U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-095-01

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-095-01 fs095-01 10/29/01 11:37 AM Page 1 Mercury in U.S. Coal—Abundance, Distribution, and Modes of Occurrence Introduction In February 1998, The U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA, 1998a,b) issued a report citing mercury emissions Atmospheric from electric utilities as the largest Hg Anthropogenic Hg remaining anthropogenic source of mer- Global deposition cury released to the air. EPA officials Natural Hg estimated that about 50 tons of elemental mercury are emitted each year from U.S. terrestrial marine coal-burning powerplants, with lesser Local and amounts coming from oil- and gas-burn- regional Reemitted Reemitted ing units. According to EPA estimates, deposition anthropogenic anthropogenic emissions from coal-fired utilities and natural Hg and natural Hg account for 13 to 26 percent of the total (natural plus anthropogenic) airborne emissions of mercury in the United States. On December 14, 2000, the EPA Methylated announced that it will require a reduction Hg in mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants, with regulations proposed by 2003 and final rules for implementa- tion completed by 2004 (EPA, 2000). Figure 1. Simplified geochemical cycle of mercury (Hg). Environmental Significance of uptake via the food chain. Cases of mer- mercury to the environment. Additional Mercury cury poisoning have been documented in options include selective mining of coal The mercury (Hg) directly emitted people who eat contaminated fish for pro- (avoiding parts of a coal bed that are from powerplants generally is not consid- longed periods, both in the United States higher in mercury content), coal washing ered harmful; however, in the natural and abroad. Pregnant women and subsis- (to reduce the amount of mercury in the environment, mercury can go through a tence fishermen are particularly vulnera- coal delivered to the powerplants), switch- series of chemical transformations that ble. Because high levels of mercury have ing from coal to natural gas, and postcom- convert elemental mercury to a highly been detected in fish, many U.S. States bustion removal of mercury from the toxic form that is concentrated in fish and have issued advisories that restrict fishing. powerplant stack emissions. Information birds (fig. 1). The most toxic form of Reduction in mercury emissions from on the abundance, distribution, and forms mercury is methylmercury, an organic U.S. coal-fired powerplants may help of mercury in coal may be helpful in form created by a complex bacterial con- minimize or avoid health problems caused selecting the most efficient and cost-effec- version of inorganic mercury. Methyla- by exposure to excess mercury. There are tive options for mercury reduction. tion rates (creation of methylmercury) in several ways in which this reduction can ecosystems are a function of mercury be accomplished. One option to reduce Abundance and Distribution of availability, bacterial population, nutrient the quantity of mercury in the atmosphere Mercury in Coal load, acidity and oxidizing conditions, is to use high-rank coals. Generally, mois- The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sediment load, and sedimentation rates ture in coal decreases and calorific value has compiled a nationwide coal informa- (National Research Council, 1978). (thermal energy) increases as coal rank tion database over the last 25 years. A Methylmercury enters the food chain, (degree of maturation) increases. There- subset of the data, called COALQUAL particularly in aquatic organisms, and fore, powerplants that burn high-rank coal (Bragg and others, 1998) contains analy- bioaccumulates. Bioaccumulation is the in their boilers require less coal for a ses of over 7,000 coal samples that have enrichment of a substance in an organism given thermal output. Thus, for coals hav- been collected or calculated to represent and includes bioconcentration from envi- ing similar mercury concentrations, the the entire thickness of a coal bed in the ronmental concentrations and additional higher rank coals will contribute less ground. U.S. Department of the Interior USGS Fact Sheet FS–095–01 U.S. Geological Survey September 2001 fs095-01 10/29/01 11:37 AM Page 2 Figure 2 is a histogram of the mercu- 25 ry values in the COALQUAL database for conterminous U.S. coal. Statistics for all analyses indicate a mean of 0.17 part 20 per million (ppm), with a median and standard deviation of 0.11 ppm and 0.17, respectively. About 80 percent of the 15 mercury concentrations in the database are less than 0.25 ppm. The maximum mercury database value for coal in the 10 ground is 1.8 ppm, after deleting one higher value as a