Quality of coal resources underlying Sand and Lookout Mountains, Georgia and Alabama

QUALITY OF COAL RESOURCES UNDERLYING
SAND AND LOOKOUT MOUNTAINS GEORGIA AND ALABAMA
S.L.Coleman,T .J.Crawford,and J.H.Medlin
prepared in cooperation with the U .S.Geological Survey

Georgia Geologic Survey Environmental Protection Division Department of Natural Resources
BULLETIN

102

Drawings taken from photographs, Georgia Geologic Survey Bulletin 12, Coal Deposits of Georgia (1904). Left: Plate 13~Coke ovens' of the Georgia Iron & Coal Company, Cole
City, Dade County, Georgia Right: Plate 10- Entrance to the Raccoon Coal Mine, Cole City, Dade
County, Georgia

QUALITY OF COAL RESOURCES OF NORTHWEST GEORGIA
by
s. Lynn Coleman, Thomas J. Crawford, and Jack H. Medlin
U.S. Geological Survey
--"---- -------------- --------- --------------------------

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ......... ...... ................................... 1
. Introduction ...................... ............... 2

. General Geologic Setting .. ................. .......... . 5

Geologic Settingof Coal.:...beadng Carboniferous rocks... 6
Structure.. ............................................ 8

Environments of Deposition ~..........

U

Stratigraphic Nomenclature of the Pennsylvanian rocks

15

of northwest Georgia

19

Present Work ~ ~~ ~

20

Coal Production and Resource Estimates

20

Coal Sampling and Analytical Procedures.................... 20
Results of Analyses ....................................... 25

Previous Analyses.......................................... 25

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current-Ana 1)Tti ClflRe s-uit-s-:-~-~-:--:-::-.-~-:-:-:-~-.--:-- ----~----------

- - -- ~--------
32

Coal Bed No. 11........................................ 34

Coal Bed No. 10........................................ 34

Coal Bed No. 9A........................................ 36

Coal Bed No. 9......................................... 37
Coal Bed No. 8.......................................... 38

Coal Bed No. 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Coal Bed No. 6A........................................ 40

Coal Bed No. 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Coal Bed No. SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 42

Coal Bed No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

iii

Page Coal Bed No.4 ................................ ~~ 43 Coal Bed No~ 3~ 45 Coal Bed No. 2 ................ " ...... . . . . . . . . 46 Coal Bed No. 1 ........................ ~ . . . . . . 47 Comparison of .Quality of San,d and Lookout Mountains Coal with other coal ~......... 48 Coal Utilization parameters ~ ,........... 56 Coal Environmental parameters.......................... 62 Concl~sions............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Acknowledgements ...................J 6 7 References ................................... ~ .~ .... ~ , . . . . . . . 68
iv

TABLES.

Page

Table 1. Coal res.erve estimates for Georgia, 1907-19i4

(fr.om Cramer, 1979) ... :e ..................... 22 2 . Coal reserve estimates for northwest Georgia
(from Johnson.,.. 1946) ~ 23

3. Coal reserve estimates for northwest Georgia (from Butts ~nd Gildersleeve, 1948) :... 24

4. Proximate analy~es a,nd sulfur content of

Georgia coal . ...................... ...... " . ...,~. . . 28

5. Coal analyses :!;rom northwest Georgia coal

fields ..............:................. ~ ........... '. .. 29

6. Analyses -of coal samples from the Aetna and .. Dade coal seams in northwest' Georgia . :.... 30

7. Pr.c;>ximate analyses of Georgia coal deposits.... ,. 31

8. Geometri~ mean for lithophil elements as oxides in Sand and Loqko~t Mountains, eastern U.S.,

Tennessee, and Alabama coal samples............ 50

9. Geometric means for lithophil minor- and trace-

elements ..... e "'.....

52

10. Geometric means for chalcophil trace-elements.. 54

11. Comparison of important coal quality parameters

in coal utilization............................ 59

12. Calculated rank of coal beds on Lookout and Sand

Mountains, by coal bed......................... 61

v

ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Figure 1. Coal-bearing Pennsylvanian rocks underlying Sand

and Lookout Mountains, Georgia, Alabama and

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Major structural features and geologic setting

of northwest Georgia.........................

9

3. History of stratigraphic nomenclature of

Pennsylvanian rocks in northwest Georgia. and

south Tennessee................................ 16

4. Columnar section of Pennsylvanian strata in

Georgia; .Alabama and Tennessee................. 17

5. Graph showing coal production in Georgia for

5-year intervals from 1860-1977................ 21

6. Flow diagram for coal-sample analysis by U.S.

Geological Survey ... ~ ..... ............... e 26

7. Coal bed correlation diagram................... 33

vi

ABSTRACT

... '

Sand and Lookout Mountains are underlain by Pennsylvanian age coal-

\ 0 ... ~

bearing rocks which crop out along, around, and on these mountains and

which have been mined for more than 100 years. These coal deposits have

been known for a long time to be of superior quality; however, little

significant data have been gathered in a systematic manner and on a

broad, regional scale. Beginning in 1977, efforts were initiated to

systematically collect and to analyze coal samples from the more than 10

coal beds that underlie Sand and Lookout Mountains, to evaluate their

quality. These efforts provided 47 coal samples which were analyzed for

ultimate and proximate values, calorific value, forms-of-sulfur, ash-

.

. .

fusion t:emperatures, free-swelling index, and more than 60 major-,

minor-, and trace-element concentrations. These samples were collected

from both Sand and Lookout Mountains and from coal beds No. 1, 2, 3, 4,

5, 5A, 6, 8, 9, 9A, and 10.
--
-------------------------Analytical results from these samples reveal the following

conclusions concerning the quality of coal resources on Sand and Lookout Mountain~~ The rank of Sand and Lookout Mountains coal ranges from low-

to medium-volatile bituminous. Most of the coal samples have less than

one percent total sulfur and have very low pyritic and organic sulfur

contents. The ash content is low with a geometric mean value of about

eight percent. The calorific value for all samples has a mean value of

just above 13,000 Btu per pound with some samples having values above

15,000 Btu per pound. The low-volatile and low-ash contents along with

high free-swelling indices, for some samples, show the coal to be a high

quality metallurgical or metallurgical-blend coal.

1

The overall geometric mean values for major lithophil oxides such as SiOz and Alz03 do not differ very much in concentration when compared to coal samples from other parts of the Appalachian basin. In some individual coal beds, the concentration of CaO, NazO, PzOs, MgO, and chlorine show wide differences from the overall geometric mean for all the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples.
The geometric mean concentrations of minor- and trace-lithophil elements do not display large differences when compared to eastern United States bituminous coal samples.
Overall, trace chalcophil elements such as silver, arsenic, cobalt, mercury, selenium, and zinc display concentrations that are very similar to other eastern United States bituminous coal samples. However, antimony concentration in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples is unusually higher than many other comparable bituminous coal samples; and coal beds No. 2, 8, 9A, and 10 contain higher than normal concentrations of arsenic, antimony, cadmium, mercury, lead, selenium, and zinc.
The depositional environments for the Sand and Lookout Mountains coal-bearing rock probably were similar to those described by Milici and various other workers and likely ranged from barrier-bar complexes to fluvial and alluvial systems.
INTRODUCTION With the increased interest in coal during the 1970's came a renewed interest in mining Georgia coal, and strip mining operations were begun again on Lookout and Sand Mountains (fig. 1). The coal-bearing rocks of Georgia underlie a small area compared with other states; however, the quality of many of the coal beds makes the
2

_ __ 0,__ __.

__,10 MILES

D
PENNSYI..VAN!AN ROCKS

B

EXPLANATION

1. 1GA
.... 2. 2GA
4, 4GA 8GA 7. 7GA 8. 8GA

17. 18. 19. 20, 21. 22. 23.
24.

17GA 18GA 19GA 20GA 21 GA 22GA 23GA 24GA

33. 34. 35. 38,
37 . 38. 39. 40.

33GA 34GA 35GA
36GA 37GA
38GA 39GA 1 ALA

9. 9GA 10. 10GA
11. 11GA 12. 12GA

25. 25GA 28. 26GA 27. 27GA
28. 28GA

41. 2ALA
...42. 3ALA
43. 4ALA 5ALA

13. 13GA

29. 29GA

45. a ALA

14. 14GA 15. 15GA

30. 30GA 31. 31 GA

48. 7ALA 47. 8ALA

16. 16GA

32. 32GA

SAMPLES COLLECTED BY CRA WFORO-USGS

48. 49.
so.
51.
52.

BMT-1 BM1-2
SM2-3 SMS-4 8M6-S

...53.
54.

8M7-6 BMB-7 BM9-8

56. 8M17-9

57. 8M19-10

58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

8M19-11 BM-GPT-12
SM-GPS-13 BM-GP6-14 BM-GP6-15

CORE SAMPLE ANALYSES

BUREAU OF MINES PROJECT 817
8M (Hole Num ber)-(Sa mple Number) EX. BM65

83. 64. 65. 66. 67. 66. 69.

J-H209 J-H212 J-H213 J-H214 J-H216 J-B42726 J-842730

70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76.

J-842731 J-842734 J-842735 J-842736 J-842737 J-842853 J-B42854

77. 78. 79. 60. 81.

J-84304 7 J-843048 J-843049 J-843050 J-84309::

ANALYSES PUBLISHED BY V.H. JOHNSON USGS, 1946

82. G-842727 83. G-842728 84. G-B43897
ANAI..YSES PUBLISHED BY S.G. GILDERSLEEVE TVA REPORT, 1946 (FEB.)

Figure 1.

Coal-bearing Pennsylvanian rocks underlying Sand and Lookout Mountains, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. Black dots locate coal samples collected and analyzed during the U. S. Bureau of Mines Project 817 (Troxell, 1946), and during investigations
by Johnson (1946), and Gildersleeve (1946).

