Coal Storage

Coal sample preservation is one of the hardest and most challenging problems that are being
faced now. After the extraction of coal if not stored properly then it leads to loss of quality and
degradation of the grade of coal. The problem of spontaneous combustion of coal, both
underground and in above ground stockpiles, has been extensively studied during the last 100
years. There is now general agreement that the major chemical process occurring in a Coal
stockpile is oxidation, with moisture absorption playing a secondary role. It is also clear that the
flow in a stockpile is caused mainly by natural convection, with wind pressure having some
effect. With already shortage of fuel and innumerable problems any further loss of good quality
coal cannot be afforded. There are a number of ways of storing coals of which a few have been
discussed below.
1. An initial 1-year study on a bituminous coal sample indicated that storage under argon in
heat-sealed 0.20-mm thick bags of laminated polyethylene, aluminum foil, and
fibrous polyethylene preserved initial sample properties better than conventional
containers already in use. Continuation of the study over 14 years showed that this
storage protocol preserves that sample’s initial properties very well. A run-of-mine
sample of medium volatile bituminous. Lower Kittanning seam coal designated PSOC-
1536 was collected in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, and promptly crushed, sub
sampled and analyzed. Splits of the sample were packaged in a variety of container types.
Polyethylene buckets with gasketed lids holding coal crushed to minus 6 mm were stored
in a non-heated building which varied from approximately -20 to +40 0C; this storage
method had been typical for bulk storage of PSOC series samples in the 1980s. Number 2
size (560 ml) steel cans with roller-sealed steel lids held coal crushed to minus 0.85 mm
which was heat-sealed in a polyethylene bag; this had been the typical storage method for
200- to 400-g quantities of PSOC series samples. Foil laminate bags holding coal crushed
to minus 0.85 mm without a separate liner were purged with argon flowing from a tube
before being heat-sealed. Using a polyethylene tub covered only with cloth, a subsample
was left exposed to the atmosphere. The steel cans, foil bags, and exposed sample were
stored in a laboratory which varied from approximately 18 to 29 8C.
Two sensitive indicators of deterioration, Gieseler fluid temperature range and sulfate
sulfur, are maintained very well after 14 years of storage in foil bags. Even the next best
container type, the steel can, allowed the loss of all thermo plasticity and a significant
increase in sulfate sulfur (to 0.20% in 2 years and 1.06% in 8.2 years). The poor behavior
of buckets might have been increased by the temperature fluctuations in the non-heated
building. Volatile matter, calorific value, carbon and oxygen showed only minor changes
over 8.2 years in foil bags, but oxygen increased and carbon and calorific value decreased
significantly in cans and even more in the exposed sample. Volatile matter showed a
significant decrease after 8.2 years only in the exposed sample. As shown in Table 2,
Gieseler fluid temperature range and sulfate sulfur values were maintained after 14 years
of storage for the mvb Lower Kittanning sample as were most of the temperature points
of the plastometer test, volatile matter and calorific value. However, maximum fluidity
and the temperature at maximum fluidity decreased and there was an increase in carbon
content with a decrease in hydrogen and oxygen. Although the changes in chemical
composition during inert gas storage are small, they may suggest that non-oxidative
 changes in the physical and/or chemical properties of coal occur during an extended
period of storage, or may be a product of changes in analytical techniques. Foil laminate
bags of the type U.S. Military specification B-131 provide a cost-effective method for
short- or long-term preservation of up to 5 kg per container of coal samples for research.
The bags are available in a variety of sizes, allowing all splits of a sample of pulverized
coal to be stored in the same container type. Larger bags have been used to seal core
boxes approximately 1 m long. Smaller bags have been used for a few grams of coal,
individual coal/epoxy pellets and asphalt samples.
Some deficiencies of the bags were noted. Bags must also be handled carefully to avoid
punctures from sharp coal particles inside or objects outside the bags. An imperfect seal,
although occurring rarely if best procedures are used, may be difficult to detect.
Polarographic analysis was successfully used to detect leaks in some cases, but may have
falsely indicated minor leaks in other cases, and was discontinued. In summary, the
indicators of deterioration which were employed showed that heat-sealed, argon-filled
foil multi-laminate bags are useful in preserving the properties of coals for more than a
decade.
2. Preservation and maturation of organic matter in coal seams occur under anoxic
conditions. The resulting organic compounds are, in part, chemically unstable in the
presence of elemental oxygen. Storage of freshly mined coal in oxidizing air can
significantly modify coal's physical and chemical properties because of oxidation and
physical and chemical weathering. Understanding the effects of oxidation on the
adsorptive characteristics during storage in air is important for the proper determination
of gas adsorption capacity of coal. Since physical and chemical properties change during
weathering and oxidation, these changes are expected to be accompanied by variations in
surface area and pore-size distribution. Monitoring changes in chemical and physical
properties of coal during storage under controlled laboratory conditions at low
temperature, together with the evaluation of moisture loss in coals, is important to
accurately determine the gas adsorption capacity of coals and their potential use for the
sequestration and geologic storage of greenhouse gases such as CO2.