statistical outlier. Table 1 shows the median and mean 5 values for mercury concentrations (in IN PERCENT FREQUENCY, ppm) and calorific values (British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb)), as well as the 0 number of analyses, for selected coal- 0.003 0.253 0.503 0.753 1.003 1.253 1.503 1.753 producing regions in the United States, using the COALQUAL database. The MERCURY, IN PARTS PER MILLION mercury data in table 1 have been calcu- lated back to an as-received basis, Figure 2. Histogram of mercury concentrations (remnant moisture, whole coal basis) for conter- approximately the mercury concentration minous U.S. coal from the COALQUAL database. of the coal in the ground. Northern Appalachian area coal has percent, respectively). About 14 percent Powder River Basin are slightly higher in the highest mean and median values for of U.S. production comes from coal in mercury levels than the subbituminous mercury, with coal from the southern the Interior areas. coals of the San Juan River Basin. Appalachian area having the second high- On the basis of the information est value and coal from the central shown in figure 3, the Gulf Coast lignite Modes of Occurrence and Reduction Appalachian area slightly lower. Coal may have the highest potential for mercu- of Mercury from these three areas has extremely high ry emissions, and the Green River coal The COALQUAL data set does not calorific values. Coal from the Uinta from western Wyoming may have the take into account the potentially substantial region has the lowest mean and median lowest mercury emissions on an equal- reduction of mercury by physical coal mercury values of all indicated areas. energy basis. Of the two major bitumi- cleaning, because the analyses represent Some western U.S. coals are low in mer- nous coal-producing regions, samples coal as it exists in the ground. The modes cury but are also low in calorific value, from the Appalachian region contain of occurrence of an element in coal can because they are low in rank. higher mercury levels than those from affect the way the element behaves during The concentration of mercury can the Eastern Interior. Samples from the coal cleaning, combustion, and leaching. also be presented on an equal-energy basis (input load) in pounds (lb) per tril- Table 1. Median and mean values for mercury concentrations (in parts per million (ppm)) and 12 lion (10 ) Btu to provide a convenient calorific values (in British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb) on an as-received, whole coal basis unit of comparison between coal from for selected coal-producing regions in the United States. different areas (fig. 3). This is a simple [No. = number of analyses] calculation, dividing as-received mercury ppm values by Btu/lb and expressing the Mercury Calorific value Coal-producing (ppm) (Btu/lb) value on a 1012 Btu basis. The data from region COALQUAL used in this analysis yield a Median Mean No. Median Mean No. mean U.S. input load of 14 lb Hg/1012 Btu (with a median of 9.7 and a standard Appalachian, northern 0.19 0.24 1,613 12,570 12,440 1,506 Appalachian, central .10 .15 1,747 13,360 13,210 1,648 deviation of 15). The calculated input Appalachian, southern .18 .21 975 12,850 12,760 969 loads from individual samples were used Eastern Interior .07 .10 289 11,510 11,450 255 to calculate a mean value for each of the Fort Union .08 .10 300 6,280 6,360 277 selected coal-producing regions listed in Green River .06 .09 388 9,940 9,560 264 table 1. Mean mercury input loads were Gulf Coast .13 .16 141 6,440 6,470 110 Pennsylvania divided into arbitrary 5-unit intervals and Anthracite .10 .10 51 12,860 12,520 39 are color-coded in figure 3. According to Powder River .06 .08 612 8,050 8,090 489 the Energy Information Administration Raton Mesa .05 .09 40 12,500 12,300 34 (EIA, 2001), U.S. coal production, which San Juan River .04 .08 192 9,340 9,610 173 can be roughly correlated with usage, is Uinta .04 .07 253 11,280 10,810 226 Western Interior .14 .18 286 11,320 11,420 261 similar between coal regions east and Wind River .08 .15 42 9,580 9,560 42 west of the Mississippi River (38 and 48 fs095-01 10/29/01 11:37 AM Page 3 Figure 3. Mercury input loadings (in pounds of mercury per 1012 British thermal units (lb Hg/1012 Btu)) of in-ground coal for selected U.S. coal-producing regions. Thus, the element’s mode of occurrence niques. The results of these studies indi- coal-producing region. On an equal-ener- has an important influence on its environ- cate that, on the average, 37 percent of the gy basis, Gulf Coast coal samples have mental and technological impacts. Because mercury is removed by coal cleaning the highest input load values (27.0 lb of the low concentrations (commonly less (Toole-O’Neil and others, 1999).