3

coal suitable for metallurgical uses, blending, and steam generation. The combined low-ash, low-sulfur and low-volatile content make this coal valuable.
This manuscript characterizes the quality of the coal beds underlying Sand and Lookout Mountains in Georgia and northeast Alabama. This characterization includes not only ultimate and proximate analyses, forms-of-sulfur, free-swelling index, and the heating value, but also the major-, minor-, and trace-element concentrations. By characterizing the coal using modern analytical methods, and combining the quality and quantity data, one can arrive at useful assessments of the coal resources of Georgia.
There are technological, environmental, and geological reasons for characterizing coal. The quality of coal determines its value and usage; properties such as ash and sulfur contents and the heating value are important in assessing the use of coal. Environmental concerns recently have been expressed over the release during combustion of suspected toxic amounts of elements such as arsenic, antimony, selenium, and sulfur. Thus, data on the concentration of these elements are important in environmental decisions and acid precipitation debates. Another reason for studying the quality and geochemistry of coal is for the application of coal quality characteristics to geologic interpretation and development of predictive coal quality models. Because of abrupt vertical and lateral changes in the coal-bearing rocks of Sand and Lookout Mountains and the proximity, or apparent nearness, of the coal deposits to the deposition centers during Pennsylvanian time, there is an opportunity to relate the coal geochemistry to the ancient depositional environments that existed at the time of Pennsylvanian
4

peat accumulation. This is especially pertinent when one recognizes that the coal-bearing rocks of Sand and Lookout Mountains could represent contrasting types of depositional environments, such as barrier-bar and delta-plain environments. Combining geologic mapping, correlation frameworks, and formation distribution patterns with coal geochemistry can provide answers to various technological, environmental, and geological questions concerning the coal resources of Sand and Lookout Mountains and lead to predictive models applicable to other United States coal basins.
A review of the literature emphasizes the need for an integrated study of the coal and coal-bearing rocks of Georgia and Alabama. Each previous study of this area has contributed to an understanding of the stratigraphy, structure, depositional environment, paleontology, distribution of the coal beds, or coal quality. The past studies, however, have not provided adequate detailed or correlatable data to enable a reasonable assessment of the quantity, quality, or distribution of the coal resources of Sand and Lookout Mountains.
General Geologic Setting The geology of the Paleozoic rocks of northwest Georgia and northeastern Alabama, which includes the Pennsylvanian coal-bearing strata of Georgia, was described by C.W. Hayes (1891, 1892, 1894, 1895, and 1902), Spencer (1893), McCallie (1904), Maynard (1912), Shearer (1912), Smith (1931), Croft (1964), Cressler (1964a, 1964b, 1970), McLemore and Hurst (1970), Chowns (1972), and Cramer (1979). One of the most detailed reports is that of Butts and Gildersleeve (1948).
5

Geologic Setting of Coal-Bearing Carboniferous Rocks McCallie (1904) indicated that the most complete section of Carboniferous rocks in Georgia was best developed in Dade, Walker, and Chattooga Counties (fig. 1). McCallie also showed areas of Carboniferous rocks in Floyd, Gordon, Whitfield, and Catoosa Counties; several isolated occurrences were shown in western Polk County . Sections of McCallie's report describe the coal deposits and the coal mines in Dade, Walker, and Chattooga Counties. Discussions on the stratigraphic correlation of what McCallie calls the "lower coal measures" and the "upper coal measures" are also included. There are discussions and analyses of the chemical properties of Georgia coal, and coal samples are related to the coal mines active at the time of study. Johnson (1946) conducted comprehensive mapping and stratigraphic studies of the coal deposits on Sand and Lookout Mountains and presented a map of the coal-bearing rocks in Dade and Walker Counties, lithologic sections of drill holes on Sand and Lookout Mountains, chemical data, and a description of the coal-bearing rocks and coal beds of economic importance. We shall refer more specifically to Johnson's work in a later part of this report. Troxell's report (1946) is concerned with the exploration of coal deposits on Lookout ,and Sand Mountains in Dade and Walker Counties. Troxell stated that commercial coal mining in the Lookout Mountain area began in 1891, in the Durham area. Coal on Sand Mountain was first mined near Castle Rock and Cole City; these mines have long since been abandoned. Troxell reported that on Sand Mountain there were two, and locally three, coal-bearing horizons or coal beds in the shales which form the upper part of what is now called the Gizzard
6

Formation. The lower coal bed was designated Dade; the upper bed has been locally designated as the Aetna, Castle Rock, or Raccoon.
Butts and Gildersleeve (1948) reported that the coal deposits in Georgia were limited to Lookout, Sand, and Pigeon Mountains. In Dade County these coals crop out on the northern portion of Sand Mountain and the western part of Lookout Mountain. In Walker County, outcrops of coal-bearing rocks are found on Pigeon Mountain and the eastern part of Lookout Mountain, with the most important occurrences being on a part of Lookout Mountain known as Round Mountain, a somewhat circular feature approximately five miles ~n circumference. The Durham coal mining area is centered at Round Mountain. Butts and Gildersleeve found three workable coal beds in the Durham area; they were about 150 feet apart in elevation. These coal beds crop out in an irregular, circular pattern; the bottom (oldest) bed underlies the largest area and was named the No. 4; overlying the No. 4 bed was the Durham which was in turn ()verlain by the youngest, or "A"; bed~ The "A" bed underlies the smallest and most irregular area.
The coal-bearing rocks in Chattooga County are found ~n a very small area in the northwest corner of the county near the Alabama-Georgia state line. The coal beds are thin and irregular, and occur in pockets along the eastern side of Lookout Mountain. Their thickness ranges from 10 to 18 inches as reported from prospect adits. Taken together the total coal-bearing sequence of rocks underlie approximately 170 square miles in Georgia (Butts and Gildersleeve, 1948).
Butts and Gildersleeve said that there were more than a dozen coal beds in the Sand and Lookout Mountains area, but that only six beds had been extensively mined, including the Rattlesnake, Dade and Aetna
7

coal beds. These coal beds occur in an alternating sequence of sandstones, shales, conglomerates, and underclays approximately 1500 feet thick.
Cressler (1970) reports that the Pennsylvanian System in Floyd County, Georgia, is represented by approximately 350 feet of sandstone, conglomerate, and shale. In addition, Cressler prepared reports on the geology and ground-water resources of Catoosa (1963), Chattooga (1964a), and Walker (1964b) Counties; he used Johnson's (1946) nomenclature and descriptions for rocks of the Pennsylvanian System.
Croft (1964), in his report on the geology and ground-water resources of Dade County, describes the Pennsylvanian rocks in that area and presents a table which shows the correlation of the equivalent Pennsylvanian formations of the Cumberland Plateau of Georgia and Tennessee. This was an attempt to show how the stratigraphic units of Johnson (1946) and Wilson, Jewell and Luther (1956) correlated between Georgia and Tennessee. Croft addresses the differences between Johnson
and Wilson, Jewell and Luther's stratigraphic sequences. He describes
the lithologies in general but does not mention the coal beds.
Structure The general structure of the coal fields of northwest Georgia has been' known for many years (McCallie, 1904; Butts and Gildersleeve, 1948; Johnson, 1946; Croft, 1964; and Cressler, 1963, 1964a). The area is characterized by gently folded synclines and anticlines (fig. 2). The most prominent of these synclines are the Lookout Mountain and Sand Mountain synclines. The principal
8

- - - -,r - -

~

(

\

r )

I

I

N

EXPI.ANATION
E;; ;;JPennsylvanian

~mmm Mississippian

0

10

20 KILOMETERS

0 Pre-Mississippian

Figure 2. Major structural features and geologic setting of northwest Georgia (from Cramer, 1979).

9

anticlines are the Lookout Valley, Wills Valley, McLemore Cove and Peavine Anticlines. Lookout Mountain Syncline has its northern terminus in Tennessee (McCallie, 1904); the structure crosses the northwestern corner of Georgia and continues southwestward into Alabama. Its maximum width in Georgia is about 5 miles, near McLemore Cove. In Georgia, east of the McLemore Cove Anticline, another synclinal fold forms Pigeon Mountain. The rocks underlying Pigeon Mountain are the same as those underlying Lookout Mountain. In general, these synclinal and anticlinal structures tre~d northeastsouthwest. The Lookout Valley Anticline, west of Lookout Mountain and separating the Lookout Mountain Syncline from the Sand Mquntain Syncline, is an asymmetrical fold with dips on the eastern flank ranging from 12 to 59 degrees and those on the western flank ranging from 2 to 21 degrees (Croft, 1964). Lookout Mountain is a structural trough about 800 ft deep on which minor folds, which trend at angles of 15 to 20 degrees to the axis of the synclinal trough, distort the major synclinal structure (Johnson, 1946). The plunge near Durham is approximately 1 degree to the northeast. West of the Lookout Valley Anticline is the Sand Mountain Syncline.
The Sand Mountain Syncline is a structural trough approximately 200 feet deep. The structural character of Sand Mountain closely approximates that of the Cumberland Plateau (Johnson, 1946), from which it is separated by the narrow valley of the Tennessee River.
Coal deposits in the area are restricted to synclinal mountains called Pigeon Mountain, Lookout Mountain and Sand Mountain. The intensity of structural deformation decreases from east to west.
10

Environments of Deposition The depositional setting of the coal-bearing Pennsylvanian rocks of Sand and Lookout Mountains has been studied by many workers. Wanless (1946) interpreted the lithologic units such as the Warren Point Member of the Gizzard Formation, the Sewanee and Newton Sandstone Members of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation, an4 the Herbert and Rockcastle Sandstones as all being basal members of cyclothemic sequences. Wanless further speculated that the sediments all appeared to have formed in aqueous environments in piedmont, valley flat, marsh, lake, delta, lagoon, and shallow sea floor areas. He concluded that a network of delta lakes, marshes and lagoons received sediment from shifting stream channels which ultimately di~charged their lithic materials into the sea and that the great thicknesses of lithologic units accumulated Ln a very short time. He used the textures, structures, sorting, and distribution of rocks such ~---------------as the bluff-forming- sandstones --on--Sand -Mountain--and the--northern: part _____________ - of Lookout Mountain as examples. Wanless' work has been followed by many other studies which descripe different types of depositional environments for this sequence of rocks. Renshaw (1951) suggested deltaic and beach sedimentation. Allen (1955) and Albrighton (1955) modeled tidal flat sedimentation. Shotts (1957) postulated that the southern part of Lookout Mountain was orginally a series of discrete basins which were separated from each other by variations in deltaic sedimentation during Pennsylvanian time. Schlee (1963) studied cross-bedding in the sandstones of the sequence in Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama, and concluded that the predominant transport direction was toward the southwest. Schlee suggested that the sandstones represent detrital
11

material which was deposited in a fluvial environment and that the sandstones are sheets of " overlapping anastomosing channel sands grown together into one unit." Chen and Goodell (1964) suggested that regional direction of transport of the sand was to the southwest, but suggested a paludal or marginal continental depositional environment for the bluff-forming sandstones.
McKee and others (1975) concluded that the source of the sediments was to the east and northwest. They further stated that the Pennsylvanian sea transgressed periodically from the southwest, resulting in cyclic sedimentation but under less than uniform cyclothemic conditions.
Cramer (197.9) wrote that there were possibly several episodes of erosion in"the Applachians during Pennsylvanian time. However, it was nbt pbss:lble to determine whether the alternation between the conglomeratic sandstones and clay and coal beds resulted from intebilittent renewal of tec.to'nism or from climatic changes that may have occurred at that time.
Cramer <1'979} 'also interpreted the depositional environment of the coal-bearing sequence in northwest Georgia as an environment between the marine and terrestrial. Cramer suggests, from his review and interpretation of the literature, that this environment was one of littoral zone, barrier'-island complex, and lower delta plain. Stearns and Mitchum ( 1962) believed that the regional lithofacies of the Pennsylvanian in the southeastern United States are several subparallel patterns which resulted from barrier island complexes. Further, they considered that these lithofacies patterns developed parallel to paleoshore lines. Supporting this interpretation are the bluff-forming quartzose sandstones which are massively bedded,
12

