—the recovery of which is already committed due

to investments at those mines—and to distinguish those

reserves from the much larger quantity of estimated

recoverable reserves. The quantity of reserves that are not

committed at any existing mines (identified in EIA models

as available reserves for new mine development) is the

difference between estimated recoverable reserves and the

committed reserves for a coal supply region. Strictly resources are the basis for all ratios or percentages of

speaking, the difference between estimated recoverable

reserves and committed reserves is not a measure of

reserves that are available to supply new mines, and it can

serve only as a guideline. This is because the estimated

recoverable reserves and the recoverable reserves at active

active mines) may be much more current and comprehensive.

Data on coal production and recoverable reserves at active

mines are collected by EIA for salable coal. Depending on

the quality of the coal mined, the intended use of the coal,

and local mining practice and infrastructure, the salable

coal, or product, may be shipped raw as run-of-mine coal

(either crushed and screened or unprepared), or it may be

treated in a preparation plant to further remove impurities

before shipping. Neither EIA nor any other public agency

is authorized to collect data on the quantities and quality

of mined coal before and after any processing. Therefore,

actual data on quality of coal produced are not available,

nor are actual data to calculate differences in coal quality

and quantity of reserves versus coal shipped to customers.

USGS Terminology

Specialized terms developed by the USGS in the course of

conducting Coal Availability Studies (CAS) and by the

BOM in its Coal Recoverability Studies (CRS) may all be

referenced in the rest of this report as “USGS terminology” because the USGS has taken over a limited CRS

program from the BOM. The USGS terminology and the

CAS and CRS programs are inherently important to EIA

coal reserves data. The key USGS term is available

resources. The USGS definition of available resources

reflects a mapping methodology appropriate to integrated, three-dimensional mapping systems like the

National Coal Resources Data System (NCRDS)—mapping systems that include planimetric, topographic,

geologic, land use, and some environmental data. Using

these systems, available-resource criteria can be adjusted

to take in local variances in mining practices and land use

policies, or can readily be revised if conditions change.

Thus, USGS available resources make use of mapped data

in a defined study area to withdraw mined-out areas59

directly from the resource areas. Regardless of how they

are estimated in CAS, mined-out resources and restricted

resources are treated as not available. The original

availability. In other words, if the resources in a CAS were

totally unencumbered by any physical or societal

restrictions, but 30 percent of the resources were mined

out, the CAS would classify the coal of the area as 30

percent mined out and only 70 percent available.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 73

Much of EIA’s DRB, on the other hand, previously de- includes measured and indicated only. The potential

pended on mapping of original resources to define primary

resource quantities. (Only in recent updates, based on

computerized mapping systems, are remaining resources

mapped directly by subtracting mapped areas of past

mining.) Original resources (or DRB) are converted to

estimated remaining resources (or DRB) using historic

production records and regional depletion factors. Regardless of derivation method, the remaining DRB data

are readjusted periodically for further depletion (production tonnage plus estimated coal lost in mining).

These data on remaining DRB, and not the original

resources or DRB, become the basis for estimates of

accessibility. In the example in the previous paragraph,

the DRB would report the estimated remaining resources,

adjusted for the 30-percent depleted on the basis of

recorded production, but would classify the coal as 100

percent accessible. This is one difference between USGS The CAS identify geologic considerations, such as geologic

availability and EIA accessibility. structure problems or vertical proximity of coalbeds to

The CAS define the basic physical parameters of coalbeds Traditional DRB derivations, on the other hand, often took

as technological restrictions. These parameters—coal bed

thickness and depth from the surface—happen to be two

of the fundamental criteria EIA has always used to

include resources of greater mining potential in the DRB.

Available resources, like the DRB, exclude quantities of

coal in beds thinner than a specific threshold value. In

USGS terminology, these thin-bedded restricted resources

are considered not available for mining but are still

considered part of the original resource basis. In the

earlier example, if 30 percent of the resources are mined

out and, say, 40 percent are designated as restricted due

to bed thickness, only 30 percent of the original resources

are available. By contrast, in the DRB the thin-bedded

resources are catalogued as part of the identified resource

but, because of the bed thickness criterion, have never

been included in the DRB. Therefore, there would be no

further adjustment to DRB accessibility because of bed

thickness: the remaining DRB (adjusted for depletion as

of a stated date) would still be considered 100 percent

accessible.

USGS adjustments for bed thickness restrictions and

depletion due to mining can generate drastic differences

between coal resource availability and coal resource

accessibility, but the differences grow out of the definitions of the terms and the methods for calculating the

resources. The available resources and the accessible DRB

for an area could be identical even though the reported

percentage available and the accessibility factors are very

different. 

One further difference is in scope: The CAS report rates related to land use. Land use restrictions are

available resources are reported for measured, indicated, identifiable and separable in CAS data. Accordingly, CAS

and inferred resources whereas the accessible DRB have been used to update those factors that the studies

impact of this difference is directly related to the density

and distribution of data points throughout a study

area—if the density is greater and the distribution of data

points in a defined area is more even, the measured and

indicated resources will predominate and resources relegated to the inferred category will decline. In practice, this

difference has not had a direct effect on any regional

resource estimates because CAS have not been conducted

in broad areas, comparable to DRB areas. CAS have been

performed only in selected quadrangles. No method to

translate their results to entire coal supply regions has yet

been accepted, but any eventual extrapolation must be

able to distinguish the effects of lower data density in

inferred resource areas from factors such as difficult

topography.

each other in deep deposits, as restrictions to availability.

stock of geologic structural problems and deleted affected

areas from the original resource or DRB compilations. For

the DRB, the judgment of the principal investigator may

be documented; however, the physical work maps on

which the calculations were based may be lost or in files

of the original field personnel or BOM field offices, and

are usually not available nor readily updatable. 

The proximity of coalbeds one above another is considered in CAS studies. For underground mines, mining

a coalbed that is separated by, say, less than 40 feet of rock

from the next coalbed above or below, can render the

unmined coalbed unrecoverable because of fracturing or

collapse of overlying strata and transmission of stress in

zones above and below a mined bed. The thickness of rock

between coalbeds that may be affected varies and can

greatly exceed 40 feet in some geologic conditions.

Without computerized, three-dimensional mapping, proximity of coalbeds has not been practical in most traditional

coal resource studies, including most sources of the DRB.

Coalbed proximity restrictions have been noted in most

CAS, but regional extrapolations based on proximity

restrictions have not been developed. Nonetheless,

geologic considerations are designated as restrictions to

availability in the USGS terminology whereas geologic

considerations in the DRB—if enough geologic information was available—were applied by excluding the

affected resources prior to DRB compilation.

Regardless of differences in scope and scale, the results of

the CAS are very relevant for updating DRB accessibility
74 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

share in common with DRB accessibility and represent a by graphical methods that are also used to analyze other

significant new source of information. Any additional restrictions, including technological and land use.

impacts on accessibility due to technological restrictions are

usually based on the experience and observations of field

investigators and information supplied by operators.