3. Experiments have been conducted to investigate the incipient oxidation processes in

bituminous coals at or close to ambient conditions. Attempts have been made to store
coal in conditions that would minimize oxidation such as in a dessicator or under
argon. Oxidation of bituminous coal under argon storage appears to be at least an order
of magnitude less rapid than under the other conditions, it does not appear to be totally
immune to oxidation. Storage of bituminous coals under argon at ambient temperatures
retards the rate of oxidation processes in the coals by at least an order of magnitude
relative to conditions of atmospheric exposure or of slightly elevated temperatures and
constant humidity (50°C 65% r.h.). However, evidence has been found for some minor
deterioration of coal properties after 15 months’ storage in argon. Such storage, therefore,
may only be adequate for preserving coals up to 2 years. For longer storage, it appears
necessary to minimize the moisture content as well, or more drastic and expensive
measures such as cryogenic storage must be implemented. In addition, although it
remains to be demonstrated, it is probable that collection and preparation of the sample in
an oxygen-free atmosphere might reduce the rate of oxidation further.
Coal Transportation
Coal competes primarily in the market for low-cost boiler fuels. Coal is also characterized by a
relatively low energy content per unit of weight (at best two-thirds that of residual oil).
Consequently, low-cost and efficient transportation is essential to the competitiveness of coal.
Ocean Transportation
World trade in coal totaled 576 million tons (524 million tonnes) in 1998 and 19.7 quadrillion
Btu in 2006, of which 523 million tons (476 million tonnes) shipped in oceangoing vessels. Coal
shipments use the same dry bulk vessels that transport other bulk commodities, such as iron ore
and bauxite, so vessel rates for coal shipments are hostage to wider market forces. However, the
cyclic pattern observable in vessel rates disguises the long-term trend in which rates have varied
little in nominal terms. For example, spot vessel coal rates in the 1998–1999 time periods were
about the same as in the mid-1980s, varying between $5 and $10 per ton. Coal is generally
shipped either in vessels capable of traversing the Panama Canal (Panamax vessels of 60,000
dwt) or Capsizes carriers of 200,000 dwt and greater. Vessels may be designed for self-unloading
or be "gearless" carriers that require onshore bulk-handling equipment.
Barge Transportation
Coal-carrying barges move in tows of fifteen to forty barges, pulled by a single towboat of 2,000
to 10,000 hp. A "jumbo"-size barge carries 1,800 tons (1,633 tonnes) of coal, so a large tow can
move 72,000 tons (65,304 tonnes) of coal, as much as five unit trains. These large volumes result
in significant economies of scale. Barge rates can run (on a cost-per-mile or cost-per-kilometer
basis) a quarter or less of rail rates. The primary cost variable in barge shipments is fuel; a
midsize towboat can consume 5000 gal (18.9 kl) of diesel fuel daily. Barge shipments are also
dependent on weather conditions; low water or frozen rivers and canals can halt shipments. As
with ocean vessels, the barges that move coal also ship other bulk commodities, making the rates
and availability of barges for coal shipments dependent on conditions in other markets.
Backhauls (i.e., shipment of one commodity to a terminal and return with a different product)
can substantially reduce coal rates. Barges receive coal at a dock to which the coal is initially
transported by rail or truck. These transloading facilities can play an important role in the coal
supply system as intermediate storage sites and by providing facilities where different coals can
be blended into a custom product.
Rail Transportation
Rail-transported coal is typically moved in unit trains that operate in dedicated shuttle service
between a mine and a destination. Unit trains operating in the western United States and Canada
consist of 100 to 120 lightweight aluminum railcars carrying upward of 121 tons (110 tonnes) of
coal apiece, or more than 14,000 tons (12,700 tonnes) per train. In the 1990s, distributed power
(DP) came into widespread use in the western United States. In this system a remotely controlled
engine is put into the middle of a train, allowing greater traction and control of train motion. DP
trains can consist of 135 cars and are the most efficient method of rail transportation of coal.