Recommended publications
  • Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana Click Here to Return to Volume Title Page by Lawrence O
    Chapter 1 Geologic Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana Click here to return to Volume Title Page By Lawrence O. Anna Chapter 1 of Total Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana By U.S. Geological Survey Powder River Basin Assessment Team U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–U U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2010 Revised: April 2010 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Lawrence O. Anna, 2010, Geologic assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Powder River Basin Province Wyoming and Montana, in Total Petroleum Systems and Geologic Assessment of Oil and Gas Resources in the Powder River Basin Province, Wyoming and Montana: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 3A. Real Average Annual Coal Transportation Costs
    Table 3a. Real Average Annual Coal Transportation Costs from Coal Basin to State by Truck (2020 dollars per ton) Coal Supply Basin Destination State 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 (preliminary) Northern Appalachia Maryland W W W W - - - - - W W W W Northern Appalachia Michigan W W W W W W W W W - - - - Northern Appalachia New Jersey - - - - - - - W - - - - - Northern Appalachia New York $14.81 $21.59 - W W - - - - - - W - Northern Appalachia Ohio $9.81 $6.74 $11.65 $12.73 $14.20 $5.11 $7.95 $6.53 W W W W W Northern Appalachia Pennsylvania $6.84 $4.21 $5.64 $5.60 $5.90 $6.58 $6.37 $7.26 $7.75 $8.79 $11.27 $8.34 7.37 Northern Appalachia West Virginia $8.77 $5.06 $4.76 $6.24 W $4.10 $3.45 $3.42 $4.32 W $6.21 W W Central Appalachia Alabama W - - - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Florida W W W - W - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Georgia W - W - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Illinois - - - - - W W - - - - - - Central Appalachia Kentucky W W - W - - W - W - W - W Central Appalachia Maryland - W - - - - - - - W - - - Central Appalachia Minnesota W W - - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Mississippi - W - - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia North Carolina W - $28.76 W - W - - - - - W - Central Appalachia Ohio W - W - - - W - - - - - - Central Appalachia Pennsylvania - - - - - - - W - - - - - Central Appalachia South Carolina - - $40.28 - - - - - - - - - - Central Appalachia Tennessee - - - - - - - W - - - - - Central Appalachia Virginia W W - W W W W - - W - W - Central Appalachia West Virginia
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Things You Should Know About Powder River Basin Coal Exports by Nathan Joo, Matt Lee-Ashley, and Michael Madowitz August 18, 2014
    5 Things You Should Know About Powder River Basin Coal Exports By Nathan Joo, Matt Lee-Ashley, and Michael Madowitz August 18, 2014 Last month, the Center for American Progress published an issue brief that looked at the massive climate impacts of low-cost coal mined in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana.1 The Powder River Basin, or PRB, which is home to the largest coal reserves in the United States, currently supplies approximately 40 percent of the nation’s coal and accounts for a full 13 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.2 For decades, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, which owns the overwhelming majority of the coal reserves in the PRB, has incentivized maximum production of coal in the region without regard for pollution costs or for the fair return of revenue to taxpayers. Our analysis reached the following standout conclusions that policymakers will need to address as they explore long-overdue reforms to the BLM coal program. • As a result of federal policies, coal from the PRB is selling at below-market rates. At $13 per ton, PRB coal sells for around one-fifth of the price of coal produced in the Appalachian region.3 • The carbon-pollution costs from mining and burning coal from the PRB are $62 per ton—resulting in more than $19 billion per year in losses and damages from carbon pollution.4 • In 2012, the United States exported almost 127 million tons of coal, making it the fourth-largest coal exporter in the world behind Indonesia, Australia, and Russia.5 Demand for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Depositional Models. for Two Tertiary Coal-Bearing Sequences in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA
    Journal of the Geological Society, London, Vol. 145, 1988, pp. 613-620, 12 figs. Printed in Northern Ireland Depositional models. for two Tertiary coal-bearing sequences in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA P. D. WARWICK & R. W. STANTON US Geological Survey, Reston, VA 22092, USA Abstract: Depositional controls on peat-forming environments which produce thick (>l0 m) coal beds canbe inferred from relationships between coal bed geometry, maceral composition and associated lithologies. Study of these relationships within sedimentary sequences associated with the Wyodak-Anderson (Palaeocene) and the Felix (Eocene) sub-bituminous coal beds in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming, USA suggests two modes of fluvially controlled peat accumulation. The Wyodak-Anderson peat is interpreted to have formed in restricted parts of the floodplain that were separated by deposits of contemporaneous, anastomosed channels. The channels and associated sediments maintained their position through time because they were confined by thick deposits of raised Wyodak-Anderson peat. In contrast, the Felix coal bed is interpreted to have formed as a raised but widespread peat on an abandoned platform of meander-belt sands. The purpose of this paper is to compare andcontrast two different fluvial depositional settings that produced anomalously thick (>10m) coal deposits in theintermontane Powder River Basin of Wyoming, USA. These models may be useful as predictive tools for coal exploration and production. This paper was presentedat the Coal and Coal-bearing Strata Formation to represent deposits of a fluvio-deltaic system Symposium in April 1986. that built out into a closed lacustrine basin. Two separate coal-bearing stratigraphic sequences were The Powder River Basin is an asymmetrical structural basin considered in the present study, (1) an approximately 130 m in north-central Wyoming and south-eastern Montana with section that includes inits lower portion the Wyodak- the axis of the Basin located along the western side (Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • AT CANADIAN PACIFIC, OUR STORY BOILS DOWN to ONE WORD: CHANGE. Deep, Fundamental, Rapid Change
    CHANGE CANADIAN PACIFIC 2012 ANNUAL REPORT AT CANADIAN PACIFIC, OUR STORY BOILS DOWN TO ONE WORD: CHANGE. Deep, fundamental, rapid change. Positive change. We’re changing how we look at things. We’re changing how we do things. Most important, we now see change as an ongoing process. Change as something that drives continuous improvement. Change as something that creates opportunity. We’re already making progress, driving change where our customers and shareholders want to see it most: In our service and our results. 2012 ANNUAL REPORT 1 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS Financial summary $ in millions, except per share data, or unless otherwise indicated 2012 2011 2010 Financial results Revenues $÷5,695 $÷5,177 $÷4,981 Operating income, excluding significant items (1)(2) 1,309 967 1,116 Operating income 949 967 1,116 Income, excluding significant items (1)(2) 753 538 651 Net income 484 570 651 Diluted earnings per share, excluding significant items (1)(2) 4.34 3.15 3.85 Diluted earnings per share 2.79 3.34 3.85 Dividend declared per share 1.3500 1.1700 1.0575 Additions to properties 1,148 1,104 726 Financial position Total assets 14,727 14,110 13,676 Long-term debt, including current portion 4,690 4,745 4,315 Shareholders’ equity 5,097 4,649 4,824 Financial ratios (%) Operating ratio 83.3 81.3 77.6 Operating ratio, excluding significant items (1)(2) 77.0 81.3 77.6 Debt-to-total capitalization 47.9 50.7 47.2 (1) These earnings measures have no standardized meanings prescribed by U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Powder River Basin Coal Resource and Cost Study George Stepanovich, Jr
    Exhibit No. MWR-1 POWDER RIVER BASIN COAL RESOURCE AND COST STUDY Campbell, Converse and Sheridan Counties, Wyoming Big Horn, Powder River, Rosebud and Treasure Counties, Montana Prepared For XCEL ENERGY By John T. Boyd Company Mining and Geological Consultants Denver, Colorado Report No. 3155.001 SEPTEMBER 2011 Exhibit No. MWR-1 John T. Boyd Company Mining and Geological Consultants Chairman James W Boyd October 6, 2011 President and CEO John T Boyd II File: 3155.001 Managing Director and COO Ronald L Lewis Vice Presidents Mr. Mark W. Roberts Richard L Bate Manager, Fuel Supply Operations James F Kvitkovich Russell P Moran Xcel Energy John L Weiss 1800 Larimer St., Suite 1000 William P Wolf Denver, CO 80202 Vice President Business Development Subject: Powder River Basin Coal Resource and Cost Study George Stepanovich, Jr Managing Director - Australia Dear Mr. Roberts: Ian L Alexander Presented herewith is John T. Boyd Company’s (BOYD) draft report Managing Director - China Dehui (David) Zhong on the coal resources mining in the Powder River Basin of Assistant to the President Wyoming and Montana. The report addresses the availability of Mark P Davic resources, the cost of recovery of those resources and forecast FOB mine prices for the coal over the 30 year period from 2011 Denver through 2040. The study is based on information available in the Dominion Plaza, Suite 710S 600 17th Street public domain, and on BOYD’s extensive familiarity and experience Denver, CO 80202-5404 (303) 293-8988 with Powder River Basin operations. (303) 293-2232 Fax jtboydd@jtboyd com Respectfully submitted, Pittsburgh (724) 873-4400 JOHN T.