In summary, USGS available resources are compatible

with EIA accessible resource or accessible DRB estimates

even though differences exist both in the sequencing of

adjustments and in the nomenclature. The concept of

accessibility is appropriate for the DRB, in which

resources are separately adjusted for bed thickness and

depth and to account for depletion. The concept of

availability is appropriate in the CAS, in which

computerized, updatable mapping systems are used to

exclude bed thicknesses, depths, and depleted resources

In regard to the DRB, it would not be appropriate to

substitute the term “available” for “accessible” because

EIA already uses that term in other contexts related to coal

supplies. “Available coal reserves” is a logical descriptor

used for the reserves for future mines in EIA coal supply

projections that are determined by subtracting the

committed reserves at active mines from the estimated

recoverable reserves for a coal supply region. Also, the

coal stockpiles at mines and at the facilities of major coal

consumers, such as coal-fired electric power plants, are

referred to as “available” coal supplies in contexts such as

labor strikes or transportation disruptions due to natural

forces.
Appendix B

Detailed Estimates of

Demonstrated Reserve

Base, Estimated

Recoverable Reserves,

and Recoverable

Reserves at Active

Mines, for U.S. Coal

by Heat and Sulfur

Content
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 77

Table B1. 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, 1995)

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 0.0 0.0 1,083.0 0.0 0.0 1,083.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 162.9 239.9 607.1 192.2 0.0 1,202.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 195.1 138.0 655.0 0.0 0.0 988.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 358.0 377.9 2,345.1 192.2 0.0 3,273.1

Alabama - Underground

< 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 146.2 208.8 288.0 113.8 0.0 756.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 167.2 0.0 438.0 0.0 0.0 605.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 313.4 208.8 726.0 113.8 0.0 1,361.9

Alabama - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,083.0 0.0 0.0 1,083.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 309.1 448.7 895.1 305.9 0.0 1,958.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 362.3 138.0 1,093.0 0.0 0.0 1,593.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 671.3 586.6 3,071.1 305.9 0.0 4,635.0

Alaska, South - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 487.8 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 539.8

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 487.8 52.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 539.8

Alaska, South - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 4,083.2 87.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,170.4

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 4,083.2 104.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,188.0

Alaska, South - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 4,571.0 139.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,710.2

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 4,571.0 156.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,727.7

Alaska, North - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 17.4 4.9 3.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 28.5

20-22.99 .................... 77.3 39.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 116.3

23-25.99 .................... 16.7 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 111.3 49.6 3.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 167.2

Alaska, North - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 129.4 36.1 28.3 17.9 0.0 0.0 211.7

20-22.99 .................... 569.4 286.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 855.9

23-25.99 .................... 125.6 41.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 167.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 824.3 364.4 28.3 17.9 0.0 0.0 1,235.0

Alaska, North - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 146.7 40.9 32.2 20.3 0.0 0.0 240.1

20-22.99 .................... 646.7 325.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 972.2

23-25.99 .................... 142.2 47.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 189.9

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 935.6 414.1 32.2 20.3 0.0 0.0 1,402.2

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

Arizona - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 87.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.3

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 87.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.3

Arizona - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 101.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 101.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 101.6

Arizona - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 188.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 188.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188.8

Arkansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 25.3

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.2 104.2 9.2 1.5 1.5 118.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.2 104.2 34.5 1.5 2.0 144.5

Arkansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 14.2 192.7 43.5 10.1 10.1 270.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 14.2 192.7 43.5 10.1 12.0 272.5

Arkansas - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 25.3

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 16.3 296.9 52.8 11.7 11.7 389.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 16.3 296.9 78.0 11.7 14.0 417.0

Colorado - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 4,189.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,189.9

15-19.99 .................... 11.4 4.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3

20-22.99 .................... 144.3 0.0 10.5 12.4 0.0 0.0 167.2

23-25.99 .................... 191.9 143.7 25.2 39.2 17.6 0.0 417.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6

Total ....................... 347.6 151.9 4,225.9 51.7 17.6 0.0 4,794.7

Colorado - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 2,670.3 1,100.7 64.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,835.5

20-22.99 .................... 1,430.0 1,576.8 241.2 152.9 0.0 0.0 3,400.9

23-25.99 .................... 2,176.2 1,223.7 313.6 308.7 156.3 0.0 4,178.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.6 283.7 65.7 82.2 0.0 0.0 634.2

Total ....................... 6,479.1 4,184.9 684.9 543.9 156.3 0.0 12,049.0

Colorado - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 4,189.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 4,189.9

15-19.99 .................... 2,681.7 1,105.3 64.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,851.8

20-22.99 .................... 1,574.3 1,576.8 251.6 165.4 0.0 0.0 3,568.1

23-25.99 .................... 2,368.1 1,367.5 338.8 348.0 173.9 0.0 4,596.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.6 287.3 65.7 82.2 0.0 0.0 637.8

Total ....................... 6,826.6 4,336.8 4,910.8 595.5 173.9 0.0 16,843.7

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 79

Georgia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.7

Georgia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Idaho - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.4

Idaho - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 2.1 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.4

Illinois - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 121.9 130.7

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.0 421.4 14,009.8 14,453.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.4 46.5 80.8 1,462.2 1,590.9

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 1.4 68.5 511.0 15,593.9 16,174.7

Illinois - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 .................... 72.6 497.5 804.6 2,422.8 2,167.3 43,656.7 49,621.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 16.9 245.0 1,592.2 1,488.6 20,807.7 24,150.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.4

Total ....................... 72.7 514.4 1,049.5 4,015.0 3,655.9 64,473.8 73,781.3

Illinois - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 121.9 130.7

20-22.99 .................... 72.6 497.5 804.6 2,444.7 2,588.7 57,666.4 64,074.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 16.9 246.3 1,638.7 1,569.4 22,270.0 25,741.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 9.4

Total ....................... 72.7 514.4 1,050.9 4,083.4 4,166.9 80,067.7 89,956.0

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

Indiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 71.5 36.8 152.9 0.0 277.8 538.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 37.0 9.8 30.6 255.2 246.7 579.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 108.5 46.5 183.5 255.2 524.4 1,118.1

Indiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 336.0 263.6 745.7 1,274.5 2,356.7 4,976.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 263.0 116.7 622.5 1,081.8 1,812.3 3,896.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 599.1 380.3 1,368.2 2,356.4 4,168.9 8,872.8

Indiana - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 407.5 300.4 898.6 1,274.5 2,634.4 5,515.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 300.1 126.5 653.1 1,337.0 2,058.9 4,475.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 707.6 426.9 1,551.7 2,611.5 4,693.4 9,991.0

Iowa - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 457.0 0.0 457.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 457.0 0.0 457.0

Iowa - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.3 1,545.2 1,732.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.3 1,545.2 1,732.5

Iowa - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 644.3 1,545.2 2,189.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 644.3 1,545.2 2,189.5

Kansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.0 433.0 509.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 246.4 151.8 398.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.5 68.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 322.3 653.3 975.6

Kansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kansas - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 76.0 433.0 509.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 246.4 151.8 398.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.5 68.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 322.3 653.3 975.6

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 81

Kentucky, Eastern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 20.0 50.0 159.8 40.0 139.9 409.6

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 199.8 119.9 199.8 209.8 209.8 939.1

23-25.99 .................... 10.0 559.4 739.3 769.2 379.6 359.6 2,817.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239.8 2,187.8 1,138.8 1,398.6 599.4 229.8 5,794.1

Total ....................... 249.8 2,967.0 2,047.9 2,527.4 1,228.8 939.1 9,959.9

Kentucky, Eastern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 5.1 12.7 40.5 10.1 35.5 103.8

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 50.7 30.4 50.7 53.2 53.2 238.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 141.8 187.4 195.0 96.2 91.2 714.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.8 554.6 288.7 354.6 152.0 58.3 1,468.9

Total ....................... 63.3 752.2 519.2 640.7 311.5 238.1 2,525.0

Kentucky, Eastern - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 25.0 62.6 200.4 50.1 175.3 513.4

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 250.5 150.3 250.5 263.0 263.0 1,177.1

23-25.99 .................... 12.5 701.3 926.7 964.2 475.9 450.8 3,531.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300.5 2,742.4 1,427.6 1,753.1 751.3 288.0 7,263.0

