DOCSLIB.ORG

Coal Mining Detailed Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coal Mining Detailed Study Coal Mining Detailed Study August 2008 EPA-821-R-08-012 CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Summary of Public Comments ............................................................................1-1 1.2 Key Definitions....................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Applicability of 40 CFR Part 434 Manganese Effluent Limits ...........................1-2 1.4 Key Findings Concerning Public Comments.......................................................1-3 1.4.1 Bond Forfeitures......................................................................................1-3 1.4.2 Potential Environmental Impacts.............................................................1-4 1.4.3 Surrogate Removal of Metals through Manganese Treatment ................1-4 1.4.4 Effectiveness of Passive Treatment Systems...........................................1-4 1.5 EPA 2008 Decision on Revising Part 434 Effluent Guidelines...........................1-5 1.6 Overview of Remainder of Report.......................................................................1-5 1.7 Introduction References.......................................................................................1-6 2.0 DATA SOURCES.................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Energy Information Administration.....................................................................2-2 2.1.1 Industry Profile Database Development ..................................................2-2 2.1.2 EIA Financial Information.......................................................................2-5 2.2 Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation, and Enforcement .................................2-5 2.2.1 Acid Mine Drainage Inventory Database ................................................2-6 2.2.2 Appalachian Regional Acid Mine Drainage Database ............................2-7 2.2.3 Applicant Violator System Database.......................................................2-9 2.3 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection......................................2-9 2.3.1 PA DEP Bond Forfeiture Table ...............................................................2-9 2.3.2 PA DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation Sampling Database.................................................................................................2-10 2.3.3 PA DEP Inspection Compliance Tables ................................................2-10 2.3.4 PA DEP Permits with Active MDI Points Database .............................2-11 2.3.5 PA DEP Treatment Facilities Sampling Database.................................2-11 2.4 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection...................................2-14 2.4.1 WV DEP Bond Forfeiture Table............................................................2-14 2.4.2 WV DEP Discharge Monitoring Report Database ................................2-15 2.4.3 WV DEP Manganese Permit Limits Database ......................................2-17 2.4.4 WV DEP Special Reclamation Untreated Sampling Database..............2-18 2.5 Other Stakeholder Data......................................................................................2-18 2.6 U.S. Economic Census.......................................................................................2-19 2.7 EPA Databases...................................................................................................2-19 2.7.1 Toxic Release Inventory ........................................................................2-19 2.7.2 Permit Compliance System....................................................................2-20 2.8 Mine Safety and Health Administration ............................................................2-21 2.9 Data Sources References....................................................................................2-21 i CONTENTS (Continued) Page 3.0 INDUSTRY PROFILE ...........................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Coal Mining Processes and Operations ...............................................................3-1 3.1.1 Physical Characteristics and Geographic Distribution of Coal................3-1 3.1.2 Coal Mining Processes.............................................................................3-3 3.1.3 Surface Mines ..........................................................................................3-6 3.1.4 Underground Mines.................................................................................3-8 3.1.5 Coal Preparation.......................................................................................3-9 3.1.6 Coal Mining Production Data ..................................................................3-9 3.2 Coal Mining Financial Statistics........................................................................3-13 3.2.1 Coal Prices.............................................................................................3-13 3.2.2 Mine Counts, Mine Sizes, and Technological Changes ........................3-15 3.2.3 Major Producers.....................................................................................3-17 3.2.4 Foreign Ownership.................................................................................3-19 3.2.5 Number of Small Entities.......................................................................3-19 3.3 Industry Profile References................................................................................3-20 4.0 COAL MINING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ......................................................................4-1 4.1 Regulation of Coal Mining Discharges to Surface Water ...................................4-1 4.1.1 Regulation of Coal Mine Discharges Using ELGs..................................4-1 4.1.2 Regulation of Coal Mine Discharges Using State Water Quality- Based Limitations ....................................................................................4-5 4.2 SMCRA Requirements ........................................................................................4-6 4.3 Coal Mining Regulatory Framework References ................................................4-7 5.0 COAL MINE DRAINAGE CHARACTERISTICS.......................................................................5-1 5.1 Wastewater Characteristics..................