cross-bedded, conglomeratic, and contain channel-form deposits. Cross-bedding in the channels and planar cross-bedding a-nd troughlike _ cross-bedding were interpreted as being indicative of a barrier-island complex environment. Cramer (1979) stated that where the bluffforming sandstones are not massive or conglOmeratic, they may be remnants of other parts of the barrier-island complex such as tidal deltas, washover fans, or dunes. The shales and thinner-bedded sandstones which accompany the more massive sandstones could be interpreted as representing either barrier island marshes which were occasionally invaded by the sea, or washover fans or tidal fans from the seaward side, or terrestrial detritus brought in from the landward side of the barrier island complexes. This environment would explain the irregular distribution of the coal and the associated sandstones~ and the mixture of sandstones and shales.
Milici (1974) and Ferm and others (1972) suggested that these ----------------~()cks originated in littoral environments. They postulated that-the
I
Raccoon Mountain Member of the Gizzard Formation, which underlies the bluff-forming sandstones of the Warren Point Member of the same formation, formed in a lagoon complex behind barrier bars. Further, they believed that rocks they interpreted as beach deposits, washover fans, and tidal deltas were part of the lagoonal complex and that the sandstones interfingered as facies with the coal-bearing, shaly, lagoonal deposits. Moreover, the shifting of the strand line resulted in the deposition of "blanket-like deposits" of sand, as the bars migrated over the marsh deposits. The resulting process would be equivalent to the transgressive migration of the sea over those marsh deposits lying behind the barrier island complex or barrier bar complex. Milici named the Raccoon Mountain basin as the depositional
13

center for the thick section of rocks underlying the sandstones on Sand Mountain.
Milici's interpretation could explain the abrupt changes, both laterally and vertically, of the various lithologic units and the difficulty in the correlation of the coal beds in Lookout and Sand Mountains. The interfingering of the various lithologic units, including the coal beds, is also explained by Milici's interpretation. Such a depositional process could lead to the intercalation of lithologic units of both marine and non-marine origin, and the transgressive-regressive fluctuations of the coastal area. Thomas 0972) thought that, during Mississippian and Pennsylvanian time, this part of the southeastern United States was under the influence of ;a southwestward prograding clastic system.
Cramer (1979), quoting studies by Hayes (1892) and Wanless (1961), states that on the northern part of Lookout Mountain the lithologic units above the bluff-forming sandstones are different from those below. Moreover, Cramer feit that the coal beds, enclosing shales, and sandstones above the bluff-forming sandstones had more lateral continuity, reflected deposition over a greater geographic area, and represented rock units that were deposited in a more stable environment over a longer period of time than those below the sandstones. Further, Cramer stated that the greater thicknesses of coal beds in the coal-bearing sequence overlying the bluff-forming sandstones indicate a much more stable depositional environment than existed during deposition of the sequence below the sandstones. Cram~r concluded that the depositional environments of the coal-bearing rocks overlying the bluff-forming sandstones were more
akin to a delta plain type of environment. He speculated a littoral
14

offshore bar environment for those coal beds and rock units below the sandstones on the northern part of Lookout Mountain and on Sand Mountain: " if the tectonic-sedimentation regime which began in the Mississippian with deltaic progradation over a carbonate sequence, were to have continued into the Pennsylvanian, the resulting vertical sequence of rocks to be expected over the open-marine rocks would be prodelta and delta-front clastic rocks, which in turn would be overla1n by deposits of barrier-bar complexes and bar-marsh deposits, which in turn would be overlain by delta-plain deposits in which the coal seams would be thicker and more widespread."
Stratigraphic Nomenclature Of The Pennsylvanian Rocks Of Northwest Georgia
Culbertson (1963) clarified the stratigraphic nomenclature of the Pennsylvanian System of Georgia, and made the nomenclature consistent ---from---Tennessee-into Georgia and--from Georgia--into-Alabama;--- Closescrutiny of Figure 3 and Figure 4, which are taken from Culbertson, illustrate the historical trend of the stratigraphic nomenclature in northwest Georgia and southern Tennessee. Culbertson basically adopted the nomeclature established in southern Tennessee by Wilson and others (1956). There is, however, one important distinction between Culbertson's proposed stratigraphy and nomenclature and that devised for southern Tennessee by Wilson and others (1956). Wilson and others divided the Pennsylvanian rocks into the Gizzard and the Crab Orchard Mountains Groups, with formations broken out in each of these groups. Culbertson's nomenclature for northwest Georgia assigns formation ranking to the group units established in southern Tennessee. For example, in Georgia, Culbertson changed the Gizzard
15

Aetna (Etna) mines, Tenn. (Salford, 1869, p. 383-384; 1893)

Northwest Georgia, northeast
Alabama, and south
Tennessee (Hayes, 1892,
p. 49)

--- -

South Tennessee (Nelson, 1925, p. 39)

Geologic map or Georgia (GPorgla Div. or !\1 ines,
Mining, and Ueology, 1939)

Northwest Georgia, Chart 6 or
Pennsylvanian Subcommittee (Moore, 1944)

Northwest Georgia (Johnson, 1946)

South Tennessee (Wilson and others,
1956, p. I)

:"lorthwest <:rorgia (this nrtirir)

(Unit missing). (Unit missing)

Rorkcastle
conglomerat~

(Unit missing)

(Unit missing)

(Unit missing)

Rock castle conglomerate

(Unit missing)

Vandever shale

Vandever formation

Vandever Member

Newton sandstone

Rockcastle

..-:":~s"

::s
i

....

Upper Coal Measures

z

;z!J

> <

rtl
::;>

:..,:.:.1.

0 rtl
z !>: z 1>1
... 1p>.1.
z Upper Conglome.r-

0 IX1

ate (Sewanee

Walden sandstone

Eastland shale lentil'

Herbert conglomerate

""::s
~

Whitwell

.!

shale

Sewanee conglomerate

Pottsville formation

Walden formation
Upper conglomerate

sandstone
Vandever shale Bonair
sandstone

.s
~

0
::;J

Newton sandstone

...8

0

Newton

"~'

Sandstone !\fember

"~e"

~
::.J.

"" 0
f
0

------
Whitwell

.:.ga..
0

-------
Whitwell

shale

""."..''
0

Shale Member

------

Sewanee conglomerate

Sewanee :\Iember

(J\

!>:
<

conglomerate)

0

-------

::s

Unnamed unit

Unnamed

member

--------- -------

::s .S!

:0

Lower Conglomerate

8 Warren

,g

Point

(Cliff Rock)

..""1;1 s~ildstone

Lookout

i5 Unnamed

sandstone

member

I Unnamed member

Whitwell Shale

,g

::;

"" ..e
~

Lower conglomerate

s:":s
."~ , '

Sewanee member

Unnamed member

"!j
..0..
~

Gizzard member

Signal Point shale
~"" Warren Point
"a" sandstone
!l 0
Raccoon Mountain formation

Signal Point

Shale l\lember

::s
~

-------

8 Warren Point

0

Member

"""""NN' -------
a Rarcoon

l\lountain

!\[ember

- Lower
z Coal !\leasures ;<;::
p..
00

Pennington formation

Pennington shale

Pennington formation

Pennington shale

Pennington
-formation

Pennington Shale
---------

~ m

!\lountain

Bangor

Bangor limestone Bangor limestone Not shown

Bangor limestone

Not shown

Banl(or Limestone

= limestone
.-;

limestone

'

1 Arrording to Wilson and others (1950, p. 4) the gastland Shale Lentil and llrrbrrt Conglomerate of Nel~on are pquimlent to the \\"hitwell Shnle nnd :-.:rwton San<istono of :"lelson, so the names ~:astland and l!erbert-nre dlsearded.

Figure 3. History of stratigraphic nomenclature of Pennsylvanian rocks in northwest Georgia and southern Tennessee (Culbertson, l963).

f~U 300

m
Conalomerat!c sandstone or conalomerate

i
EXPLANATION

J:JJ

8

Sandstone

Shal-"

~
Sandy shale, siltstone,
or shaly -ndstona

6
Coal bed

D
Covered

l"
Correlation line [)Q$1Jed whe,-e unc.rtoit~; queried where vnl:nown

""'

AETNA <ETNAl MINES. TENNESSEE

la
(Kijn.l89-4)

lb
Sttford(l869, p.383-384l

lc
Ntlson(1925, p.l49,p.44)

LOOKOUT MOUNTAIN. GEORGIA
Cort hole DH-1
(Johnton,l946)


WeldtnRtdtlllldRtccoon
Mountlin.ftnnttHt IAdapttdlramWilson
llldothfl.19~1

I
I
I-' "-.]

I
J
8an&orlimutont

Ptnninalonlormllon BIIIIOfllmtttonl

1 Allfilllll~ JOIIIUOII'I lllltr..llll ttdl. . ~.. olr IU IMt elltltltt
ll...tlhiDIIIIIIIIIU.. Hf.lllltl tt,.utllllttlaU..tJOOIMt.wfl!kll CeMJIIIfH .-1!111111 J51 IMt - . 4
.,w..renutu., UldtheJU
IMtiiiHSIIIMbJSIIIIifiii(IN2.p Jll

Figure 4.

Columnar sections of Pennsylvanian strata in Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee (reproduced from Culbertson, 1963). Stratigraphic names of each author shown on left side of column, coal bed names on right except where labeled otherwise. Stratigraphic names assigned by Culbertson are
to the right of Co 1umn 6.