Total ....................... 313.1 3,719.2 2,567.1 3,168.2 1,540.3 1,177.1 12,484.8

Kentucky, Western - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 59.4 701.1 671.3 1,431.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 140.1 749.6 1,363.9 2,253.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 5.1 34.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 199.5 1,480.3 2,040.3 3,720.0

Kentucky, Western - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.9 1,891.7 2,671.9 4,577.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.2 1,859.3 9,176.1 11,095.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 474.9 211.9 686.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 74.1 4,225.9 12,059.9 16,359.9

Kentucky, Western - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.2 2,592.8 3,343.2 6,009.3

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 200.3 2,608.9 10,539.9 13,349.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 504.5 217.0 721.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 273.5 5,706.2 14,100.1 20,079.8

Louisiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 471.3 0.0 0.0 471.3

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 471.3 0.0 0.0 471.3

Louisiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Louisiana - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 471.3 0.0 0.0 471.3

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 471.3 0.0 0.0 471.3

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

Maryland - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 24.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.0 11.8 18.9 23.5 0.0 58.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.0 11.8 18.9 47.5 0.0 82.2

Maryland - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 197.7 0.0 197.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 51.9 90.3 191.8 117.4 0.0 451.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 51.9 90.3 191.8 315.1 0.0 649.2

Maryland - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 221.8 0.0 221.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 55.8 102.2 210.8 140.8 0.0 509.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 55.8 102.2 210.8 362.6 0.0 731.4

Michigan - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.9 0.5 0.3 3.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.7 0.8 0.4 4.6

Michigan - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 6.6 10.3 6.8 6.5 30.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 10.6 32.1 21.7 17.4 81.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 5.6 0.0 10.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 17.2 47.2 34.8 23.9 123.1

Michigan - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 6.8 10.8 6.9 6.6 31.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 11.1 34.1 22.2 17.6 85.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.7 0.0 10.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 17.9 49.9 35.6 24.2 127.7

Missouri - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.9 2,823.7 2,901.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 136.8 1,438.2 1,575.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 40.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.6 4,301.9 4,516.5

Missouri - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 1,181.9 1,188.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.8 239.7 275.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.5 15.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.0 1,437.1 1,479.1

Missouri - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.1 4,005.6 4,089.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.6 1,677.9 1,850.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.5 55.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 256.6 5,739.1 5,995.7

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 83

Montana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,860.4 3,720.7 5,842.6 1,546.2 1,860.4 930.2 15,760.5

15-19.99 .................... 20,183.6 4,971.9 5,997.2 1,501.7 184.6 215.1 33,054.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 22,043.9 8,692.6 11,839.8 3,048.0 2,045.0 1,145.3 48,814.6

Montana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,860.4 3,720.7 5,842.6 1,546.2 1,860.4 930.2 15,760.5

15-19.99 .................... 50,575.9 23,972.9 20,301.2 5,974.5 861.5 941.4 102,627.4

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 52,785.9 28,116.5 26,214.3 7,731.8 2,859.7 2,065.1 119,773.3

New Mexico - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1,052.1 1,222.9 2,208.9 0.0 0.0 4,483.9

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 488.7 402.0 901.1 0.0 0.0 1,791.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 9.7 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 17.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.7 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.6

Total ....................... 46.7 1,552.4 1,624.9 3,117.4 0.0 0.0 6,341.4

New Mexico - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1,225.6 516.4 1,423.2 0.0 0.0 3,165.2

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 843.4 598.9 654.6 0.0 0.0 2,096.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 564.5 0.3 31.8 0.0 0.0 596.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.7 297.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 346.7

Total ....................... 48.7 2,930.6 1,116.5 2,109.6 0.0 0.0 6,205.4

New Mexico - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2,277.7 1,739.3 3,632.1 0.0 0.0 7,649.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1,332.0 1,000.9 1,555.7 0.0 0.0 3,888.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 574.2 0.3 39.2 0.0 0.0 613.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 299.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 395.3

Total ....................... 95.4 4,483.0 2,741.4 5,227.0 0.0 0.0 12,546.8

North Carolina - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Carolina - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.9 3.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.6 2.9 0.0 7.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.6 3.6 2.9 10.7

North Carolina - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.9 3.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.6 2.9 0.0 7.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.7 3.6 3.6 2.9 10.7

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

North Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571.1 983.3 1,802.4 4,506.1 1,123.3 483.7 9,470.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 571.1 983.3 1,802.4 4,506.1 1,123.3 483.7 9,470.0

North Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Dakota - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571.1 983.3 1,802.4 4,506.1 1,123.3 483.7 9,470.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 571.1 983.3 1,802.4 4,506.1 1,123.3 483.7 9,470.0

Ohio - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 18.2 34.0 93.0 282.1 636.5 1,063.8

23-25.99 .................... 30.7 85.1 135.1 441.4 948.2 2,597.8 4,238.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 40.9 82.8 106.5 106.9 268.2 605.3

Total ....................... 30.7 144.2 251.9 640.9 1,337.2 3,502.5 5,907.3

Ohio - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 9.1 10.5 156.5 641.5 1,482.4 2,300.1

23-25.99 .................... 140.0 112.1 289.7 1,025.2 2,565.2 8,248.4 12,380.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 42.1 78.8 286.9 811.8 1,946.4 3,165.9

Total ....................... 140.0 163.3 379.0 1,468.6 4,018.6 11,677.2 17,846.7

Ohio - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 27.3 44.5 249.6 923.6 2,118.9 3,363.9

23-25.99 .................... 170.6 197.1 424.8 1,466.6 3,513.5 10,846.2 16,618.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 83.0 161.6 393.4 918.7 2,214.6 3,771.3

Total ....................... 170.6 307.5 630.9 2,109.5 5,355.7 15,179.8 23,754.0

Oklahoma - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 26.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 29.0 5.0 9.0 14.3 89.6 146.9

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 65.4 30.5 39.3 33.4 0.0 168.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 94.4 35.5 48.3 47.7 116.4 342.2

Oklahoma - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.9 64.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 61.2 83.4 75.4 55.7 148.9 424.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 269.7 126.9 234.7 116.6 0.0 748.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 330.9 210.4 310.1 172.3 213.8 1,237.4

Oklahoma - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.6 91.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 90.1 88.4 84.3 70.0 238.5 571.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 335.2 157.4 274.1 150.0 0.0 916.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 425.3 245.9 358.4 220.0 330.1 1,579.6

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 85

Oregon - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.3

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.9

Oregon - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 2.1 3.1 0.0 1.0 1.0 11.4

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 2.1 4.2 0.0 1.0 1.0 14.5

Oregon - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 2.5 3.7 0.0 1.3 1.3 13.7

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 2.5 5.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 17.4

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 10.9 2.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 16.8

23-25.99 .................... 427.2 1,689.5 431.3 75.2 11.1 4.1 2,638.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.6 494.6 108.3 18.9 0.2 0.0 719.6

Total ....................... 524.8 2,195.0 541.7 98.0 11.3 4.1 3,374.8

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 13.2 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 17.1

23-25.99 .................... 864.2 1,906.0 251.7 30.5 4.3 0.0 3,056.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197.0 415.2 135.2 26.6 2.5 0.0 776.4

Total ....................... 1,061.2 2,334.5 386.9 61.0 6.8 0.0 3,850.4

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 24.1 2.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 33.9

23-25.99 .................... 1,291.4 3,595.6 683.1 105.7 15.4 4.1 5,695.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294.6 909.8 243.5 45.5 2.7 0.0 1,496.1