Railroad productivity has increased dramatically since the mid-1970s. In part this reflects reform
of outdated labor practices, but the technical sophistication of the rail industry is rarely
appreciated. Modern systems use microwave Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) systems to move
trains safely with minimal between-train clearance, allowing substantial increases in system
capacity. Modern diesel electric locomotives rely on microprocessor and alternating-current
motor technology to provide enhanced power (6,000-hp class) and greater traction, allowing two
or three engines to do the work of five earlier models. All aspects of the rail system, from
operations to invoicing, are heavily dependent on computer processing.
Because rail systems exhibit economies of scale, there is a tendency toward consolidation
manifested either in state ownership or merger of privately owned systems into a handful of
competitors. High barriers of entry into the rail business allow the exercise of monopoly power
over rates to customers with single-rail access. This has been a persistent issue in nations with
deregulated rail industries, such as the United States and Canada. Rate complaints by coal mines
and consumers have been common in these countries. On the other hand, railroads have had
difficulty earning adequate returns on investment, due to intermodal competition, heavy capital
investment requirements, and other factors. The tension between shipper demands for low rates
and high-quality service, and railroad efforts to improve profitability, was a political controversy
in the nineteenth century and continues to be an unresolved public policy issue in the early
twenty-first century.
Truck Transportation
Truck transportation is used to move coal to a transloader for placement onto a water or rail
carrier, or for direct shipment to the customer. Trucks have the advantage of routing flexibility
and modest capital requirements, but coal can be economically transported for at most about 100
miles (160 km) one-way or less, due to the high unit cost of moving a low-value product in
relatively small batches.
Coal-carrying vehicles are typically end-dump trucks with a carrying capacity of roughly 25 to
50 tons (22.7 to 45.4 tonnes), depending on local road conditions and safety regulations. In the
1990s, strides were made toward increasing the productivity of truck operations, such as higher-
capacity vehicles. But while these improvements have enhanced the ability of trucks to compete
with railroads for short hauls, they have not significantly increased the maximum radius within
which truck shipments are economical.
Slurry Pipelines
These pipelines have been widely discussed but very few have been built. In addition to the
Black Mesa operation in Arizona, a 38-mile (61-km) pipeline was built by the Soviet Union, and
a 108-mile (173-km) pipeline in Ohio was mothballed in 1963 after six years of operation. It is
arguable to what extent the limited use of slurry pipelines is due to economics or to political
opposition from rail carriers and interests concerned with water rights.
The most successful slurry operation is the dedicated pipeline that serves the 1,580-MW Mohave
Generating Station in southern Nevada. The plant receives all of its coal via a 273-mile (437-km)
pipeline built in 1970 that originates at the Black Mesa mine in Arizona. Coarsely ground coal is
mixed with water (the slurry is about 47% solids by weight) and pumped through an 18-inch (46-
cm) pipe. At the plant the coal is dewatered using centrifuges. The pipeline has a capacity of
about 5 million tons (4.5 million tonnes) annually.
The critical ambient temperatures for ignition of each of these in a 3 m cubic assembly were
calculated, and were all below 300 K, indicating that none of the coals was safe to transport in a
container of this size since, according to currently accepted criteria, such a size needs to be
critical at not less than 311 K (388C) for shipping to be authorized. However, for assemblies as
large as 3 m cube ignition times will be long, and it is possible that even though an assembly is
considered supercritical, the time to ignition will exceed the time of storage or transportation in
which case, of course, there is no hazard in practical terms. Having regard to the fact that
voyages are unlikely to be longer than about 3 weeks and also that the actual ignition times must
be longer than tad, two of the coals would not be expected to cause problems in shipping even
though a 3m cube assembly would be considered supercritical.