Group of Wilson and others (1956) to the Gizzard Formation and broke out three members within the Gizzard Formation: the Raccoon Mountain, the Warren Point and the Signal Point Shale.
The Raccoon Mountain Member of the Gizzard Formation overlies the Upper Mississippian Pennington Formation. It consists of a sequence of shale, sandstone and siltstone, and d~scontinuous coal beds. The thickness of this sequence ranges from about 50 feet on Loo~.wut Mountain, Alabama, to 3S3ft on the north end of Sand Mountain (Culbertson, 1963). The Aetna, Cliff, or Castle Rock .coal bed occurs at or near the top o;f this member.
The Warren Point Member, which is a cliff-forming conglomeratic sandstone and forms the main cliff face on Sand and Lookout Mountains, ranges from 50 to 100 feet in thickness. On Lookout Mountain in Alabama, the Warren Point Member is :from 100 to 150 feet thick (Culbertson 0963). Shale layers are common in the upper part of this unit. Culbertson places the Underwood coal bed and associated shale in the Warren Point Member.
The Signal Point Shale Member of the Gizzard Formation ranges from 6 to SO.feet in thickness in northwest Georgia, and consists of gray shale with locally a thin coal bed and thin beds of sandstone. Two coal beds hqve been mined locally from this member.
The Sewanee Member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation is equivalent to Johnson's BonAir sandstone and ranges from 150 to 200 feet in thickness. Johnson (1946) describes the lithology of tne Sewanee Member as being similar to that of the Warren Point Member but with the exception that the Sewanee does not contain pebbles and weathers more readily than the Warren Point Member. At other localities the Sewanee Member is described as forming the surface rocks on much of Lookout Mountain, Georgia.
18

Overlying the Sewanee is the Whitwell Shale Member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation. This member is a shale and sandy shale sequence which ranges from 100 to 150 feet in thickness and underlies the central portion of Lookout Mountain, Georgia (Culbertson, 1963). The No. 4 and No. 5 coal beds occur in the Whitw.ell Shale Member; on Lookout Mountain, Alabama, the thin Sewanee and Tatum coal beds are present.
The Whitwell Shale Member is overlain by the Newton Sandstone Member which is a coarse-grained, cross-bedded, bench-forming sandstone that is approximately 110 feet thick (Culbertson, 1963). Coal beds are not known to occur in this member.
The uppermost and youngest member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation in northwest Georgia is th~ Vandever _Member. This member consists of 300 feet or more of interlayered shale andsandstone and is correlative with the Vandever Shale in Cumberland County, ______ Tennessee. -This member contains the thick Durham coal bed at its base. In descr~bing and discussing the results of the present studies we have chosen to adopt Culbertson's formation and membe_r nomen~lature, but we have chosen to use and to modify Johnson's coal bednumbering system.
Present Work Stratigraphic and structural interpretations based on the current study have been used in constructing the coal bed correlations indicated herein.. However, details of the stratigraphy and structure used in this study are not included here, but will be published separately as part of Georgia Geological Survey Bulletin 103 and Geologic Atlas 2.
19

COAL PRODUCTION AND RESOURCE ESTIMATES Coal production in Georgia commenced in the early 1860's. Coal mined in the Durham area of Lookout Mountain wa~ processed in coke ovens nearby, and by 1894 nearly 1000 tons daily were being produced (Troxell, 1946). In tlle Sand Mountain area, coal has been mined intermittently since before the Civil War; 6,500,000 tons of coal were produced through 1946 (Troxell, 1946). Cramer's (1979) coal production figures are shown in Figure 5. Cramer ( 1979) shows re'serve and resource estimates for Georgia (Table 1). Johnson's (i946) estimates are shown in Table 2, and Butts and Gildersleeve (1948) estimates are given in Table 3. Averitt
(197.5) ariel the u.s. Bureau of Mines (1977) showed the demonstrat.ed
reserV'e base for Georgia to be approximately 1 million short tons. Amore recent estimate of the demonstrated reserve base for
Georgia can be found iri the U.S. Department of Energy's {198i) report. According to :this report, Georgia has 1.90 million short tons of remaining' under~d:ound t'eserves base coal, 1. 75 million short tons of surface mineable i-eserv'e base coal, and a total of 3.65 million short toris for the demonstrated reserve base in Georgia as of January 1, 1979. For an explanation of the methodology used in determining these tonnages and for a listing of the references used to arrive at these tonnages, it is recommended that the Department of Energy publication be consulted.
COAL SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES Many of the samples collected in this study were full-channel samples obtained by methods similar to those described by Swanson and
20

__.

...,

..10
c

186()....64

Cl> 1865-69

V1 187o-74

-G) 1875-79

::> ..

OJ G) '0

188o-84

..Cl> ::r

0
10

"::'r

1885-89

- 0
OJ :;:

189o-94

1341 Lookout Mountain Opens

--n::> >10

1895-99

0

3 (l 0

190D-041

I 1873

~OJ

CX>0'

1905--09

0'0

I o
~o

191o-14 I

'I 966

\.D n.

N

" " "-J(l 1915-19

1--'

rt

~-
3 0

192o-24

0 ::>

n.
-~

1925-29

"h - - ::> Cl>

193o-34

Cl.rt

::r --no

1935-39

.. c

30 O"J' 194o-44

::>

n
..OJ

n.
"'

3 0

Cl> "h

... "::'r

1945-49 I I 183 World War II
1950-54 1955--59

Lookout Mountain Only

~o

""\~ .Dr'.'t..
0

196<H34 1965-69

::>

"' 197o-73

1974-77

Table 1- Coal Reserve estimates for Georgia, 1907-1974 (from Cramer, 1979).

Date
1907-1942-1942-1946-1948--

Source

Original
reserves (millions of short tons~

Campbell, 1908

933

Peyton, 1942

Sullivan, 1942

188

Johnson, 1946

24

Gildersleeve, 1948

206

1948-- Peyton, 1948

1960-- Averitt, 1961

100

1967-- Averitt, 1969

24

1974-- Averitt, 1975

84

1974-- Averitt, 1975

Remaining reserves (millions of short tons~
921
400
184

Remarks
Unpublished..:data Sand Mountain only

120

In Butts and

Gildersleeve, 1948

115

Unpublished data

76

Average of others

18

78

Includes. hypothetical

possibilities

1

Demonstrated reserve

base.

22

Table 2. Coal reserve estimatesl/ for northwest Georgia (from Johnson, 1946).

I

Thicker than

Thicker than I Total Coal ~/

I

2 feet

17 inches

I

I

inclusive

I

Bed

I

I Average

I Average I

I Average I

Comment

I Tons

!thickness! Tons !thickness I Tons !thickness I

I

I (feet) I

I (feet) I

I (feet) I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Lookout I

I

I

I

I

I

12-ft+ coal is very limited.

Mountain I <300,000 I 2.2 I <500,000 I 1.5 1<1,000,0001 1.3+ 117-in.+ coal partly depleted

A~/

I

I

I

I

I

I

!by mining.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

!All under Round Mountain

Durham I 500,000.:t. I 3.3 I 500,000.:t_l 3.2

Ioriginally 1,000 acres;

I

I

I

I

!Largely depleted.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

No. 4 Bed 11,500,000 I 2.3 12,900,000 I 1.7 110,000,0001 1.5 I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Sand I

I

I

I

I

I

12-ft+ coal. Reserves

MoBuendtai I n 840,-0 ---~---- 0-0--TI --2-.-3----r1-2,-7-0--0,00-0-TI - -- -1.8

1I

1

2. ,

0--0

0-

,

0

0

01 1.4 -~----------

!INlioms.i

t

ed G4,

t

o a GS,

r

ea G6,

a

rGoBu,

n

d hol
n.ea~-

e

s

------------------

No. 8 No. 8
No. 9

I

I

I

I

I

I

I 50,000 I 2.2

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I 50,000 I 3.0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I 100,000 I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I 100,000 I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

1.6 I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

2.0 I 2oo,ooo1

I

I

I

I

!Tenn~ssee line (see Johnson, 11946) I !Around Bailey mine and drill !hole No. 9 (see Johnson, 1946) I
!Widely scattered in small !pockets of a few thousand tons leach. I

l/Estimated coal in the ground with minimum and average thickness as shown. necessarily recoverable.
~/Total coal without regard to thickness or grade.

These reserves are not

< Less than.

23

' ;
;._,,

'~-
24

Huffman (1976). A more detailed explanation of full-channel samples is found in Coleman and others (1985).
Figure 6 is a flow diagram which illustrates the plan by which all coal samples are processed by the U.S. Geological Survey. As this figure shows, the coal samples are analyzed by a variety of analytical methods. These include wet chemical analysis, semi-quantitative emission specroscopy, x-ray fluorescence (XRF), flame atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), graphite furnace atomic absorption spectroscopy, and instrumental neutron activation analysis (INNA). Samples are analyzed on a whole-coal or coal-ash basis depending on the analytical method and volatility of the element being determined. A discussion of the precision and accuracy of each of these analytical methods is given in Coleman and others (1985).
The standard ultimate and proximate .analyses follow analytical standards described in U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 638 (1967). These analyses are important from both a technological and an economic viewpoint, especially the calorific value and the ash and sulfur contents.
Statistical terms.used in this bulletin are described in Georgia Information Circular 75 (Coleman and others, 1985). These terms are those us.ed by Connor and others (1976), Miesch (l967), and Cohen (1959);.
RESULTS OF ANALYSES Previous Analyses
Most previous chemical determinations of Sand and Lookout Mountains coal have been proximate analysis and analyses of coke derived from several coal beds. Some of these analyses are given by
25

I I Oconealqsuparltit (afobrouatn6a0l0ysg1)s. of
' -

Raw coat as t.eceived

I

(about 1:5 gounds, or 7kg.~

I broken to .3 em.)

. .

Air dried in oven at 32c1

J 1About 3.. ~g ot crushed

.

I

coal spl1t petrologic

out for analysis.

I J I About 2 kg crushed coal split out for storage,

Ultimate and proximate anal~ses (procedures described in U Bureau of Mines Bull. 638 1967 p, 3-12)

I
Sample crushed and-pulverized in: vertical Braun pulv.erizer using ceramic plates to pass 80 mesh;

Raw pu ver1zed .coal!
I

Ultimate

Proximate analysis Pulverized coal (25 to 75g)l Wet Chemical analyses X-ray

Neutron

analysis and sulfur forms (in Aercent)
sh

M(ionisptuerrecte.nvt)olatile
matter, 1xed carbon, and ash

ashed at 525c and percent ash calculated,
r

Hg(flameless atom1c absoq>tion)
F (spec1fic 1on electrode)

fluorescence
Cl
p

activation ~~saLl ya sTi sb Br Lu Th Ce Rb Tl

N
(]\

c H

!Coal ashl

Co Sb U Cr Sc W

0

Cs Se Yb

N

S S S

~ptsouutlra~1lat)1~ec~

S organic

Wet Chemical analysis (atomic Absorption) Cd Li Mg Pb Cu Na Mn Zn

Optical. emission s~ectrographic analysis. Automate late reader C63 elements ooked fo.r). The following 32 reported when found (in ppm)
Ag Dy In Os Ru Y

X-ray fluorescence

analysis Cgercent)

Al203 Ca

S03

Si02

Fe2o3 KT2i0o2

~ff STma

Au Er Ir Pd Sn Zr

B Ga Mo Pr Sr

Heat value

Ba Gd Nb Pt Te

Btu er pound (Kca per kg)

Be Bi

Ge Ho

Nd Ni

Re Rh

Tv m

Free,-

sweiling

index

Ash-fusion

temperatures

Figure 6. Flow diagram for coal sample analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey

Johnson (1946), Cramer (1979), McCallie (1904), and Butts (1948). The uncertainty of coal bed correlations, differences in sampling methods, and questions concerning the reliability of analytical laboratories make it difficult to evaluate data in the literature and describe specific coal quality for any one coal bed on Sand and Lookout Mountains. However, for completeness, we have tabulated chemical data for Georgia coal as reported by various workers. Table 4 lists data compiled by Cramer (1979); Table 5 displays data from McCallie (1904); Table 6 summarizes chemical data taken from the Keystone Coal Manual ( 1980); and Table 7 lists data presented by .Johnson (1946), Gildersleeve (1946), and Nelson (1945). Data presented in Table 7 will b~ us.ed extensively as a basis for comparison in later .sections of this report. Our use of data presented variously by Johnson (1946), Gildersleeve (1946), and Nelson (1945) is determined by our ability to relocate the drill holes, test pits, adits, and mines from which they collected their samples.
The most recent analyses before this study are from the Keystone Coal Manual (Table 6). Analyses, but no locations, are given for the Etna and Dade coal beds. The Etna is a medium-volatile, low-sulfur, low-ash, metallurgical grade coal. The analysis shows an ash content of 2.4 percent and a sulfur content of 0.79 percent for the Etna; a free-swelling index of 9.0, a pyritic sulfur content of 0.41 percent and an organic sulfur content of 0.38 percent. The Dade is a medium-volatile, low-sulfur, low-ash, metallurgical grade coal, which commonly has a shale roof. It contains 4.7 percent ash and 0.76 percent sulfur. The pyritic sulfur content is also 0.38 percent. The free-swelling index is 9.0 and the calorific value is 14,398 Btu per pound on an as-received basis. This compares with 14,628 Btu per
27

Table 4. Proximate an~lyses and sulfur content of Georgia coal, in percent (from Cramer, 1979). Analyses taken exactly from Cramer and do not sinD. to 100 percent.