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Pollutants of Interest ................................................................................5-2 5.1.2 Acid Mine Drainage.................................................................................5-3 5.2 Comparison of Effluent AMD Concentrations to Part 434 Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards .................................................................5-9 5.2.1 Manganese Water Quality-Based Limits.................................................5-9 5.2.2 pH Variances..........................................................................................5-10 5.2.3 Comparison with Part 434 Subpart C Limitations.................................5-11 5.2.4 Comparison of pH and Manganese in West Virginia and PA Analytical Data ......................................................................................5-16 5.2.5 Compliance with Permits and Enforcement Actions.............................5-17 5.3 Wastewater Characteristics and NPDES Permitting References.......................5-19 6.0 ACID MINE DRAINAGE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES........................................................6-1 6.1 Active Treatment Technologies for AMD...........................................................6-1 6.2 Passive Treatment Technologies for AMD..........................................................6-3 6.2.1 Aerobic Wetlands.....................................................................................6-5 6.2.2 Anaerobic Wetlands.................................................................................6-5 6.2.3 Anoxic Limestone Drains ........................................................................6-6 6.2.4 Diversion Wells.......................................................................................6-6 6.2.5 Open Limestone Channels .......................................................................6-7 ii CONTENTS (Continued) Page 6.2.6 Oxic Limestone Drains ............................................................................6-8 6.2.7 Pyrolusite® Technology ...........................................................................6-9 6.2.8 Vertical Flow Wetlands .........................................................................6-11 6.3 Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Technologies References................................6-11 7.0 CASE STUDIES OF TREATMENT COSTS ..............................................................................7-1 7.1 Treatment Cost Case Studies ...............................................................................7-1 7.1.1 RoxCoal, Inc. Mine Outfall 003 Treatment.............................................7-1 7.1.2 PBS Coals Job #1 Treatment ...................................................................7-5 7.1.3 PBS Coals Job #8 Treatment ...................................................................7-8 7.2 Model Costs for Passive and Active Treatment Systems ..................................7-10 7.3 Removal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alpha Coal Handbook 2
    201 2 2 Alpha Coal Handbook Alpha Coal Handbook A reference guide for coal, ironmaking, electricity generation, and emissions control technologies. 2012 Edition Forward-Looking Statements Statements in this document which are not statements of historical fact are “forward-looking statements” within the Safe Harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements are not guarantees of future per- formance. Many factors could cause our actual results, performance or achievements, or industry results to be materially different from any future results, performance, or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Who Is Alpha? These factors are discussed in detail in our filings with the SEC. We make forward-looking statements based on currently available information, and we assume no obligation to update the statements made herein due to changes in underlying Alpha Natural Resources is one of the world’s premier coal suppliers factors, new information, future developments, or otherwise, except as required by law. with coal production capacity of greater than 120 million tons a Third Party Information This document, including certain forward-looking statements herein, includes information obtained from third party year. Alpha is the United States’ leading supplier of metallurgical sources that we believe to be reliable. However, we have not independently verified this third party information and cannot coal used in the steelmaking process and third-largest in the world. assure you of its accuracy or completeness. While we are not aware of any misstatements regarding any third party data contained in this document, such data involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, Alpha is also a major supplier of thermal coal to electric utilities including those discussed in detail in our filings with the SEC.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project a Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem
    The Conowingo Tunnel and the Anthracite Mine Flood-Control Project A Historical Perspective on a “Solution” to the Anthracite Mine Drainage Problem Michael C. Korb, P.E. Environmental Program Manager Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) Wilkes Barre District Office [email protected] www.depweb.state.pa.us Abstract Fifty-seven years ago, Pennsylvania’s Anthracite Mine Drainage Commission recommended that the Conowingo Tunnel, an expensive, long-range solution to the Anthracite Mine Drainage problem, be “tabled” and that a cheaper, short-range “job- stimulus” project be implemented instead. Today Pennsylvania’s anthracite region has more than 40 major mine water discharges, which have a combined average flow of more than 285,000 gallons per minute (GPM). Two of these average more than 30,000 GPM, 10 more of the discharges are greater than 6,000 GPM, while another 15 average more than 1,000 GPM. Had the Conowingo Tunnel Project been completed, most of this Pennsylvania Anthracite mine water problem would have been Maryland’s mine water problem. Between 1944 and 1954, engineers of the US Bureau of Mines carried out a comprehensive study resulting in more than 25 publications on all aspects of the mine water problem. The engineering study resulted in a recommendation of a fantastic and impressive plan to allow the gravity drainage of most of the Pennsylvania anthracite mines into the estuary of the Susquehanna River, below Conowingo, Maryland, by driving a 137-mile main tunnel with several laterals into the four separate anthracite fields. The $280 million (1954 dollars) scheme was not executed, but rather a $17 million program of pump installations, ditch installation, stream bed improvement and targeted strip-pit backfilling was initiated.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1. Overview: Coal Ash Beneficial Use and Mine Land Reclamation
    CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW: COAL ASH BENEFICIAL USE AND MINE LAND RECLAMATION Alfred D. Dalberto, Barry E. Scheetz, Roger J. Hornberger, Timothy C. Kania, Michael J. Menghini, Scott E. Walters 1.1 INTRODUCTION—PENNSYLVANIA’S ABANDONED MINE LAND PROBLEM Since commercial coal mining began in Pennsylvania prior to 1800 (Dodge & Edwards, 2003), the Commonwealth’s miners have extracted approximately 16.3 billion tons of coal from the Anthracite and Bituminous Coal Fields combined (PA DEP, 2002). The efforts of Pennsylvania’s miners helped fuel the nation’s industrial revolution and fed families for generations. However, the other legacy of the state’s rich mining heritage is an unparalleled abandoned mine land (AML) problem. Prior to the enactment of the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) in August 1977, laws and regulations governing surface mining and the surface effects of underground mining, were largely ineffective in achieving reclamation of mined lands. SCMRA, which applies to all surface mining conducted after August 1977, requires complete reclamation of surface mine-affected lands and requires the posting of financial assurances, usually in the form of bonds, to ensure reclamation. While present-day mine sites are occasionally abandoned, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has well-established programs in place to reclaim those sites. However, much of the vast AML problem from the pre-1977 mining remains. There are more than 5000 abandoned, unreclaimed mine problem areas encompassing more than 189,000 acres in Pennsylvania, according to the DEP Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR). BAMR’s inventory of abandoned mine sites also identifies over 820 abandoned coal refuse piles.
    [Show full text]
  • Opportunities to Expedite the Construction of New Coal-Based Power Plants
    Opportunities to Expedite the Construction of New Coal-Based Power Plants Chair: Thomas G. Kraemer Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. Vice Chair: Georgia Nelson Midwest Generation EME, LLC Study Co-Chairs: Robert Card U.S. Undersecretary of Energy Dr. E. Linn Draper, Jr. American Electric Power Co. Technical Work Group Chair: Michael J. Mudd American Electric Power Co. Library of Congress Catalog # 2005920127 THE NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL Thomas G. Kraemer, Chairman Robert A. Beck, Executive Director U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy Opportunities to Expedite the Construction of New Coal-Based Power Plants 2 National Coal Council Report OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPEDITE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW COAL-BASED POWER PLANTS Table of Contents Preface..............................................................................................................................................i Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................ii Principal Contributors .................................................................................................................iv Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction................................................................................................................. 7 Section 2: Technology Choices and Economics.......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned Mine Drainage Workgroup Overview