Total ....................... 1,586.0 4,529.5 928.6 159.0 18.1 4.1 7,225.2

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 18.6 58.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 6.8 28.6 153.1 148.9 129.8 467.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 25.3 63.6 287.0 137.2 45.7 558.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 32.1 92.2 440.1 326.2 194.1 1,084.7

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.9 246.5 226.9 569.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 95.7 241.1 2,147.6 2,861.1 1,672.3 7,017.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 390.5 1,146.1 6,528.6 4,223.5 682.0 12,970.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 486.2 1,387.2 8,772.1 7,331.2 2,581.2 20,557.9

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.9 286.7 245.6 628.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 102.5 269.7 2,300.7 3,010.0 1,802.1 7,485.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 415.8 1,209.7 6,815.5 4,360.7 727.7 13,529.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 518.3 1,479.4 9,212.1 7,657.4 2,775.3 21,642.6

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

South Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0.0 366.1

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0.0 366.1

South Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Dakota - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0.0 366.1

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 137.0 1.0 228.1 0.0 366.1

Tennessee - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.6 0.0 0.0 108.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 57.2 34.6 28.7 59.1 0.0 179.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 57.2 34.6 137.3 59.1 0.0 288.2

Tennessee - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 179.7 0.0 0.0 179.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 123.0 69.6 59.5 107.1 0.0 359.3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 123.0 69.6 239.2 107.1 0.0 539.0

Tennessee - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 288.3 0.0 0.0 288.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 180.2 104.2 88.2 166.3 0.0 538.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 180.2 104.2 376.5 166.3 0.0 827.1

Texas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 767.0 7,379.8 4,429.2 488.9 13,064.8

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 767.0 7,379.8 4,429.2 488.9 13,064.8

Texas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Texas - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 767.0 7,379.8 4,429.2 488.9 13,064.8

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 767.0 7,379.8 4,429.2 488.9 13,064.8

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 87

Utah - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 34.7 21.9 106.8 44.0 42.6 250.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 4.9 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 785.1 939.4 1,590.5 386.8 545.1 4,247.0

23-25.99 .................... 617.9 349.0 151.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,118.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137.4 183.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 321.2

Total ....................... 755.2 1,318.5 1,091.7 1,590.5 386.8 545.1 5,687.8

Utah - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 819.8 961.3 1,697.3 430.8 587.7 4,497.0

23-25.99 .................... 626.9 353.9 153.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,134.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138.7 184.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 323.4

Total ....................... 765.5 1,359.0 1,115.4 1,697.3 430.8 587.7 5,955.7

Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 13.2 110.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.0 294.2 141.4 71.0 0.0 0.0 570.6

Total ....................... 67.4 307.4 251.5 71.0 0.0 0.0 697.3

Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 .................... 13.4 9.1 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.7

23-25.99 .................... 69.6 144.4 130.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 352.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187.2 621.2 286.7 147.1 0.0 0.0 1,242.2

Total ....................... 270.1 774.8 430.0 155.2 0.0 0.0 1,630.0

Virginia - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 .................... 13.4 9.1 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.7

23-25.99 .................... 73.0 157.6 240.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 478.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251.2 915.4 428.1 218.1 0.0 0.0 1,812.8

Total ....................... 337.5 1,082.2 681.4 226.3 0.0 0.0 2,327.3

Washington - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.7 0.0 0.0 68.7

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.7 0.0 0.0 68.7

Washington - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 83.4 169.0 776.1 0.0 0.0 1,028.5

20-22.99 .................... 124.8 0.0 0.0 81.4 0.0 0.0 206.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 97.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 124.8 181.0 169.0 857.5 0.0 0.0 1,332.3

Washington - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 83.4 169.0 844.7 0.0 0.0 1,097.1

20-22.99 .................... 124.8 0.0 0.0 81.4 0.0 0.0 206.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 97.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 97.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 124.8 181.0 169.0 926.2 0.0 0.0 1,400.9

 See notes at end of table.
Table B1. 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, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

West Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 23.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 439.9 391.0 267.1 9.9 71.9 1,179.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180.3 1,847.8 506.4 451.9 290.6 83.7 3,360.8

Total ....................... 180.3 2,287.6 897.4 719.0 300.6 178.7 4,563.6

West Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.9 211.4 71.7 471.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 785.3 815.8 2,063.6 973.6 3,517.6 8,155.9

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006.6 8,646.0 3,247.2 4,473.9 3,193.0 2,225.9 22,792.7

Total ....................... 1,006.6 9,431.3 4,062.9 6,725.5 4,378.0 5,815.2 31,419.5

West Virginia - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 187.9 211.4 94.7 494.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1,225.1 1,206.8 2,330.7 983.5 3,589.5 9,335.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,186.9 10,493.8 3,753.6 4,925.9 3,483.7 2,309.7 26,153.5

Total ....................... 1,186.9 11,718.9 4,960.3 7,444.5 4,678.5 5,993.9 35,983.1

Wyoming - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,127.4 210.0 1,646.3 2,983.7

15-19.99 .................... 5,020.3 9,965.5 4,525.6 1,597.9 429.0 956.3 22,494.6

20-22.99 .................... 36.1 162.7 216.8 55.1 21.7 0.0 492.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 5,056.3 10,128.2 4,742.4 2,780.4 660.7 2,602.6 25,970.7

Wyoming - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 3,781.4 15,223.0 9,691.9 8,780.7 1,186.1 0.0 38,663.1

20-22.99 .................... 491.2 502.2 683.9 365.3 0.0 60.8 2,103.3

23-25.99 .................... 82.3 504.2 830.8 341.4 0.0 0.0 1,758.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 4,354.9 16,229.4 11,206.6 9,487.3 1,186.1 60.8 42,525.1

Wyoming - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,127.4 210.0 1,646.3 2,983.7

15-19.99 .................... 8,801.7 25,188.5 14,217.5 10,378.6 1,615.1 956.3 61,157.7

20-22.99 .................... 527.3 664.8 900.8 420.4 21.7 60.8 2,595.7

23-25.99 .................... 82.3 504.2 830.8 341.4 0.0 0.0 1,758.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 9,411.2 26,357.6 15,949.1 12,267.7 1,846.8 2,663.4 68,495.8

United States - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,431.5 4,704.0 12,738.8 16,140.2 7,850.9 3,549.1 47,414.6

15-19.99 .................... 25,721.2 16,071.3 11,800.6 5,539.4 662.7 1,433.4 61,228.6

20-22.99 .................... 258.0 1,112.7 844.3 1,606.9 2,331.1 19,173.3 25,326.4

23-25.99 .................... 688.8 3,186.8 2,118.9 2,696.6 3,214.9 7,916.0 19,821.9

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630.0 5,221.4 2,360.9 3,085.3 1,281.6 742.7 13,321.8

Total ....................... 29,729.5 30,296.3 29,863.4 29,068.5 15,341.2 32,814.4 167,113.3

United States - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 41,060.8 36,764.6 24,790.4 15,511.2 1,874.9 762.8 120,764.7

20-22.99 .................... 3,053.1 5,451.6 3,663.9 6,743.1 7,211.1 54,119.3 80,242.1

23-25.99 .................... 4,078.5 6,455.7 3,877.6 9,003.2 11,511.9 45,734.4 80,661.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,841.0 12,060.5 5,729.6 12,875.9 9,217.5 5,159.7 46,884.2

Total ....................... 50,033.4 60,732.4 38,061.6 44,133.5 29,815.4 105,776.1 328,552.3

United States - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,431.5 4,704.0 12,738.8 16,140.2 7,850.9 3,549.1 47,414.6

15-19.99 .................... 66,782.0 52,835.9 36,591.0 21,050.7 2,537.6 2,196.2 181,993.3

20-22.99 .................... 3,311.1 6,564.3 4,508.2 8,350.1 9,542.2 73,292.6 105,568.4

23-25.99 .................... 4,767.3 9,642.6 5,996.5 11,699.8 14,726.8 53,650.3 100,483.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,471.0 17,281.8 8,090.5 15,961.2 10,499.2 5,902.3 60,206.0

Total ....................... 79,762.9 91,028.7 67,925.0 73,201.9 45,156.6 138,590.5 495,665.6

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Heat and sulfur content categories of coal resources and reserves

are limited to two decimal places. Conversion of heat and sulfur contents to millions of Btu per short ton and pounds of sulfur per million Btu, respectively,

produces values with multiple decimal places. These are rounded to two places prior to category allocations, as an appropriate expression of accuracy

for estimates extended to in-place coal resources and reserves. 