    [Show full text]
  • Geospatial Data for Coal Beds in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana
    Geospatial Data for Coal Beds in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana Data Series 912 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Coal mine in the Powder River Basin (photograph by James A. Luppens). Geospatial Data for Coal Beds in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana By Scott A. Kinney, David C. Scott, Lee M. Osmonson, and James A. Luppens Data Series 912 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Kinney, S.A., Scott, D.C., Osmonson, L.M., and Luppens, J.A , 2015, Geospatial data for coal beds in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 912, 7 p, GIS database, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ds912.
    [Show full text]
  • Resources in Sedimentary Rocks of the Powder River Basin and Adjacent Uplifts, Northeastern Wyoming
    Resources in Sedimentary Rocks of the Powder River Basin and Adjacent Uplifts, Northeastern Wyoming U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 191 7-N AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with the last offerings, are given in the current-year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Survey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List." Publications that are listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" are no longer available. Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated monthly, which is for sale in microfiche from the U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Sales, Box 25286, Denver, CO 80225. Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below. BY MAIL OVER THE COUNTER Books Books Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Tech­ Books of the U.S. Geological Survey are available over the niques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications counter at the following U.S. Geological Survey offices, all of of general interest (such as leaflets, pamphlets, booklets), single which are authorized agents of the Superintendent of Documents. copies of periodicals (Earthquakes & Volcanoes, Preliminary De­ termination of Epicenters), and some miscellaneous reports, includ­ ANCHORAGE, Alaska-^230 University Dr., Rm.
    [Show full text]
  • Dim Future for Illinois Basin Coal Market Forces and Shifting Preferences Are Eroding Customer Base Domestically and Abroad
    Seth Feaster, IEEFA Data Analyst 1 Karl Cates, IEEFA Transition Policy Analyst December 2019 Dim Future for Illinois Basin Coal Market Forces and Shifting Preferences Are Eroding Customer Base Domestically and Abroad Executive Summary Twenty years from now, most of the Illinois Basin coal industry will be gone. Currently one of the major U.S. producing regions of thermal coal for domestic and foreign electricity generation, by 2040 it will have largely faded away as utilities shift to cleaner, cheaper generation resources. In 2018, the Illinois Basin produced 106.8 million tons of thermal coal, about 14 percent of the total mined nationwide. Most of that total was used domestically, the remainder was exported. The Basin, which straddles the Ohio River in parts of three states—southern Illinois, southwest Indiana and western Kentucky—does not produce any of the metallurgical coal used in steelmaking, meaning it cannot escape the rapid transition now under way in the electric generation sector, both domestically and abroad. Domestic utilities, which bought nearly 80 percent of the region’s coal in 2018, have already announced retirement dates for a significant number of plants over this period, as competitive electric markets compel a shift to newer, less expensive and cleaner wind, solar and gas generation, increasingly supported with energy storage. Notably, these retirements include the largest single purchaser of Illinois Basin coal, Duke’s Gibson plant in Indiana, which will close in phases by 2038. Gibson’s closing will not be unique, however. From the beginning of 2019 through 2024, at least 15 U.S. plants that buy Illinois Basin coal—in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee—will be fully or partially retired.