Coal Bed

Moisture

Volatile matter

Fixed

Ash

carbon

Sulfur

Cliff-------------

1.7

Dade--------------

2.5

Red, Ash-----------

4.8

Etna--------------

2.6

Rattlesnake-------

3.8

Durham 4----------

2.8

Durham 5----------

2.4

A-----------------

2.6

Sewanee-----------

2.9

21.1 23.9 23.9 26.3 24.6 20.2 20.0 20.2 18.1

70.5

8.1

2.0

63,4

11.4

.9

70.2

4.4

1.3

66.8

5.3

1.8

65.0

9.3

1.1

'72.1

5.4

.7

72.5

5.5

9

61.6

18.1

2.1

65.6

13.5

1.0

;'

28

Table 5. Coal analyses from northwest Georgia ,coal fields (from McCallie, 1904). Values in percent. Analyses reproduced exactly from. source and do not sum to 100 percent.

Coal Bed I

I Moisture I Volatile I Fixed I Ash I Sl.\lfur !Phosphorus! Total I

. I Source I

I Matter !Carbon I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Raccoon

I p. 90 I 1.15 I 24.85 I 60.12 113.88 I 1.51 I

1101.51 I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Dade

I P 89 I

Rattlesnake lr p. :89

I I

I 27.15 I 61.69 110.59 I 0.58 I

I

I

I

I

I

I 28.64 I 66.55 I 4.41 I 1.04 I

1100.01 I

I

I

1100.64 I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I.

I

Unnamed

I P 46 I 0.60

I

I

I I

19.12 I 76.98 I 3.30 I 0 .9,3 .. I

I

I

I

I

1100.93 I

I

I

Unnamed

I p. 42 I 1.020 l 20.850 l 75.980 I 1.440 I 0.760 I 0.007 1100.0571

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Durham Durham

I P 38 I

I

I

,_,'I P 38 I

I I
0.615 I

16.030 I 79.1001 4.8101 0.360 I

I

I

I

I.

21.011 I 75.9561 1.9'40 I 0.047 I

0.007 1100.3071

I

I

I 99.5671

29

Table 6. Analyses of coal samples from the Etna and Dade Coal Seam~ in northwest Georgia (from 1980 'Keystone Coal Manu11-l, p. 495).

Etna Coal Bed

Moisture (%) ..... , Ash (%) . , , . , , Volatile matter(%) . , .. Fixed Carbon (%) , . , , ,, ,. B.T.U , , . , . , , , , , , Sulfur (%) . , . l Fusion temperature , , ,, , ., ,, , ,, F.S.I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Grindability index.. , , , , ,., Maximum fluidity (DDPM) . ,, . , Initial softening temperature (1 DDPM) ~C ........................ . Maximum fluid temperature, C , .' . , Temperature range, C ,, , Pyritic sulfur (%) ............................... , ........ ,., .... .. Sulfate sulfur (%) ,, ,,, , ,, ,,, Organic sulfur (%) , ,, ,.,

3.49 2.45 28.90
65,16 14,628
79 2,0Q0F
9.0 81.1 B; 100 396 453 96
.41
.oo
.38

Dade Coal Bed

Moisture (%) , .. , , , , Ash (%) . Volatile matter (%) , . Fixed Carbon (%) ... ,., B.T.U . , , , Sulfur (%)., , ,., Fusion temperature ,., , , . , F.S.I , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Grindabil ity index , , , , , , , Maximum fluidity (DDPM) , , . , ,,. Initial softening temperature (1 DDPM) C Maximum fluid temperature, oc , ,,. Solidification temperature, oc ,,, , Temperature range, C., . , , , , , Pyritic sulfur (%) Sulfate sulfur (%) Organic sulfur (%) , ,

3.07 4.70 27.60 64.63 14,398
.76 2,000F
9.0 71.2 21,100 396 453 495 99
.38
.oo
.~8

30

Table 7. Proximate analyses of Georgia coal deposits 1(Johnson, 1946; Gildersleeve, 1946; Nelson, 1945).

Coal I Mine I Sample I Map I Thickness I H20 IVolatilel Fixed lAsh ISulfuriB.T.U,/1 Comments (by Johnson)

bed I.

I No. 2[ I No. I Bed Sam2lel

I mat-ter Icarbon I

I

I lb. I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

No. 1 I Adit

I H214 I 104 I 26 26 I 0.9 I 20.9 I 66.5 111.7 I 3.0 113540 I

I Strip pitl H216 I 104 I 54 54 I 1.1 I 19.9 I 52.2 126.8 I 1.5 111010 I

I Adit

I B42737 I 104 I 39 33 I 3.4 I 1'9.1 I 60.5 117.0 I 1.6 112270 !Weathered coal from drift

I

I

I

I

I I

I

I I

I

I mine,

No. 3 I Durham I B42736 I 10571 69 52 '1 2. 7 I 20.4 I 73.0 I 3.9 I 0.9 114640 !Abandoned drift.

I

II

I B42726 I 103? I 19 19 I 3.4 I 20.3 73.7 l 2.6 I 0.6 114770 !Durham mine, present opera-

I

I

I

I

'I

I

I

I

I

I tiona.

I

II

I B42730 I 103 I 64 29 :1 3.1 I 19.7 72.5 I 4.7 I 1.5 114500 !Upper bench, Durham mine.

I

II

I B42731 I 103 I ? 23 :1 3.1 I 19.1 68.3 I 9.5 0.8 113660 !Lower bench,

No. 4 !Drill hole I -- I DH-21 35 35 I 1.3' I 19.5 71.8 I 7.4 0.5 114260 I

4 I Gillen I H212 I 97 I

24 :J 2.1 I 21.9 74.0 I 2.0 0.6 114830 !Near Gillen No. 4

I No. 3 I

I

I

il

I

I

I

I

4 I Gillen I H213 I 98 I 38 38 il 1.2 I 19;7 65.6 113.5 0.5 113310 I

I No. 1 I

I

I

il I

I

I

I

4 I Drift I B42734 I -- I 41 31 I 4.4 I 18.7 66.5 110.4 1.1 113210 !Believed to be Gillen No. 1.

4 I Durham I B42727 I -- I 20 20 'I 2.9 I 19.8 72.9 I 4.4 0.6 114570 I

4 I Durham I B42728 I -- I 20 20 :1 3.2 I 19.7 73.2 I 3.9 0.7 114560 I

No. 6 I Drift 1/ I H208 I 107 I 40 40 :1 5.8 I 18.4 41.8 134.0 0.4 I 7880 !Description fits No. 6 bed,

I

I

I

I

:I

I

I

I

I Not located,

V-1 f-'

No. 6A*I Test pit I B42735 I 771 39 24 :l 2.6 I 20.7 54.4 122.3 1.2 111520 !Test pit by road near Lula

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I Lake. Not located,

No, 8. I Green I B43049 I 33 I 28 8 I Murphy I B43093 I 21 I 23

28 I 3.2 I 25.4 65.4 I 6.0 1.4 114230 I 23 I 2. 9 I 26.8 I 63.4 I 6.9 I 3.2 114040 1100 ft. in drift.

8 I O'Brien I B42853 I 1 I 24 24 I 3.5 I 27.2 I 64.0 I 5.3 I 1.0 114250 1200 ft. in drift.

No. 9 I Ferndale I B43047 I 30 I 56 36 I 4.4 I 23.2 I 63.1 I 9.3 I 0.9 113240 1200 ft. from portal.

9 I Dade

I B43048 I 16 I 52 47 I 2.8 I 23.2 I 60.6 113.4 I 0.4 112830 ISO ft. from _portal.

9 I Tatum I

I

I

I Gulch I B43050 I 9 I 47

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

46 I 3.3 I 23.9 I 59.3 113.5 I 0.9 112710 1500 ft. in from air shaft,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I New Camp mine.

No.10*1 Prospect I H209 I 75 I

47 115.4 I 26.4 I 51.7 I 6.5 I 0.6 I 9170 I

10 I Test pit I B42854 I -- I 20 20 I 4.8 I 26.5 I 63.9 I 4.8 I 1.5 113930 !Listed as Red Ash (?) bed.

No.ll I Scratch I B43897 I -- I 46 42 I 3.3 I 24.3 I 62.0 110.4 I 1.5 113200 I

I Ankle I
I Hollow I

I

I

I I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l}Hudson, Unpublished report: U.S. Bureau .of Mines
Nelson, W.A., Aoalyses of Tennessee coals (including Georgia): U.S. Bureau of Mines Tech. Paper No. 671, 1945. Samples taken in 1939. All analyses are on an as-received basis. 1/Samp1es numbers beginning with H are samples by Hudson, courtesy U~S. Bureau of Mines. B 11 11 indicates samples quoted from technical paper No. 671, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1945. J}See descriptions of exposures in Johnson (1946).
*Correlation of these coal beds have been changed by present authors from those originally presented by Johnson.

pound for the Aetna coal. The Dade has been mined on Sand Mountain; the Aetna bed has been mined on the north end of Sand Mountain in Georgia and Tennessee.
Current Analytical Results Previous sections of this bulletin have described the geologic setting, stratigraphy, coal resources, and coal production. This section describes the distribution, occurrence, thickness and stratigraphic position of the coal beds on a bed-by-bed basis; discusses analytical data reported by Johnson (1946), Gildersleeve (1946), and Nelson (1945); presents new analytical data for most of the coaL beds; describes the calculated rank for many of the coal beds; discusses the major-, minor-, and trace-element/oxide concentrations in coal samples for many of the coal beds; and compares the analytical results with other east~rn U.S. bituminous coal samples. All tabular geologic and analytical data for the 47 coal samples which we collected and analyzed are presented in Information Circular 75 (Coleman and others, 1985). Also, Information Circular 75 contains maps of the location and elevation of each sample; information about collection sites; and the stratigraphic section, where feasible, at each collection site. To provide a stratigraphic guide to the location of each sample and to provide a way for correlation between Johnson's (1946) and Culbertson's (1963) stratigraphic frameworks, Figure 7 should be consulted. The coal bed numbers referred to in the following pages are Johnson's.
32