 Source: Energy Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 89

Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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 0.0 0.0 771.4 0.0 0.0 771.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 116.1 170.9 432.5 136.9 0.0 856.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 138.9 98.3 466.6 0.0 0.0 703.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 255.0 269.2 1,670.4 136.9 0.0 2,331.5

Alabama - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 73.7 105.2 145.2 57.3 0.0 381.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 84.3 0.0 220.8 0.0 0.0 305.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 157.9 105.2 365.9 57.3 0.0 686.4

Alabama - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 771.4 0.0 0.0 771.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 189.7 276.1 577.6 194.2 0.0 1,237.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 223.2 98.3 687.3 0.0 0.0 1,008.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 412.9 374.4 2,036.4 194.2 0.0 3,017.9

Alaska, South - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 386.2 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 427.4

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 386.2 41.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 427.4

Alaska, South - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 2,067.1 44.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,111.3

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 2,067.1 53.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,120.2

Alaska, South - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 2,453.3 85.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,538.6

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 2,453.3 94.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,547.5

Alaska, North - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alaska, North - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alaska, North - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

Arizona - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 69.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 69.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69.1

Arizona - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 51.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.4

Arizona - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 120.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 120.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 120.5

Arkansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 17.7

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1.5 73.0 6.5 1.1 1.1 83.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1.5 73.0 24.2 1.1 1.4 101.2

Arkansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 6.6 89.8 20.3 4.7 4.7 126.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 6.6 89.8 20.3 4.7 5.6 127.0

Arkansas - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 0.0 17.7

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 8.1 162.7 26.8 5.8 5.8 209.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 8.1 162.7 44.4 5.8 7.0 228.1

Colorado - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 3,296.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,296.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 3.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8

20-22.99 .................... 113.5 0.0 8.2 9.8 0.0 0.0 131.6

23-25.99 .................... 151.0 113.1 19.9 30.9 13.9 0.0 328.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

Total ....................... 273.4 119.5 3,324.8 40.6 13.9 0.0 3,772.2

Colorado - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 1,401.3 577.6 33.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,012.8

20-22.99 .................... 750.5 827.5 126.6 80.3 0.0 0.0 1,784.8

23-25.99 .................... 1,142.1 642.2 164.6 162.0 82.0 0.0 2,192.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.3 148.9 34.5 43.2 0.0 0.0 332.8

Total ....................... 3,400.2 2,196.2 359.4 285.4 82.0 0.0 6,323.3

Colorado - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 3,296.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,296.4

15-19.99 .................... 1,410.3 581.2 34.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,025.7

20-22.99 .................... 864.0 827.5 134.8 90.0 0.0 0.0 1,916.3

23-25.99 .................... 1,293.0 755.3 184.4 192.9 95.9 0.0 2,521.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106.3 151.7 34.5 43.2 0.0 0.0 335.7

Total ....................... 3,673.6 2,315.7 3,684.2 326.1 95.9 0.0 10,095.5

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 91

Georgia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8

Georgia - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Idaho - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0

Idaho - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0

Illinois - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 68.2 73.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 233.3 8,032.4 8,277.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.9 31.6 52.7 930.6 1,015.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.9 42.9 290.9 9,031.2 9,366.0

Illinois - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 108.8 274.1 788.6 688.2 14,346.9 16,211.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.4 75.3 624.7 588.0 7,096.7 8,389.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 113.1 349.4 1,413.3 1,276.2 21,445.4 24,602.7

Illinois - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 68.2 73.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 108.8 274.1 799.9 921.5 22,379.3 24,488.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.4 76.2 656.3 640.7 8,027.3 9,404.9

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 113.1 350.4 1,456.2 1,567.1 30,476.6 33,968.7

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

Indiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 41.8 21.5 89.4 0.0 162.4 315.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 21.7 5.7 17.9 149.2 144.3 338.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 63.4 27.2 107.3 149.2 306.7 653.8

Indiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 139.2 109.2 308.8 527.9 976.0 2,061.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 108.9 48.3 257.8 448.1 750.6 1,613.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 248.1 157.5 566.7 975.9 1,726.6 3,674.8

Indiana - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 181.0 130.7 398.2 527.9 1,138.5 2,376.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 130.6 54.1 275.7 597.3 894.8 1,952.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 311.5 184.7 674.0 1,125.1 2,033.3 4,328.6

Iowa - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 319.9 0.0 319.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 319.9 0.0 319.9

Iowa - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.3 720.0 807.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.3 720.0 807.2

Iowa - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 407.2 720.0 1,127.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 407.2 720.0 1,127.1

Kansas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.2 303.1 356.3

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.5 106.3 278.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.9 47.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.6 457.4 683.0

Kansas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kansas - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.2 303.1 356.3

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.5 106.3 278.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.9 47.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 225.6 457.4 683.0

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 93

Kentucky, Eastern - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 11.2 27.9 89.3 22.3 78.1 228.8

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 111.6 67.0 111.6 117.2 117.2 524.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 312.4 412.9 429.6 212.0 200.9 1,573.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133.9 1,221.9 636.0 781.1 334.8 128.3 3,235.9

Total ....................... 139.5 1,657.0 1,143.7 1,411.5 686.2 524.5 5,562.5

Kentucky, Eastern - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.8 7.1 22.6 5.7 19.8 58.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 28.3 17.0 28.3 29.7 29.7 133.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 79.2 104.7 108.9 53.7 50.9 398.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 309.7 161.2 198.0 84.9 32.5 820.3

Total ....................... 35.4 420.1 289.9 357.8 174.0 133.0 1,410.1

Kentucky, Eastern - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 14.0 35.0 111.9 28.0 97.9 286.7

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 139.9 83.9 139.9 146.9 146.9 657.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 391.6 517.5 538.5 265.8 251.8 1,972.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167.8 1,531.6 797.3 979.1 419.6 160.9 4,056.2

Total ....................... 174.8 2,077.1 1,433.7 1,769.4 860.2 657.4 6,972.5

Kentucky, Western - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 438.5 419.9 895.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.6 468.8 853.0 1,409.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.5 3.2 21.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.7 925.8 1,276.0 2,326.6

Kentucky, Western - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 804.7 1,136.5 1,947.1

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.6 790.9 3,903.1 4,719.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 202.0 90.1 292.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 1,797.5 5,129.8 6,958.8

Kentucky, Western - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.0 1,243.1 1,556.4 2,842.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 113.2 1,259.7 4,756.1 6,129.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 220.5 93.3 313.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 156.3 2,723.3 6,405.8 9,285.4

Louisiana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 349.4 0.0 0.0 349.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 349.4 0.0 0.0 349.4

Louisiana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Louisiana - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 349.4 0.0 0.0 349.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 349.4 0.0 0.0 349.4