    ABANDONED MINE DRAINAGE The headwaters of the Schuylkill River are located in the serene mountain valleys of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. An area rich in scenic beauty and coal mining history, the Little Schuylkill and Upper Schuylkill Rivers are designated cold-water fisheries, and the Schuylkill main stem is a State Scenic River at the confluence of these two tributary waterways. Abandoned Mine Drainage (AMD) is the primary cause of pollution in the Schuylkill River headwaters and the biggest source of metals downstream. AMD is created deep below the ground in abandoned mines where streams, groundwater, and stormwater fill tunnels that were once kept dry by active pumping operations. Water and oxygen react with lingering iron sulfide (pyrite) producing metal-laden and sometimes highly acidic discharges that exit the tunnels in telltale orange and silver plumes, easily visible in these regional surface waters. Abandoned mine discharge Schuylkill PottsvillPottsville River Watershed NJ S Reading ch uy Pottstown lk ill Trenton Riv e Norri r Norristown r PA e iv Philadelphia R Camden re wa N Wilmington la e DE D W E MD S Abandoned mine tunnel AMD interferes with vegetative growth and reproduction of aquatic animals by armoring the streambed with deposits of iron and other metals. Acidity and metals impair both surface and ground drinking water resources and quickly corrode pipes and industrial mechanisms. Unattractive waterways marred by AMD can hinder tourism and recreational opportunities like fishing, boating, and swimming that attract so many people to visit, vacation, and reside in this region. Passive AMD treatment system AMD treatment is expensive, but so is the economic and environmental damage that results from untreated AMD.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Changes in the Coal Industry and Implications for the Pawnee
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF COLORADO Docket No. 11A-325E _____________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO FOR A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR THE PAWNEE EMISSIONS CONTROL PROJECT ________________________________________________________________________ NOTICE OF CHANGES IN THE COAL INDUSTRY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PAWNEE EMISSIONS CONTROL PROJECT _____________________________________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 2 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 2 III. RECENT CHANGES IN THE COAL INDUSTRY ........................................................................ 4 A. PATRIOT COAL FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY ON JULY 9, 2012 ............................................................. 5 B. ALPHA NATURAL RESOURCES—A KEY SUPPLIER TO THE PAWNEE COAL PLANT—ALSO HAS SERIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.......................................................................................................... 6 C. ARCH COAL INC —OWNER OF THE LARGEST US COAL MINE, THE BLACK THUNDER MINE— ALSO HAS SERIOUS FINANCIAL PROBLEMS ...................................................................................... 16 D. OTHER US COAL COMPANIES ARE GENERALLY SUBJECT TO THE SAME GEOLOGICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2019
    Table 9. Major U.S. Coal Mines, 2020 Rank Mine Name / Operating Company Mine Type State Production (short tons) 1 North Antelope Rochelle Mine / Peabody Powder River Mining LLC Surface Wyoming 66,111,840 2 Black Thunder / Thunder Basin Coal Company LLC Surface Wyoming 50,188,766 3 Antelope Coal Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 19,809,826 4 Freedom Mine / The Coteau Properties Company Surface North Dakota 12,592,297 5 Eagle Butte Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 12,303,698 6 Caballo Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 11,626,318 7 Belle Ayr Mine / Eagle Specialty Materials LLC Surface Wyoming 11,174,953 8 Kosse Strip / Luminant Mining Company LLC Surface Texas 10,104,901 9 Cordero Rojo Mine / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Wyoming 9,773,845 10 Buckskin Mine / Buckskin Mining Company Surface Wyoming 9,699,282 11 Spring Creek Coal Company / Navajo Transitional Energy Com Surface Montana 9,513,255 12 Rawhide Mine / Peabody Caballo Mining, LLC Surface Wyoming 9,494,090 13 River View Mine / River View Coal LLC Underground Kentucky 9,412,068 14 Marshall County Mine / Marshall County Coal Resources Underground West Virginia 8,854,604 15 Bailey Mine / Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company Underground Pennsylvania 8,668,477 16 Falkirk Mine / Falkirk Mining Company Surface North Dakota 7,261,161 17 Mc#1 Mine / M-Class Mining LLC Underground Illinois 7,196,444 18 Tunnel Ridge Mine / Tunnel Ridge, LLC Underground West Virginia 6,756,696 19 Lively Grove Mine / Prairie State Generating Company
    [Show full text]
  • Shoup's Run Watershed Association