'--------- --
WILSON, JEWELL. & LUTHER, 1956

JOHNSON 1946

GEORGIA ---
AND ALABAMA SAMPLE NOS. THIS STUDY

z w

a: w

0,__

<0
::;

"'~ )'-NO.1

<

",~__' 1 ' - N~~:HAM

"< '

MARKER

w

z "a:'

0~

I-
<
::!;

w 0 ~

a: >

0

-----28 - - - - - 14,15

(/)

....... LANTANA

z 1(3

i ~~

() ~N0.3

"'()

DURHAM

a0 :

u.
~.~r-~--:t---1 <~~

-----;- 13,16,H

Cl

~"-+---1
f-''

cr

~OAK HILL

<( ..J

:c U-'Jw_,

(.)
cr

3::<
1--J:

0

;:co ......... SLATE

3::

(SEWANEE)

..J .
~ ~~---- WILDER
C!l o;-~~ LOWER
WILDER ----

~~~

=>r---t---1

a: ,_.._NO.4
UJUJ
~..J o<

g 1--- TATUM ..J>;
. 0a:-W'w::; ~~~

-----14 5 18 25 26 27,2&,34,35,36,
37, 4ALA

zl:

<"' >

NO.5

.._..~~~meR

w--- NO. 5A
<a:eZ

() "<
a:""' 0 "' IIl !--- SEWANEE < a: ::li
() w ::; w

-----1ALA 3ALA
- - - - - 2,3,6,30,38 2 ALA 5ALA(?)

zo"o'
"'~
"'
LLJ w ~ N-H~TWELL

w z < w
""' r-rot'~--u~~E~ CLIFF -----8ALA

Cf.l--- !: ~

MARKER

t::I:

:z:

NO. 6A __

~~ f~':~:--f'"-..., UPPER CUFF

---

ffi

NO.2

a:

W~N0.7

~

CLIFF

w ::;

.<0
n - - ::; UNDERWOOD
.... z

~

-~ ~

I e~den

~ ~
c: ~

~

NO. 8

~1-'3:'-J.--ol CASTLE

~ -N~N:, ElC. ~

ROCK

8,11,20

en

, DADE

< :r

7,10,12, 6ALA

~ ____)NO. 9A

N ~

::::> a: --RATTLESNAKE~ ~

-----9,19,22

6 0

~ ~

' --iNO.

10

~ ~

-----21,23,24,31, .

01 ~

REO ASH

32,33,39,

..J

7ALA

z

0

i I

__ t._.___j

Figure 7.

Coal bed correlation diagram depicting nomenclature of Wi !son
and others (1956), Johnson (1946), and Culbertson (1963). Also shown are Georgi a and Alabama coal bed sample numbers related to coal bed nomenclature. (The spelling of Aetna is often given as Etna. Also, it is assumed that a typographical error in Johnson's manuscript changed the Red Ash seam to the Red Seam, and the Mi 11 Creek seam to the Ash Creek seam.)

33

Coal Bed No. 11 The oldest coal bed recognized so far in the Georgia coal fields is the No. 11. This bed occurs near the bottom of the Raccoon Mountain Member of the Gizzard Formation. It is thought by us to be present on both Sand and Lookout Mountains and may be equivalent to Johnson's Mill Creek coal bed. Johnson (1946) reported that the (Ash) Mill Creek bed was 0 to 10 inches thick and that it and a coal bed, which he designated the Red Seam occurred in shales near the base of his Gizzard Member below the " saccharoidal sandstone beds." He reported that these two coal beds were "thin and erratic." We observed, but neither collected nor measured, this coal bed. Nelson (1945) reported an analysis for one sample from this coal bed. This sample was collected from Scratch Ankle Hollow, Sand Mountain, along the Georgia-Tennessee state line. This sample contained 10.4 percent ash; 1.5 percent total sulfur; and h~d a calorific value of 13,200 Btu per pound. Its calculated rank using the Parr formula (Parr, 1928) is medium-volatile bituminous.
Coal Bed No. 10 Coal bed ~o. 10 occurs on both Sand and Lookout MOuntains in the Raccoon Mountain Member of the Gizzard Formation. We collected eight samples (21GA, 23GA, 24GA, 31GA, 32GA, 33GA, 39GA, and 7ALA) from this bed; all are from Lookout Mountain. This bed may be equivalent to Johnson's Red (Red Ash) seam. Samples 23GA and 32GA are not complete channel samples. Sample 23GA is from the upper 19 inches of the bed with a total thickness of 21 inches; sample 32GA represents the upper 31 inches of a bed with a
34

total thickness of 45 inches-.-- However, 33GA- is from the same location

as 32GA and represents the entire 45 inches of the No. 10 coal bed at

this location.

The roof rock for samples 21GA, 24GA, 32GA, 33GA, and 39GA is

s.ands.ton.e, conglomeratic sandstone or siltstone; the floor rock is

unperclay. Samples 23GA, 31GA, and 7ALA have a shale roof and an

underclay floor rock

. Johnson (1946) reported analytical results from one sample from

this coal bed (Table 7). However, based on our studl.es we believe

that .~ohnson's sample number H209 is equivalent to the No. 10 coal bed

and'we~ thus, include its analysis undercoal bed No. 10 in table 7.

The. as.h content for the two samples ranges froi:n 4.-8 to 6.5 percent;

total sulfur from 0.6 to 1.5 percent; and calorific value from 9',170'

to 13,930 Btu.per pound.

W~ .report modern chemical data from eight samples. These data
.1
show. the following __ ~~!ll~-~iticii!__Ea:nges 13._n_d_ g~gm~tri_c _means (in

parentheses):

Ash

12.3 to 34.2 (17. 8) percent

Total Sulfur

0.7 to 5.3 ( 1.44) percerit

Pyritic Sulfur

0.05 to 3.5 (0.36) percent

Organi!= .Sulfur

0.51 to 1.39 (0.73) percent

Free-Swelling Index

1.0 to 8.5 (4.0)

Calorific Value

9,404 to 13,270 (11 ,818) Btu per

pound

Rank calculations reveal that all samples that we collected are

medium-volatile bituminous. The calculated rank for the two samples

reported by Johnson ( 1946) from this coal bed indica t'es that the one

sample. from Sand Mountain is medium-volatile bituminous; the other,

35

from a coal prosp.ect on Lookout Mountain, is high-volatile A bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 9A

This coal bed occurs in the Raccoon Mountain Member of the Gizzard

Formation. Based on our field studies, we interpret this coal bed to

be equivalent to the Rattlesnake coal bed.

Gildersleeve (1946) reported that the Rattlesnake coal beq contains

a shale parting; he stated that the total thickness of the coal bed

avera,ges about 56 inches at the Ferndale mine. Gildersleeve (1946)

wrote that .because of rapid changes in the thickness and the character

1.

.

. '

of the sands;tone top, this bed may change in thickness. over a short

distance.

We collected three samples of the No. 9A coal bed: 9GA, 19GA, and

22GA, .all from Sand Mountain. The coal ranges from 22 to 54 inches in

thickness at these sites Sample number 9Gl\. is a bench sample fr9m

the upper 20 inches of coal where the bed is 54 inches thick.

At sampling sites 9GA and 22GA, this coal has a shale roof and

shale and underclay floor rock. At site 19GA the coal is overl~in by

interlayered siltst.one and sandstone with a shale floor.

Analytical data from the current study yield the following

compositional ranges (geom~tric mean in parentheses).

Ash

7.8 to 31.3 (18.5) percent

Total Sulfur

0.5 to 0.9 (0.71) percent

Pyritic Sulfur

0.08 to 0.21 (0.13) percent

Organic Sulfur

0.3 to 0.79 (0.55) percent

Free-Swelling Index 5.0 to 6. 0 (5.5)

Calorific Value

9,930 to11,650 (10, 750) Btu per pound

36

Calculation of the coal rank reveals that all samples are mediumvolatile bituminous.

. ;:
Coal Bed No. 9

Johnson (1946) designated the No. 9 coal bed as being equivale:p.t to

what was locally known as the Dade, Rattlesnake?, and Bluff coal b~dsr

It is in the upper part of the Raccoon Mountain Membe~ of the Gizzard

Formation.

Johnson (1946) reported that coal lenses, locally reaching a

. ':..

~

thickness of 72 inches, were present in ~his coal horizon. He stated

that the names Dade and Rattlesnake were applied to locations ?n Sanq

Mountain and that the Bluff name was applicable on Lookout Mountain

.. -~

) .

Johnson described this coal bed as generally crushed and dirty and

reported,,...that

the

shale

roof
,

made

it

difficult

to

mine.

He further noted

that the tendency of the coal bed to swell and pinch in short distances

-----------------------made- ic-expensive to- develop. Johnson believed that this coal had been

mined out.

Gildersleeve (1946) suggested that the Dade (No. 9) coal bed has its

greatest development in the area east and southeast of Cole City, Dade

County, Georgia. Its thickness is variable, but the bed is ext_ensive and
':
more persistent than any of the lower coal beds. He stated that the coal

ranges from 36 to 40 inches in thickness a,nd has a shale top and a smooth
,,
shale bottom. There is a fire clay parting near the middle of the bed.

We collected coal from four sites (7GA, lOGA, 12GA, and 6ALA).

Sample 7GA is a composite sample from a coal test pit. Sample lOGA is a

channel sample of the upper 41 inches where the coal is 48 inch,e~ thic~.

Samples 7GA, lOGA, and 12GA are all are from Sand Mountain and sample

6ALA is from Lookout Mountain.
' . .

37

The thickness of 'this coal at the sampling sites ranges from 17 to

48 inches. Thr~e of the samples (7GA, l2GA, and 6ALA) are from

sampling sites where the roof rock is shale; samples 7GA and 6ALA h&ve

sandstone floor rock; sample 12GA has an underclay floor rqck. Sampl~

lOGA has interlayered shale and siltstone for both the roof and floor

rock.

Analytical results from three samples of the No. 9 coal bed are

reported by Johnson (1946). The ash content ranges from 9 .3: to 13.5

percent; total sulfur content is 0.4 to 0.9 percent; and calorific

value is 12,710 to 13,240 Btu per pound.

Chemical data for our four samples of the No. 9 coal ped reveal

the following ranges and geometric means (in parentheses).

Ash Total Sulfur

2.5 to 11.7 (7.2) percent
o.s to 0.9 ( 0.63) percent

Pyritic Sul.fur

0.04 to 0.67 (0.12) percent

Organic $ulfur

0.2,5 to 0.50 (0.40) pereent

Free-Swelling Index

7.5 to 9.0 (8.5)

Calorific Value

11 '150 to 14,960 (13,275) Btu per

pound

The calculated rank for all samples collected from this coal b~d

during the current study is medium-volatile bituminous. The

calculated rank for the three samples reported in Table 7, all from

Sand Mountain, are also medium-volatile bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 8 This coal bed is at the top of the Raccoon Mountain member of the Gizzard Formation. Johnson notes that this coal bed is known locallr as the Etna and that in various places it is design~ted as the
38

Castlerock, Raccoon, Bluff, and Lower Cliff. Johnson described this bed as reaching a thick.n-ess of 48 inches, but being discontinuous and lenticular. Because of -it-s lentic-ular nature,. the Castlerock, Raccoon~ Bluff, and Lower; Cliff coal beds may not have formed at the same time and they may represent a series of 'individual coal beds in a very narrow stra.~igraphic interV-a:L. ,_.. ., .~
Gildersleeve 0946) states that the Etna (Aetna) coal bed is best
developed i:n thevicinityof Whiteside~ Tennessee, and Nickajack Cove in
northwest Dade County, Georgia. He believed that this bed wasone of the most persistent ones in the area and that it usually crops out near the bluff line on both Sand and Loc:ikO.ut'Mountains. The coal thickness a'v.erages.. :at>outi/'24.-inches, and ranges in thickness from just a f'ew inches to 48 inches