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

Maryland - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.3 0.0 16.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.7 8.0 12.8 15.9 0.0 39.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 2.7 8.0 12.8 32.2 0.0 55.7

Maryland - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108.4 0.0 108.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 28.4 49.5 105.1 64.3 0.0 247.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 28.4 49.5 105.1 172.7 0.0 355.8

Maryland - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 124.7 0.0 124.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 31.1 57.5 118.0 80.2 0.0 286.8

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 31.1 57.5 118.0 204.9 0.0 411.5

Michigan - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.2 2.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.5 0.3 3.1

Michigan - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 3.0 4.6 3.1 2.9 13.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 4.8 14.5 9.8 7.8 36.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.5 0.0 4.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 7.8 21.3 15.7 10.7 55.4

Michigan - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 3.1 5.0 3.1 3.0 14.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 5.1 15.8 10.1 8.0 39.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.6 0.0 4.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 8.2 23.1 16.2 11.0 58.5

Missouri - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.5 1,976.7 2,031.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 95.7 1,006.9 1,102.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 28.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150.2 3,011.6 3,161.8

Missouri - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 550.7 553.6

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7 111.7 128.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 7.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.6 669.6 689.2

Missouri - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.4 2,527.4 2,584.8

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 112.4 1,118.5 1,231.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.2 35.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 169.8 3,681.2 3,851.0

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 95

Montana - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,458.2 2,916.3 4,579.4 1,212.0 1,458.2 729.1 12,353.1

15-19.99 .................... 16,555.8 4,078.3 4,919.3 1,231.8 151.4 176.4 27,113.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 18,013.9 6,994.6 9,498.7 2,443.8 1,609.6 905.5 39,466.1

Montana - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 15,563.1 9,833.4 7,277.1 2,371.2 412.5 465.7 35,922.8

Montana - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,458.2 2,916.3 4,579.4 1,212.0 1,458.2 729.1 12,353.1

15-19.99 .................... 31,941.9 13,697.5 12,160.7 3,496.2 494.1 544.1 62,334.5

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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 33,577.1 16,827.9 16,775.8 4,815.0 2,022.0 1,371.2 75,389.0

New Mexico - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 824.0 1,029.8 1,860.8 0.0 0.0 3,714.6

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 396.0 318.5 720.5 0.0 0.0 1,435.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 7.7 0.0 5.8 0.0 0.0 13.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.5

Total ....................... 37.0 1,229.2 1,348.3 2,587.1 0.0 0.0 5,201.5

New Mexico - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 547.6 248.7 690.6 0.0 0.0 1,487.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 425.3 292.2 331.8 0.0 0.0 1,049.3

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 285.8 0.2 15.4 0.0 0.0 301.3

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 150.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 175.5

Total ....................... 24.7 1,409.1 541.5 1,037.8 0.0 0.0 3,013.0

New Mexico - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1,371.6 1,278.4 2,551.4 0.0 0.0 5,201.5

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 821.3 610.7 1,052.2 0.0 0.0 2,484.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 293.5 0.2 21.1 0.0 0.0 314.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.6 151.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 214.0

Total ....................... 61.6 2,638.3 1,889.7 3,624.8 0.0 0.0 8,214.5

North Carolina - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Carolina - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 1.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.0 3.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 4.8

North Carolina - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 1.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.3 0.0 3.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.6 1.6 1.3 4.8

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update

North Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.7 750.1 1,375.0 3,437.6 856.9 369.0 7,224.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 435.7 750.1 1,375.0 3,437.6 856.9 369.0 7,224.4

North Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Dakota - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.7 750.1 1,375.0 3,437.6 856.9 369.0 7,224.4

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 435.7 750.1 1,375.0 3,437.6 856.9 369.0 7,224.4

Ohio - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 12.7 22.8 61.4 180.1 420.4 697.4

23-25.99 .................... 20.1 56.3 88.7 283.8 612.8 1,709.8 2,771.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 27.3 56.2 70.4 70.2 173.8 398.0

Total ....................... 20.1 96.4 167.7 415.6 863.1 2,303.9 3,866.8

Ohio - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.1 4.8 68.5 282.2 652.1 1,011.6

23-25.99 .................... 61.6 50.1 127.8 438.7 1,131.0 3,640.0 5,449.2

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 18.6 35.0 126.4 359.7 851.3 1,391.0

Total ....................... 61.6 72.7 167.6 633.6 1,772.9 5,143.4 7,851.7

Ohio - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 16.8 27.5 129.9 462.3 1,072.4 1,708.9

23-25.99 .................... 81.6 106.4 216.5 722.5 1,743.8 5,349.8 8,220.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 45.9 91.2 196.9 429.9 1,025.1 1,788.9

Total ....................... 81.6 169.0 335.3 1,049.2 2,636.0 7,447.3 11,718.4

Oklahoma - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.7 18.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 20.3 3.5 6.3 10.0 62.8 102.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 45.8 21.4 27.5 23.4 0.0 118.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 66.1 24.9 33.8 33.4 81.5 239.6

Oklahoma - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.2 30.2

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 28.5 38.9 35.1 25.9 69.4 197.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 125.7 59.1 109.4 54.3 0.0 348.5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 154.2 98.0 144.5 80.3 99.6 576.5

Oklahoma - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.9 48.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 48.8 42.4 41.4 36.0 132.1 300.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 171.5 80.5 136.9 77.7 0.0 466.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 220.3 122.9 178.3 113.7 181.1 816.1

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 97

Oregon - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.7

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 2.1

Oregon - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 0.9 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 5.1

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.9 1.9 0.0 0.5 0.5 6.5

Oregon - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 1.2 1.9 0.0 0.6 0.6 6.8

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 1.2 2.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 8.6

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1.8 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.6

23-25.99 .................... 70.1 204.2 48.9 8.8 1.1 0.4 333.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 56.4 12.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 86.1

Total ....................... 85.4 262.5 61.5 11.4 1.2 0.4 422.3

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.7

23-25.99 .................... 77.9 165.5 22.6 3.1 0.4 0.0 269.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 38.2 11.9 2.3 0.2 0.0 69.6

Total ....................... 94.9 205.0 34.5 5.7 0.6 0.0 340.7

Pennsylvania, Anthracite - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 3.2 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 4.3

23-25.99 .................... 148.1 369.7 71.6 11.8 1.5 0.4 603.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 94.6 24.2 4.3 0.2 0.0 155.6

Total ....................... 180.3 467.5 96.0 17.1 1.8 0.4 763.0

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 13.0 41.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 4.7 19.9 106.7 103.7 90.4 325.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 17.6 44.3 199.9 95.6 31.8 389.2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 22.4 64.2 306.6 227.3 135.2 755.7

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 131.9 121.4 304.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 51.2 129.0 1,149.3 1,531.1 894.9 3,755.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 209.0 613.3 3,493.7 2,260.2 365.0 6,941.1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 260.2 742.4 4,694.3 3,923.2 1,381.3 11,001.3

Pennsylvania, Bituminous - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 51.3 159.9 134.4 345.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 55.9 149.0 1,255.9 1,634.8 985.3 4,081.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 226.6 657.6 3,693.6 2,355.7 396.8 7,330.4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 282.5 806.6 5,000.9 4,150.5 1,516.5 11,757.0

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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

98 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

South Dakota - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0.0 276.8

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0.0 276.8

South Dakota - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

South Dakota - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0.0 276.8

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 103.6 0.8 172.4 0.0 276.8

Tennessee - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.6 0.0 0.0 73.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 38.8 23.4 19.4 40.1 0.0 121.7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 38.8 23.4 93.0 40.1 0.0 195.3