Coal pipelines are pipelines used to transport coal from where it is mined to where it is
consumed. For very short distances, large trucks are used to transport coal, but trains and barges
are preferred for long distances. In some cases it is more economical to move the coal by
pipeline than by train or barge. This can happen when there is no suitable railway or waterway to
transport the coal, or when it must be moved very long distances. There are two types of coal
pipelines. Slurry pipelines use slurry of water and pulverized coal. The ratio of coal to water is
about 1 to 1.
A coal log pipeline (CLP) system consists of four major subsystems: inlet, outlet, booster pumps
and pipeline. The inlet subsystem can be further divided into three main parts: coal preparation
including crushing, conveying, heating and mixing with binder), compaction of coal logs, and
injection of coal logs into the pipeline. Because this economic analysis compares coal
transportation cost by CLP with other modes such as railroad, the CLP inlet system considered
starts with crushing coal from the size normally carried by trains or trucks the maximum 50mm
(top size). The crusher reduces the coal to a size suitable for making coal logs (6.4mm top size).
For best results, crushing should reduce the coal to a top size about 1/20 of the coal log diameter,
and a particle size distribution near that of maximum packing density. Heating of the crushed
coal was assumed to be by steam. When binder is needed for any coal log compaction process, it
will be added to the coal in a mixer. The mixer is not needed unless binder is used. The binder
used in this study is Orimulsion which is low-cost emulsified asphalt.
Coal log pipelines (CLP) use coal that has been compressed into logs with a diameter 5 to 10%
less than the diameter of the pipeline and a length about twice the diameter of the pipeline. The
ratio of coal to water is about 3 or 4 to 1. Coal must be relatively dry before it can be burned
efficiently, so the coal must be dried after it arrives at the power plant. Coal transported as slurry
requires a lot of drying and electricity generation will be substantially less if it is not dried
effectively. Coal logs do not require as much drying because they are packed so tightly that they
do not absorb much water, and any water originally in the coal is squeezed out during
compression. To dry the coal, the water is evaporated or separated in a centrifuge.
The CLP concept presses coal into the form of circular cylinder (coal logs) so that coal can be
transported by water flowing through a single underground pipe. (This method is being used in
another application-- transporting cylindrical capsules hydraulically through pipelines.) The coal
log pipelines have advantages of relatively low-energy consumption and simple dewatering at
the end of the pipeline. The diameter of the coal log is about 9/10th the diameter of the inside of
the pipe. The log length is always greater than its diameter with ratios of about 1.8. Coal log
specific gravities are preferably slightly greater than 1 about 1.3.
After the coal logs are transported to their destination they come out of the pipe onto a moving
screen where the logs arc separated from the water. The logs are crushed for subsequent burning
to meet the fuel specifications for different boilers. For a power station with a fluidized-bed
combustor, only simple crushing is needed. For a power station with pulverized coal or cyclone
type boilers, the logs may he pulverized to pieces that are <2 in.
In general, coal logs can he manufactured by one of two processes: with and without binder.
Coal logs made with hinder at room temperature-emulsified bitumen--require <2 weight %
binder. The hinder has a high heating value and serves as a lubricant. These logs can he
fabricated either by a fast single-punch press with multiple stations or by a large rotary press.
Because of its costs, the amount of the hinder used is kept to a minimum. Coal logs made
without binder arc heated to about 100oC, with compaction pressures of ~ 20.000 psi.
Experimental testing suggests that there is an optimum moisture level, depending on the type of
coal. The final compaction process chosen will depend on the process’s capital and operating
costs. Compared with the better-known coal slurry pipeline, the CLP features one-third to one-
fourth the water usage and twice the coal throughout the unit cost (dollars per ton) of
transporting coal through a CLP is -50% of the cost of a corresponding coal slurry pipeline.
The outlet subsystem consists of a reservoir to collect the water effluent from the pipe, a
conveyor belt to transport the coal logs out of the water and to a stock pile, and coal log crushers.
Depending on power plant preferences, coal logs may or may not be crushed prior to stockpiling.
The coal particles in the effluent water are removed (dewatered) through a process similar to that
used by coal slurry pipelines. The dewatering process includes two stages: the larger particles
settle in the sedimentation tank, and the finer particles settle in the flocculation tank. The coal
particles are then removed from the bottom of these two tanks as sludge. The sludge from the
sedimentation tank consists of coarse coal particles; they are pumped into a screen-bowl
centrifuge for dewatering. The dewatered coal particles, containing less than 30% water, are
burned with the coal log fuel. The coal sludge from the flocculation tank consists of fine
particles; it must be dewatered by filtration rather than centrifuging. The effluent water from the
centrifuge is sent back to the flocculation tank for further cleaning. Clean water from the
flocculation tank is reused at the power plant for steam cooling and/or other purposes.
For long coal log pipelines, booster pumps are needed at intermediate stages so that the
maximum pressure in the pipe and the pump can be limited to approx. 10.34MPa. The most
suitable booster pump for CLP is the pump bypass. The pump bypass consists of a set of pipes, a
pump and eight valves. The valves must be opened and closed alternately, four at a time, to make
the coal logs bypass the pump. With this system, only water passes through the pump; the logs
bypass the pump. Consequently, ordinary slurry pumps or sludge pumps can be used for CLP.
Automatic computer control of the CLP system is a must. The CLP can compete with existing
coal transportation systems at distances from 50 to 1,000 miles. An 8-inch CLP has a throughput
of about 2.5 million tons per year. Pipelines can be run under-capacity for specific time duration
and still be more economic than other modes of transport. The consumption of water by the
slurry pipeline is minimal. The small cost of water loss is more than compensated for by gains
realized in lower cost transport costs and in jobs at the slurry preparation facilities. The direct
environmental impacts of slurry pipelines appear to be negligible.
Comparison of CLP with other methods of transportation:-