    11/1/2004 Shoup Run Watershed Restoration Plan Developed by the Huntingdon County Conservation District for The Shoup Run Watershed Association Introduction Watershed History The Shoup Run, locally known as Shoup’s Run, watershed drains approximately 13,746 acres or 21.8 square miles, in the Appalachian Mountain, Broad Top region of the Valley-Ridge Physiographic Province. Within this province, the area lies within the northwestern section of the Broad Top Mountain Plateau. This area is characterized by narrow valleys and moderately steep mountain slopes. Shoup Run is located in Huntingdon County, but includes drainage from portions of Bedford County. Shoup Run flows into the Raystown Branch of the Juniata River near the community of Saxton at river mile 42.4. Shoup Run has five named tributaries (Figure 1). Approximately 10% of the surface area of the Shoup Run basin has been surface mined. Much of the mining activity was done prior to current regulations and few of the mines were reclaimed to current specifications. Surface mining activity ended in the early 1980’s. There is currently no active mining in the watershed. Deep mines underlie approximately 12% of the Shoup Run watershed. Many abandoned deep mine entries and openings still exist in the Shoup Run Basin. Deep mining was done below the water table in many locations. In order to dewater the mines, drifts were driven into the deep mines to allow water to flow down slope and out of many of the mines. The bedrock in this area is folded and faulted. Tunnels were driven through many different lithologies to allow drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Pine Knot Mine Drainage Tunnel –
    QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF STREAM WATER DRAINING MINED AREAS OF THE UPPER SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, USA, 2005-20071 Charles A. Cravotta III,2 and John M. Nantz Abstract: Hydrologic effects of abandoned anthracite mines were documented by continuous streamflow gaging coupled with synoptic streamflow and water- quality monitoring in headwater reaches and at the mouths of major tributaries in the upper Schuylkill River Basin, Pa., during 2005-2007. Hydrograph separation of the daily average streamflow for 10 streamflow-gaging stations was used to evaluate the annual streamflow characteristics for October 2005 through September 2006. Maps showing stream locations and areas underlain by underground mines were used to explain the differences in total annual runoff, base flow, and streamflow yields (streamflow/drainage area) for the gaged watersheds. For example, one stream that had the lowest yield (59.2 cm/yr) could have lost water to an underground mine that extended beneath the topographic watershed divide, whereas the neighboring stream that had the highest yield (97.3 cm/yr) gained that water as abandoned mine drainage (AMD). Although the stream-water chemistry and fish abundance were poor downstream of this site and others where AMD was a major source of streamflow, the neighboring stream that had diminished streamflow met relevant in-stream water-quality criteria and supported a diverse fish community. If streamflow losses could be reduced, natural streamflow and water quality could be maintained in the watersheds with lower than normal yields. Likewise, stream restoration could lead to decreases in discharges of AMD from underground mines, with potential for decreased metal loading and corresponding improvements in downstream conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water
    REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water March 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation EPA 542-R-14-001 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 Notice and Disclaimer..................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 9 Passive Technologies Technology: Anoxic Limestone Drains ........................................................................................ 11 Technology: Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS).................................................. 16 Technology: Aluminator© ............................................................................................................ 19 Technology: Constructed Wetlands .............................................................................................. 23 Technology: Biochemical Reactors .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alkalinity and Acidity in Mine Drainage
    Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2004 ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY IN MINE DRAINAGE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS1 Charles A. Cravotta III2 and Carl S. Kirby2 Abstract. In this paper, we emphasize that the Standard Method hot peroxide treatment procedure for acidity determination (hot acidity) directly measures net acidity or net alkalinity, but that more than one water-quality measure can be useful as a measure of the severity of acid mine drainage. We demonstrate that the hot acidity is related to the pH, alkalinity, and dissolved concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Al in fresh mine drainage. We show that the hot acidity accurately indicates the potential for pH to decrease to acidic values after complete oxidation of Fe and Mn, and it indicates the excess alkalinity or that required for neutralization of the sample. We show that the hot acidity method gives consistent, interpretable results on fresh or aged samples. Regional data for mine-drainage quality in Pennsylvania indicated the pH of fresh samples was predominantly acidic (pH 2.5 to 4) or near neutral (pH 6 to 7); approximately 25 percent of the samples had intermediate pH values. This bimodal frequency distribution of pH was distinctive for fully oxidized samples; oxidized samples had acidic or near-neutral pH, only. Samples that had near- neutral pH after oxidation had negative hot acidity; samples that had acidic pH after oxidation had positive hot acidity. Samples with comparable pH values had variable hot acidities owing to variations in their alkalinities and dissolved Fe, Mn, and Al concentrations. The hot acidity was comparable to net acidity computed on the basis of initial pH and concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Al minus the initial alkalinity.
    [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]