Tennessee - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.5 0.0 0.0 98.5

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 67.4 38.2 32.6 58.7 0.0 196.9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 67.4 38.2 131.1 58.7 0.0 295.4

Tennessee - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 172.1 0.0 0.0 172.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 106.2 61.6 52.1 98.8 0.0 318.6

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 106.2 61.6 224.2 98.8 0.0 490.7

Texas - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 590.4 5,680.8 3,409.4 376.3 10,056.9

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 590.4 5,680.8 3,409.4 376.3 10,056.9

Texas - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Texas - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 590.4 5,680.8 3,409.4 376.3 10,056.9

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 590.4 5,680.8 3,409.4 376.3 10,056.9

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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: A Review and Update 99

Utah - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 27.5 17.3 84.6 34.8 33.7 197.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 3.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 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 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 384.9 460.5 779.7 189.6 267.2 2,082.0

23-25.99 .................... 302.9 171.1 74.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 548.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.4 90.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157.5

Total ....................... 370.2 646.3 535.2 779.7 189.6 267.2 2,788.4

Utah - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 412.3 477.9 864.3 224.5 301.0 2,279.9

23-25.99 .................... 310.0 175.0 75.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 560.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.4 90.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 159.2

Total ....................... 378.4 678.4 553.9 864.3 224.5 301.0 3,000.5

Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 8.5 70.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.1

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.0 188.5 90.6 45.5 0.0 0.0 365.5

Total ....................... 43.2 196.9 161.1 45.5 0.0 0.0 446.6

Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 5.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1

23-25.99 .................... 39.1 81.1 73.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 197.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105.1 348.8 161.0 82.6 0.0 0.0 697.5

Total ....................... 151.7 435.0 241.4 87.2 0.0 0.0 915.3

Virginia - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 5.1 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.1

23-25.99 .................... 41.3 89.6 143.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 278.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146.1 537.3 251.6 128.1 0.0 0.0 1,063.0

Total ....................... 194.8 631.9 402.5 132.7 0.0 0.0 1,361.9

Washington - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 54.4

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 54.4 0.0 0.0 54.4

Washington - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 42.2 85.6 392.9 0.0 0.0 520.6

20-22.99 .................... 63.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 0.0 0.0 104.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 63.2 91.6 85.6 434.1 0.0 0.0 674.7

Washington - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 42.2 85.6 447.3 0.0 0.0 573.0

20-22.99 .................... 63.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 0.0 0.0 104.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 49.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 63.2 91.6 85.6 488.5 0.0 0.0 728.8

 See notes at end of table.
Table B2. Estimated Recoverable Reserves of Coal by Btu/Sulfur Range, State, and Type of Mining

(Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995)

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

100 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

West Virginia - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 14.9

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 281.4 245.4 164.5 6.4 42.9 740.6

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115.7 1,182.1 322.2 282.4 173.1 49.6 2,125.1

Total ....................... 115.7 1,463.6 567.6 446.9 179.6 107.4 2,880.6

West Virginia - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.3 112.8 38.3 251.4

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 419.1 435.4 1,101.3 519.6 1,877.4 4,352.8

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537.2 4,614.4 1,733.0 2,387.7 1,704.1 1,188.0 12,164.5

Total ....................... 537.2 5,033.5 2,168.4 3,589.4 2,336.5 3,103.6 16,768.6

West Virginia - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-22.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.3 112.8 53.2 266.3

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 700.5 680.7 1,265.8 526.0 1,920.3 5,093.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 652.9 5,796.5 2,055.2 2,670.1 1,877.3 1,237.6 14,289.6

Total ....................... 652.9 6,497.1 2,735.9 4,036.2 2,516.1 3,211.0 19,649.2

Wyoming - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 909.8 170.1 1,393.4 2,473.3

15-19.99 .................... 4,405.4 8,691.6 3,960.9 1,360.9 340.0 814.5 19,573.4

20-22.99 .................... 28.6 130.3 173.0 43.7 17.2 0.0 392.7

23-25.99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 4,434.0 8,821.9 4,133.9 2,314.4 527.3 2,207.9 22,439.4

Wyoming - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 2,042.0 8,220.4 5,233.6 4,741.6 640.5 0.0 20,878.1

20-22.99 .................... 265.3 271.2 369.3 197.2 0.0 32.8 1,135.8

23-25.99 .................... 44.4 272.3 448.6 184.3 0.0 0.0 949.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 2,351.6 8,763.9 6,051.6 5,123.2 640.5 32.8 22,963.6

Wyoming - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 909.8 170.1 1,393.4 2,473.3

15-19.99 .................... 6,447.4 16,912.1 9,194.6 6,102.5 980.5 814.5 40,451.5

20-22.99 .................... 293.8 401.5 542.3 240.9 17.2 32.8 1,528.5

23-25.99 .................... 44.4 272.3 448.6 184.3 0.0 0.0 949.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total ....................... 6,785.6 17,585.8 10,185.5 7,437.6 1,167.8 2,240.7 45,403.0

United States - Surface

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,893.9 3,666.5 9,944.8 12,379.4 6,067.1 2,867.8 36,819.4

15-19.99 .................... 21,357.0 13,650.1 9,938.6 4,597.2 518.9 1,137.3 51,199.2

20-22.99 .................... 142.4 790.8 628.8 1,170.3 1,476.7 11,512.8 15,721.8

23-25.99 .................... 256.0 1,150.2 1,089.0 1,680.8 2,052.4 5,148.3 11,376.7

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.1 2,927.0 1,386.0 1,914.3 772.8 463.8 7,807.9

Total ....................... 23,993.3 22,184.6 22,987.2 21,741.9 10,887.8 21,130.1 122,924.9

United States - Underground

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-19.99 .................... 20,898.4 19,055.3 12,851.8 8,112.0 989.6 388.0 62,295.2

20-22.99 .................... 1,269.6 2,469.9 1,700.3 2,893.7 2,929.9 19,003.6 30,267.0

23-25.99 .................... 1,669.5 2,483.4 1,853.1 4,369.4 5,363.2 18,403.8 34,142.4

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 891.9 6,240.6 2,987.3 6,825.9 4,797.0 2,540.8 24,283.5

Total ....................... 24,729.5 30,249.2 19,392.6 22,201.0 14,079.8 40,336.0 150,988.0

United States - Total

<15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,893.9 3,666.5 9,944.8 12,379.4 6,067.1 2,867.8 36,819.4

15-19.99 .................... 42,255.4 32,705.4 22,790.5 12,709.3 1,508.5 1,525.3 113,494.3

20-22.99 .................... 1,412.0 3,260.7 2,329.0 4,064.0 4,406.7 30,516.4 45,988.7

23-25.99 .................... 1,925.6 3,633.6 2,942.1 6,050.2 7,415.6 23,552.1 45,519.0

26+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,236.0 9,167.6 4,373.3 8,740.2 5,569.8 3,004.6 32,091.4

Total ....................... 48,722.8 52,433.7 42,379.7 43,943.0 24,967.6 61,466.1 273,912.9

 Note: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Heat and sulfur content categories of coal resources and reserves

are limited to two decimal places. Conversion of heat and sulfur contents to millions of Btu per short ton and pounds of sulfur per million Btu, respectively,

produces values with multiple decimal places. These are rounded to two places prior to category allocations, as an appropriate expression of accuracy

for estimates extended to in-place coal resources and reserves. 