We collected three samples, .SGA, .. llGA, and 20GA,. of the No. a coal
'bed.,from Sand Mountain. Sample ~SGA: is a composite 'sample ft~om a coal ,-tes.t pit; the other samples are .channel samples. ..At .. the collection ~- sites, this bed ranges from 18 to :30 inches thick. The roOf rock at th~ qollection sites is either sandstoneorconglomeratic.sandstone. Tb:e floor rock is either interlayered shale and siltstone or undetclay.
Chemical analyses from three samples from the No. 8 coal are reported by Johnson (1946).and are shown in Table 7. These analyses reveaL that this coal has' a range .in ash content from 5.3 to 6.9 percent; total. sulfur content from 1.0 to 3 .'2 percent; and calorific value from 14,040 to 14,250 Bt'u per pound.
During. the. pr.esent study. three . samples were analyzed from this coal. The analytical results are .-given -below wi-th the range in chemical and physical properties followed by the geometric mean in !}arentheses.
39

Ash

5.8 to 16.4 (8.97) percent

Total Sulfur

0.5 to 4.6 (1.92) per~ent

Pyritic Sulfur

0.11 to 4.02 (1.07) percent

Organic Sulfur

0.32 to 0.61 (0.43) perc~nt

Free-Swelling Index

2.0 '!=O 9.0 (5.5)

Calorific Value

12,190 to 14,270 (13,420) Btu per

pound

Cal~ulation of rank x:eveals that the samples are medium-volatile

bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 7 This coal bed is in the upper part of the Warren Point :Member of. the Gizzard Formation and was cal,led the Vnderwood by Culbertson. (1963). Johnson 0946) placed the No. 7 coal bed .in the Sewanee Met)lber of the Lookout Sandstone Formation and designa1;ed it the Clii;'f coal seam. lt is in auociation with thin shales encloseq in t)laSsi,ve blanket sandstortes and conglomeratic sandston,es. We neither GOllete? the coS;l nor. t!le&sured it because the occurrence of th~ c<;>al is very sporadic.

Coal Bed No. 6A This coal bed occurs nea.r t.he. base of the Signal Point Shale Member. of the Gizzard FormS;tion. The coal is S;ssociated with shales and is lenticular and very sporadic. We corre~ate the 6A bed with Culbertson's Upper Cliff No. 2 coal bed on the basis of our field studies. We neither collected no~ measured .the f!Oal. This coa1 be4 occurs only on Lookout Mountain.

40

Johnson (1946) reported that his sample number B42735 (Table 7) was from a test pit in the No. 6 coal. We have concluded that this sample and the test pit are in the No. 6A coal bed and have shown it this way in Table 7. The ash content of the sample is 22.3 percent; total sulfur content is 1.2 percent; and heating value is 11,520 Btu per pound.
A coal rank calculation, using the Parr Formula, on the analysis given by Johnson reveals that the sample is medium-volatile bituminous; the sample was collected on Lookout Mountain.

Coal Bed No. 6

The No. 6 coal bed occurs at the top of the Signal Point Shale

Member of the Gizzard Formation. Culbertson (1963) referred to this

bed as the Upper Cliff No. 1. Locally this coal bed has been

designated as the Whitwell Marker. Johnson (1946) found that this coal

bed ranges from 6 to 10 inches in thickness.

During the present study we collected one sample (8ALA) of this

coal on Lookout Mountain. .At the collection site, the bed is 24

inches thick. The roof rock is sandstone and the floor rock is shale.

Johnson provided chemical analysis for one sample from the No. 6

coal bed from Lookout Mountain (Table 7, Sample No. H208). This

sample, from a mine drift, has 34.0 percent ash; 0.4 percent total

sulfur; and a heating value of 7,880 Btu per pound.

Analytical results for our sample are given below:

Ash

3.7 percent

Total Sulfur

1.3 percent

Pyritic Sulfur

0.76 percent

Organic Sulfur

0.40 percent

41

Free-Swelling Index 8.0

Calorific Value

14,540 Btu per pound

The calculated rank of this sample is low-volatile bituminous. The

analysis of the sample collected by Johnson indicates a calculated rank

of medirim-volatile bituminous.

Coal Bed No. SA

This coal bed is in the upper part of the Sewanee Member of the

Crab Orchard Mountains Formation. Seven samples (2GA, 3GA, 6GA, 30GA,

38GA, 2ALA, and SALA) were collected and analyzed from this coal bed;

all were collected from Lookout Mountain. At the collection sites the

coal bed ranges from 7 to 22 inches in thickness. Samples 2GA, 6GA,

38GA, and 2ALA have shale roofs; they have both shale and underclay for

floor rock. Samples 3GA, 30GA, and SALA have sandstone or

. tonglomerad.c sandstone roofs; both underclay and shale occur as floor
' rock

. .: Analytical results for the seven coal samples from No. SA coal bed
are given bet~w 'as the range and geometeric mean (in parentheses).

Ash

5.3 to 12.6 (7.2) percent

Tdtal Sulfur

0.5 to 2.5 (0.99) percent

Pyritic Sulfur

0.07 to 2.14 (0.32) percent

Organic Sulfur

o~33 to 0.60 (0.47) percent

Free-Swelling Index 1.0 to 9.0 (5.0)

Calorific Value

11,200 to 14,530 (13,520) Btu per pound

Calculated rank is medium-volatile bituminous.

42

Coal Bed No. 5

This coal bed is located near the bottom of the Whitwell Shale

Member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation. Johnson (1946) called

it the Vandever Marker because of its widespread distribution and

Culbertson (1963) called it the Sewanee. Johnson believed that this

coal bed was an excellent stratigraphic marker but that it is never

thicker than 8 inches and is too thin to be of economic interest.

In the present study this coal bed is represented by two samples,

1ALA and 3ALA, which were collected on Lookout Mountain. The

thickness of the bed at the sampling sites ranges from 9 to 10 inches.

The roof and floor rocks are shale.

Chemical data from analyses of the two samples reveal the

following ranges and geometric means (in parentheses).

Ash

2.0 to 3.8 (2.76) percent

Total Sulfur Pyritic Sulfur

0.6 to 0.90 (0.73) percent -- 0.2 to 0.36 (0 .27) percent

-- - -- ...

Organic Sulfur

0.41 to 0.49 (0.45) percent

Free-Swelling Index 4.5 to 8.5 ( 6.0)

Calorific Value

14,850 to 15,160 (15 ,000) Btu per pound

The calculated rank of these two samples is low-volatile

bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 4 This coal bed is in the upper part of the Whitwell Shale Member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation and was called Tatum by Culbertson (1963). Johnson indicated that the No.4 bed was present in two benches separated locally by shale and sandy shale ranging in thickness from a few inches to several tens of feet.
43

We collected thirteen coal samples (lGA, 4GA, SGA, 18GA, 25GA,

26GA, 27GA, 29GA, 34GA, 3.SGA, 36GA, 37GA, and 4ALA) of this coal bed

on Lookout Mountain. These. samples are from. locatiop.s where the coal

is 9 to 23 inches thick. Sample 36GA repres~nts the upper 13 inches

of an 1.7-1/2 inches thick bed; sample 37 GA represents the entire

17-1/2 inches of this bed at this collection site.

We found the roof floor lithologies to be quite variable for .

samples of the No. 4 coal. For example, sample 26GA has a s~ndstone

roof and underclay.floor. Samples 1GA, 29GA, 34GA, 36GA, and 37GA

have interlayered shale, siltstone, and sandstone roof rocks; the

floor rock for these sites is mostly underclay. Sample numbers 4GA,

SGA, 18GA,. 25GA, 27GA, 35GA, and 4ALA have shale for roof ro.ck and

underclay for a floor rock.

Table 7 lists the chemical analyses for six coal samples reported

by Johnson (1946), Gildersleeve (1946), or Nelson (1945) for the No. 4

coal bed. The range in ash content is from 2.0 to 13.5 percent; total

sulfur content is from 0.5 to 1.1 percent; and calorific value is from

13,210 to 14,830 Btu per pound.

Chemic~l data for our thirteen samples of the No. 4 coal are given

below. The geom~tric means are in parentheses. Ultimate and

proximate analyses were not performed on two of the samples (4GA and

36GA); however, U.S. Geological Survey analyses were made on all

samples.

Ash

1.6 to 24.0 (4.17) percent

Total Sulfur

0.49 to 1.07 (0.67) percent

Pyritic Sulfur

0.01 to 0.41 (0.12) percep.t

. Organic Sulfur

0.29 to 0. 72 (0.44),percent

44

Free-Swelling Index 1.0 to 9.0 (6.0)

Calorific Value

11,340 to 15,190 (14,320) Btu per pound

Five analyses presented by Johnson (1946), Gildersleeve (1946) and

Nelson (1945) for six samples from Lookout Mountain yield a calculated

rank of low-volatile bituminous: one sample (H212) is medium-volatile

bituminous.

All of our samples have a calculated rank of low-volatile

bituminous, except 25GA; its calculated rank is medium-volatile

bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 3 This coal bed is located near the bottom of the Vandever Member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation and in Georgia is found only in the vicinity of the Durham Mines on Lookout Mountain. Johnson stated that the No. 3 bed was the thickest coal bed on Lookout Mountain; that it had been the most consistent producer in northwest Georgia coal fields; and that it consisted of two coal benches separated by a shale parting. We collected three coal samples of the No. 3 coal (13GA, 16GA, and 17GA) from Lookout Mountain. The range in thickness of the coal bed 'at the collection sites is from 13 1/2 to 22 inches. Both the roof and floor rock are shale except in one area where the floor rock is underclay. Chemical data from Johnson (1946) for four samples from the No. 3 bed are shown in Table 7. These data show that the ash content ranges from 2.6 to 9.5 percent; total sulfur content from 0.6 to 1.5 percent; and calorific value from 13,660 to 14,770 Btu per pound.

45

Analytical data from three samples collected during the present

study are given below. The range of values is followed by the

geometric mean (in parentheses).

Ash

2.2 to 7.4 (3.70) percent

Total Sulfur

0.60 to 0.80 (0.70) percent

Pyritic Sulfur

0.09 to 0.23 (0.15) percent

Organic Sulfur

0.49 to 0.59 (0.52) percent

Free-Swelling Index 7.0 to 9.0 (8.0)

Calorific Value

14,150 to 15,170 (14,740) Btu per pound

Samples 13GA and 16GA have a calculated rank of low-volatile

bituminous. The rank of the three samples presented by Johnson also