1. CLP vs. Slurry Pipelines: - It is always more economical to transport coal by CLP rather
than slurry pipelines when the distance is short. For instance, to transport 2.34 MT/yr of coal by
slurry pipeline will require a 305mm (12 in.) pipeline, and the unit cost will be approx. $12/T for
a distance of 80 km. In contrast, to transport the same amount of coal by CLP will require only a
203mm (8 in.) pipeline, and the unit cost will be reduced to $6/T which is half of that for slurry
pipeline. Even for very long pipeline with large throughput, significant savings can be
accomplished by using CLP. For instance, for transporting 16.7 MT/yr of coal over a distance of
1600km, a 840mm (33 in.) slurry pipeline is required and the unit cost is approx. $26/T. If CLP
were used to transport the same amount of coal over the same distance, the pipe diameter is
reduced to 508mm (20 in.), and the unit transportation cost is reduced to $17 (if no polymer is
used) and to $13 (if polymer is used). The reduction in unit cost from using CLP is substantial.
The unit cost of CLP is much lower than that of coal slurry pipeline for one main reason: CLP
has approximately twice the throughput of coal slurry pipeline of the same diameter. The fact
that CLP can transport coal more economically than slurry pipeline especially at relatively short
distances is significant. This gives CLP a much larger market than slurry pipeline for coal
transportation.
2. CLP vs. Truck: - For throughputs of 2.34MT/yr, use of CLP is more economical that the use
of trucks for distances greater than approximately 65km. For throughputs of the order of 16.7
MT/yr, use of CLP is more economical than using truck for any distance greater than approx. 25
km. This implies that trucks are more economical than CLP only if both the throughput and the
distance involved are very small. Otherwise, CLP is more economical.
3. CLP vs. Unit Train: - For the throughput of 2.34MT/yr, unit trains are less costly than CLP
for any distance above approx. 160 km. For a throughput of 16.7 MT/yr, the CLP cost is always
less than that determined from the rail cost model. For the vast majority of power plants, the rail
rates are significantly higher than that by a large-throughput CLP. First, the fact that it is difficult
for CLP to compete with rail when the throughput is small holds only for dedicated pipelines i.e.
a small pipeline built solely for a given power plant. In practice, a large pipeline can often be
designed to transport coal logs to several power plants, the same as railroads do. In such a case,
the total tonnage delivered can be increased to 16 MT/yr or even more, to take advantage of the
economy of scale of pipelines. When this is done, CLP becomes very competitive with railroads.
Secondly, the foregoing cost comparisons with trucks and rail are based on equal distances. In
reality, a coal slurry pipeline or a CLP normally follows a straight-line or a quasi-straight-line
path between a coal mine and a power plant, or a series of power plants. The same does not hold
for truck and rail. Generally a 700km CLP can be compared with a 1000km rail and so forth.
When this factor is taken into consideration the economic advantages of CLP are much more.
The cost of coal transportation by CLP is based on constructing new pipeline resulting in high
capital cost, whereas the tariff of railroads is based on use of existing railroads constructed many
years ago with government subsidy and hence has no capital cost. In situations where new
railroads must be built to haul coal, the rail tariff will be much higher than those reported in this
study, and hence CLP will be far more economical than rail as shown herein. Optimization of log
velocity, compaction processes, distance between pumping stations, types of pumps and valves
and so on, will undoubtedly result in a reduction in the cost of CLP.
The new recent finding that small but appreciable concentrations of molecular hydrogen are
evolved as a consequence of low-temperature oxidation raises the question whether transient
accumulation of hydrogen locally above the lower explosion limit (LEL) might initiate a chain
reaction leading to an explosion.
It was therefore decided to examine the possibility that such a situation might develop inside a
ship's hold loaded with bituminous coal. The international maritime trade in bituminous coal
amounts to roughly 350 million tonnes per annum. The problem of self-heating due to coal
oxidation is usually considered to be the main cause of deterioration of calorific value in the ship
and worse, ship fires. Explosions in confined storage facilities are a well known, undesired
phenomenon and unfortunately have been reported frequently, with loss of life, mainly in deep
mines but also in large silos (where the coal is left for relatively long periods). Generally two
main reasons are offered for such events:
(1) Accumulation of high concentrations of coal bed methane;
(2) Occurrence of large amounts of high-surface dust, usually in the atmosphere of a mine.
To prevent such situations from occurring, efficient ventilation and filtration of the dust as well
as on-line monitors are installed in mines. In ship holds, no measures are taken to detect the
presence of dust, though organic explosive gases are monitored.
To assess the possible accumulation of hydrogen in a ship's hold during extended voyages, the
following parameters have to be estimated: length of voyage, amount of coal in the hold, volume
of reacting oxygen, rate of oxygen consumption by the coal, volume of free space where
hydrogen will accumulate, average temperature of the transported coal, and type of coal shipped.
Some of these parameters depend on the importing and exporting countries.