 Source: Energy Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 101

Table B3. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Coal Rank/Sulfur Range,

Region, and Type of Mining

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995; Reported as of December 31, 1994)

 Region and Mining Method (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

 Coal Rank # 0.60 0.61-1.67 > 1.67 Total

Pennsylvania, Ohio – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ a 11.5 126.6 225.7 363.8

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 11.5 126.6 225.7 363.8

Pennsylvania, Ohio – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ a 128.4 546.8 353.1 1,028.3

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 128.4 546.8 353.1 1,028.3

Pennsylvania, Ohio – Total

 Bituminous ........................... a 139.9 673.4 578.8 1,392.1

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 139.9 673.4 578.8 1,392.1

West Virginia (North) – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ 16.9 59.6 39.0 115.5

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 16.9 59.6 39.0 115.5

West Virginia (North) – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 58.5 289.8 397.2 745.5

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 58.5 289.8 397.2 745.5

West Virginia (North) – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 75.4 349.4 436.2 861.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 75.4 349.4 436.2 861.0

West Virginia (South) – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ 179.1 221.5 1.4 402.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 179.1 221.5 1.4 402.0

West Virginia (South) – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 446.9 119.5 0.2 566.6

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 446.9 119.5 0.2 566.6

West Virginia (South) – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 626.0 341.0 1.6 968.6

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 626.0 341.0 1.6 968.6

 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table B3. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Coal Rank/Sulfur Range,

Region, and Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995; Reported as of December 31, 1994)

 Region and Mining Method (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

 Coal Rank # 0.60 0.61-1.67 > 1.67 Total

102 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Kentucky (East) – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ 33.1 137.4 4.0 174.5

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 33.1 137.4 4.0 174.5

Kentucky (East) – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 191.7 439.8 2.9 634.4

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 191.7 439.8 2.9 634.4

Kentucky (East) – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 224.8 577.2 6.9 808.9

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 224.8 577.2 6.9 808.9

Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland – Surface

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 25.2 0.2 29.9

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 25.2 0.2 29.9

Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 192.2 143.0 2.1 337.4

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 192.2 143.0 2.1 337.4

Virginia, Tennessee, Maryland – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 196.8 168.2 2.3 367.3

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 196.8 168.2 2.3 367.3

Alabama – Surface

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 29.6 3.8 40.7

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 29.6 3.8 40.7

Alabama – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 286.3 129.3 0.8 416.5

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 286.3 129.3 0.8 416.5

Alabama – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 293.5 159.0 4.7 457.1

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 293.5 159.0 4.7 457.1

 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table B3. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Coal Rank/Sulfur Range,

Region, and Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995; Reported as of December 31, 1994)

 Region and Mining Method (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

 Coal Rank # 0.60 0.61-1.67 > 1.67 Total

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 103

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky (West), Missouri,

 Oklahoma – Surface

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 53.8 419.2 480.8

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 53.8 419.2 480.8

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky (West), Missouri,

 Oklahoma – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 56.0 417.2 925.1 1,398.3

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 56.0 417.2 925.1 1,398.3

Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky (West), Missouri,

 Oklahoma – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 63.8 471.0 1,344.3 1,879.1

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 63.8 471.0 1,344.3 1,879.1

Texas – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 658.0 368.3 1,026.3

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 658.0 368.3 1,026.3

Texas – Underground

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Texas – Total

 Bituminous ........................... b 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 658.0 368.3 1,026.3

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 658.0 368.3 1,026.3

Montana, North Dakota – Surface

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous ......................... 656.4 600.1 0.0 1,256.5

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 1,624.2 89.5 1,720.6

 Total ................................ 663.3 2,224.3 89.5 2,977.1

Montana, North Dakota – Underground

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Montana, North Dakota – Total

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous ......................... 656.4 600.1 0.0 1,256.5

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 1,624.2 89.5 1,720.6

 Total ................................ 663.3 2,224.3 89.5 2,977.1

 

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table B3. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Coal Rank/Sulfur Range,

Region, and Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995; Reported as of December 31, 1994)

 Region and Mining Method (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

 Coal Rank # 0.60 0.61-1.67 > 1.67 Total

104 Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update

Wyoming (East) – Surface

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous ......................... 6,326.5 205.4 0.0 6,531.9

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 6,326.5 205.4 0.0 6,531.9

Wyoming (East) – Underground

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Wyoming (East) – Total

 Bituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Subbituminous ......................... 6,326.5 205.4 0.0 6,531.9

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 6,326.5 205.4 0.0 6,531.9

Wyoming (West), Arizona, Colorado,

 New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Alaska – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ 694.0 8.2 0.0 702.2

 Subbituminous ......................... 561.2 1,449.4 0.0 2,010.6

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 1,255.2 1,457.6 0.0 2,712.8

Wyoming (West), Arizona, Colorado,

 New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Alaska – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ c 810.2 60.7 0.0 870.9

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 810.2 60.7 0.0 870.9

Wyoming (West), Arizona, Colorado,

 New Mexico, Utah, Washington, Alaska –

 Total

 Bituminous ........................... c 1,504.2 68.9 0.0 1,573.2

 Subbituminous ......................... 561.2 1,449.4 0.0 2,010.6

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 2,065.4 1,518.3 0.0 3,583.7

 See footnotes at end of table.
Table B3. Estimates of Recoverable Reserves at Active Mines in 1994 by Coal Rank/Sulfur Range,

Region, and Type of Mining (Continued)

(Million Short Tons Remaining as of January 1, 1995; Reported as of December 31, 1994)

 Region and Mining Method (Pounds of Sulfur per Million Btu)

Sulfur Content

 Coal Rank # 0.60 0.61-1.67 > 1.67 Total

Energy Information Administration/ U.S. Coal Reserves: A Review and Update 105

United States – Surface

 Bituminous ............................ 954.2 662.0 693.3 2,309.4

 Subbituminous ......................... 7,544.1 2,255.0 0.0 9,799.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 2,282.2 457.8 2,746.9

 Total ............................... d 8,505.1 5,199.1 1,151.1 14,855.3

United States – Underground

 Bituminous ............................ 2,170.3 2,146.1 1,681.5 5,997.9

 Subbituminous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total ................................ 2,170.3 2,146.1 1,681.5 5,997.9

United States – Total

 Bituminous ............................ 3,124.4 2,808.0 2,374.8 8,307.3

 Subbituminous ......................... 7,544.1 2,255.0 0.0 9,799.0

 Lignite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 2,282.2 457.8 2,746.9

 Total ............................... d 10,675.4 7,345.2 2,832.6 20,853.2

 Bituminous coal reserves for Pennsylvania and Ohio include a small amount of anthracite reserves. a

 Lignite reserves for Texas include a small amount of bituminous coal reserves. These data were aggregated to avoid disclosure b

of individual company data.

 Bituminous reserves at underground mines in this region include a small amount of subbituminous coal reserves. These data c

were aggregated to avoid disclosure of individual company data.

 Data for Arkansas, Kansas, Iowa, and Louisiana were withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. In 1994, reserves d

at active mines in these States totaled 163.3 million tons.

 Note: Data may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. Heat and sulfur content categories of coal resources

and reserves are limited to two decimal places. Conversion of heat and sulfur contents to millions of Btu per short ton and pounds

of sulfur per million Btu, respectively, produces values with multiple decimal places. These are rounded to two places prior to

category allocations, as an appropriate expression of accuracy for estimates extended to in-place coal resources and reserves. 

 Sources: Coal Reserves Data: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-7A, “Coal Production Report”; Coal Quality Data:

Form EIA-3A, “Annual Coal Quality Report–Manufacturing Plants”; Form EIA-5A, “Annual Coal Quality Report–Coke Plants”; Form

EIA-6, “Coal Distribution Report”; Form EIA-867, “Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report”; and Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Form-423, “Monthly Report of Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants.”