    [Show full text]
  • Ground-Water-Flow Systems in the Powder River Structural Basin, Wyoming and Montana
    GROUND-WATER-FLOW SYSTEMS IN THE POWDER RIVER STRUCTURAL BASIN, WYOMING AND MONTANA by James G. Rankl and Marl in E. Lowry U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4229 Cheyenne, Wyoming 1990 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL J. LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY i Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports Section 2617 E. Lincolnway, Suite B Federal Center, Building 810 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 Box 25425 Denver, Colorado 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract................................................................ 1 Introduction............................................................ 2 Purpose and scope.................................................. 2 Precipitation...................................................... 4 Geology............................................................ 4 Ground water............................................................ 6 Aquifer data....................................................... 6 Chemical quality of water.......................................... 7 Streamflow.............................................................. 8 Regional ground-water-flow systems...................................... 15 Stratigraphic control.............................................. 15 Discharge to streams............................................... 19 Basin streams................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Powder River Basin Coal Industry Is in Long-Term Decline Fast-Changing Markets Indicate Deeper Downturns to Come in Montana and Wyoming
    Seth Feaster, IEEFA Data Analyst 1 Karl Cates, IEEFA Research Editor March 2019 Powder River Basin Coal Industry Is in Long-Term Decline Fast-Changing Markets Indicate Deeper Downturns to Come in Montana and Wyoming Executive Summary In the broad and fast-moving transition occurring across U.S. electricity-generation smarkets, no region stands at greater economic risk than the coal-rich Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming. The PRB, as the basin is known for short, for years has produced roughly 40% of the coal used in power generation nationally, and the vast majority of the region’s coal has gone into that sector. Demand for PRB coal has been driven historically by federal coal-lease policy, expanding energy markets, and the fact that it can be inexpensively strip-mined—as opposed to extracted from underground seams—and is relatively low in sulfur and ash content. Yet today the region is losing its customer base as utilities across the U.S. embrace a wave of technology disruptions that have brought lower-cost generation from natural gas and renewables, especially wind and solar, creating competition that Powder River Basin Coal Industry is in Long-Term Decline 2 is driving coal-fired power plants out of business. The U.S. market for thermal coal— that is, coal used for electricity generation—is in long-term structural decline, a trend that spells erosion in demand for PRB coal. This shift raises major issues for local economies. PRB coal production directly employed 5,723 people in Montana and Wyoming in the fourth quarter of 2018, and coal mining contributes a major part of the tax base in at least three Montana counties and five Wyoming counties.
    [Show full text]
  • American Journal of Science, Vol
    [American Journal of Science, Vol. 311, December, 2011,P.813–850, DOI 10.2475/10.2011.01] American Journal of Science DECEMBER 2011 MAGNETOSTRATIGRAPHY OF THE LEBO AND TONGUE RIVER MEMBERS OF THE FORT UNION FORMATION (PALEOCENE) IN THE NORTHEASTERN POWDER RIVER BASIN, MONTANA DANIEL J. PEPPE*, KIRK R. JOHNSON**, and DAVID A. D. EVANS*** ABSTRACT. We analyzed paleomagnetic samples and documented the stratigraphy from two sections near Miles City, Montana to determine the geomagnetic polarity stratigraphy and to constrain the age and duration of the Lebo and Tongue River Members of the Fort Union Formation in the northeastern Powder River Basin. The resulting polarity sequence can be correlated to subchrons C29n–C26r of the geomag- netic polarity time scale. By interpolating measured sediment accumulation rates from the base of C28r to the top of C27n, and then extrapolating to the top of the Tongue River Member and the bottom of the Lebo Member, we developed two age models to estimate the durations of the Lebo and Tongue River Members. Based on the first model, which uses different sedimentation rates for the Lebo and Tongue River Members, we estimate the duration of deposition of the Lebo to be between 1.30 and 1.74 million years and of the Tongue River to be between 1.42 and 1.61 million years. Using the second model, which uses the same sedimentation rate for the Lebo and Tongue River Members, we estimate the duration of deposition of the Lebo to be between 1.33 and 1.76 million years and of the Tongue River to be between 1.00 and 1.25 million years.
    [Show full text]