The calculation of the amount of accumulation of hydrogen in the ship’s hold during
transportation can be calculated as follows:
Volume of H2 produced = (Rate of H2 released) X
(Voyage Duration) X (Coal amount in hold)
Thus it can be seen that if the volume of H2 produced in the ship’s hold during transportation
exceeds the LEL then the chances of explosion if a chain reaction is initiated significantly
increase. In Australian coal transport, the concentration of hydrogen rises to a dangerous level,
3.1 volume %, which is close to the LEL in air. This possibility occurs if the temperature of the
coal is at least 40°C and there is neither dilution of the hydrogen nor leakage of the hydrogen out
of the hold. Thus if such a scenario actually unfolds during the marine transport of coal, clearly
the role of hydrogen should be considered whilst evaluating safety risks.
All the risk evaluations are generally evaluated based on the assumptions that the ship’s hold
behaves similarly to a closed batch reactor. However, in the event that the hold has some gas
exchange with the outside atmosphere, either as a precaution or inadvertently owing to a poorly
sealed hatch cover, two opposing processes will result:
(1) Increased rate of hydrogen production due to the continuous supply of oxygen, which is a
precursor for hydrogen emission (due to the decomposition of surface oxides)
(2) Dilution of the hydrogen, preventing the build-up of dangerous concentrations.
Underground coal mines pose even a greater risk as compared to the test conditions on the ship.
References
 Coal sample preservation in foil multi-laminate bags by David C. Glick, Gareth D.
Mitchell, Alan Davis; Coal and Organic Petrology Laboratories, The Energy Institute,
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

 Storage of bituminous coals under argon by Frank E. Huggins, George R. Dunmyre,

Mou-Ching Lin and Gerald P.Huffman US; Steel Technical Center, Monroeville, PA
15146, USA

 ECONOMICS OF COAL LOG PIPELINE FOR TRANSPORTING by COAL

HENRY LIU, JAMES S. NOBLE, JIANPING WU and ROBERT ZUNIGA; Capsule
Pipeline Research Center, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211,
U.S.A.

 Effects of coal storage in air on physical and chemical properties of coal and on gas
adsorption, Maria Mastalerz, Wilfrido Solano-Acosta, Arndt Schimmelmann, Agnieszka
Drobniak.

 Long-Distance Transport of Coal by Coal Log Pipeline by T.R. Marrrero; Capsule

Pipeline Research Center University of Missouri