is low...,volatile bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 2 The No. 2 coal bed occurs approximately 56 feet above the No. 3 coal bed,in the lower part of the Vandever Member of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation. Johnson found this coal bed to be thin, dirty, erratic in occurrence, and generally less than one foot thick. We collected _two samples (14GA and 15GA) ..from this coal bed on Lookout Mo1,1ntain. These samples are from the same site. The first sample, 14GA, represents the upper 9 inches of the No. 2 coal bed; the second sample, 15GA, is from the lower 6 inches of the bed; a 1 inch shale parting separates the samples. The total bed thickness, including the parting, is 16 inches. The floor and roof rocks are shale. The range in chemical data and the geometric mean (in parentheses) for the two samples is given below. The two samples taken together represent the composite chemical composition of the No. 2 coal bed.
46

Ash

11.3 to 21.8 (15. 7) percent

Total Sulfur

3.9 to 4.4 (4.14) percent

Pyritic Sulfur

3.38 to 3.39 (3 .38) percent

Organic Sulfur

0.34 to 0.86 (0 .54) percent

Free-Swelling Index

5.5 to 7.5 (6.5)

Calorific Value

11,350 to 13,140 (12,210) Btu per

pound

Both samples have a calculated rank of low-volatile bituminous.

Coal Bed No. 1

Johnson (1946) stated that the No. 1 coal bed was approximately 60

feet above the No. 2 coal bed near the middle of the Vandever Member

of the Crab Orchard Mountains Formation. Johnson found that the No. 1

coal bed is limited to the small horseshoe-shaped area on Round

Mountain near Durham. He suggested that the coal is thin and

generally is 18 to 20 inches thick; its maximum thickness is about 30

inches.

We collected one sample of this coal (28GA) on Lookout Mountain.

The coal there is 25 inches thick; its roof rock is interlayered shale

and siltstone; the floor rock is shale.

Johnson (Table 7) presents the analyses for three samples

collected from this coal bed. These analyses reveal that the ash

content ranges from 11.7 to 26.8 percent; total sulfur ranges from 1.5

to 3.0 percent; and calorific value ranges from 11,010 to 13,540 Btu

per pound.

Analysis of our sample yielded the following compositional data.

Ash

9.8 percent

Total Sulfur

1.5 percent

47

Pyritic Sulfur

0.06 percent

Organic Sulfur

1.25 percent

Free-Swelling Index 9.0

Calorific Value

13,790 Btu per pound

The calculated rank for the single sample is medium-volatile

bituminous. All of the samples collected and reported by Johnson

indicate a calculated rank of medium-volatile bituminous.

Comparison of Quality of Sand and Lookout Mountains Coal with Other Coal
Goldschmidt (1954) characterized the behavior or geochemical affinity for elements into various subdivisions such as lithophil, chalcophil, and biophil. Lithophil elements are characteristically associated with the silicates (clays, feldspars, micas, quartz), carbonates, and various oxide minerals. For a complete listing and', discussion of minerals identified in coal, the reader should consult O'Gorman and Walker (1972), Mackowsky (1982), Finkelman (1980); or Davis and others (1984h
Silicate, carbonate, and oxide minerals may occur in coal as disseminated grains, in layers, as nodules, or as coatings along cleat surfaces. Their origin may be detrital, diagenetic, post.:..diagenetic alteration, or simply epigenetic. The same occurrence and origin relationships exist for the cha1cophil elements.
it is evident that any comparisons or discussion of geochemical trends, relative quality, and anomalous values are dependent on the' representative nature of the coal samples, that is, the number, distribution, sampling methods, method of analysis, and qu~1ity of the analysis. For many of the coal beds only 1 or 2 samples were
48

collected, and for these only preliminary and general conclusions can be drawn. The following discussions therefore are tentative; they offer a guide to Georgia coal resource characterization and to further research. In this bulletin, we use Goldschmidt's geochemical classification scheme to better understand the geologic and geochemical distribution and concentration of elements in coal at Sand and Lookout Mountains.
Table 8 lists the geometric mean for the lithophil elements as oxides in coal samples from Sand and Lookout Mountains. Also listed for discussion and comparison purposes are the geometric means for 968 bituminous coal samples from the eastern United States (Zubovic and others, 1980), 27 samples from Tennessee (Zubovic and others, 1979), and 20 samples from Alabama (Zubovic and others, 1979). Examination of the concentration values in this table reveals little difference among the Si02, Al203, MgO, K20, Fe203, MnO, and Ti02 values. There are differences in the CaO and Na20, and P205 contents for some of the samples, especially between those of this study and Alabama. The CaO concentration in samples of this study and Tennessee samples is notably higher than for bituminous coal samples from the eastern United States and those samples from Alabama.
Higher CaO values are present in the No. 6, No. 5, No. 4, and No. 3 coal beds. The Fe203 content for coal beds No. 8, No. 6, and No. 2 is also ~igher than the overall geometric mean for the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples. The P205 concentration for the No. 9, No. 6, No. 2, and No. 1 coal beds is unusually high when compared with the overall geometric mean for the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples.
49

Table 8.

Geometric means for lithophil elements (as oxides) in bituminous coal samples from Sand and Lookout Mountains, eastern U.S. , Tennessee, and Alabama. All values in weight percent of coal-ash. Some values have been rounded.

Oxide

Sand and Lookout Mountains 47 samples

968 samples Eastern U.S. (Zubovic and others, 1980)

27 samples Tennessee (Zubovic and others, 197 9)

20 samples Alabama (Zubovic and others, 1979)

SiOz
A1 2o3
CaO MgO
KFNe2ao22oo3
MnO
TiOz
Pzo5

38. 24.
1.61 0.92 0.24 1. 77 14. 0.02
0.99 0.21

41. 23.
1.2 0.76 0.38 1.6 12. 0.02 1.1 0.03

39. 25.
2.8 0.71 0.28 1.7 12. 0.02 1.2 0.43

48.
30. 0.97 0.83 0.46 1.7 11. 0.01 1.5 0.51

50

Table 9 lists the mean content of minor and trace lithophil elements, on a whole-coal and as-received basis. Examination of this table provides the following relationships when the geometric means of bituminous coal samples from Sand and Lookout Mountains, eastern United States, Tennessee, and Alabama are compared:
* Beryllium, cerium, chrominum, europium, lanthanum,
scandium, samerium, terbium, and yttrium have about the same concentrations in Sand and Lookout Mountains coal as in the eastern United States, Tennessee, and Alabama coal.
* The concentration of hafnium in Sand and Lookout Mountains
coal is about the same as that in eastern United States bituminous and Tennessee coal. Hafnium concentration in the Alabama coal is about twice as much as in Sand and Lookout Mountains coal.
* Strontium is about three times higher in the Sand and
--,-Lookout Mountains samples-than --in eastern United States samples.
* Barium, uranium, and vanadium in the Sand and Lookout
Mountains coal is about the same as in eastern United States and Tennessee samples.
* Cesium and lithium concentrations in the Sand and Lookout
Mountains samples are about the same as in eastern United States samples; boron is about two times lower in the Sand and Lookout Mountains coal when compared to eastern United States coal samples.
* Cesium and lithium concentrations in Sand and Lookout
Mountains samples are twice as high as in the Tennessee samples; neodymium is about the same in both the Sand and
51

Table 9.

Geometric means for lithophil minor- and trace-elements in bituminous
coal samples from Sand and Lookout Mountains, eastern u.s., Tennessee,
and Alabama. All values in parts-per-million on whole-coal, as-received
basis. Some values have been rounded.

Element

Sand and Lookout Mountains 47 samples

968 samples Eastern U.S. (Zubovic and others, 1980)

27 samples Tennessee (Zubovic and others, 1979)

20 samples Alabama ( Zubov ic and others, 197 9)

B

8.

Ba

so.

Be

1.5

Ce

17.

Cr

12.

Cs

0.8

Eu

0.35

Ge

1.3

Hf

o.s

La

9.

Li

14.

Nd

9.

Rb

19.

Sc

2.9

Sm

1.6

Sr

164.

Tb

0.28

Th

1.7

u

0.6

v

15.

w

0.09

y

7.

Zr

15.

22. 57.
2.2 12. 14.
0.64 0.24 0.83 0.42 6.8 14. 1.9
3.1 0.94 62. 0.20
1.1 18.
7.5 22.

35. 36.
1.1 11.
7.4 0.42 0.22 0.86 0.47 5.6 6.5 5.7
2. 1.1 47. 0.18
0. 78 9.3
s.
9.9

30. 160.
2.4 25. 19.
1.4 0.46 2.6 1.1 14. 35. 18.
4.6 2.1 150. 0.31
1.8 29.
11. 49.

52

Lookout Mountains and Tennessee samples; and barium is three times lower in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples than in Tennessee coal. * Neodymium, cesium, germanium, lithium, vanadium, and uranium are two to three times lower in the Sand and Lookout Mountains sample than in Alabama samples. *Strontium concentration is about the same in both the Alabama and the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples. * Boron is four times lower in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples than in Tennessee and Alabama samples. * Zirconium concentration is about the same in Sand and Lookout Mountains and eastern United States samples; Tennessee coal contains slightly less than the Sand and Lookout Mountains coal; in Alabama the zirconium concentration is three times greater than in Sand. and . ______ ---- -------------Lookout Mountainssam:ples;------------Table 10 lists the geometric means of some chalcophi1 elements. These elements normally occur in their greatest concentrations in sulfide minerals such as pyrite, marcasite, sphalerite, greigite, galena, chalcopyrite, and pyrrhotite; all these have been previously identified in coal. Examination of Table 10 reveals the following differences and similarities between the Sand and Lookout Mountains coal and those geometric means of samples of eastern United States, Tennessee, and Alabama coal (Zubovic and others, 1979):
* The concentration of silver, cobalt, copper, mercury,
nickel, lead, and selenium in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples is about the same as in eastern United States, Tennessee, and Alabama coal samples. Copper and
53

Table 10.

Geometric means for chalcophil trace elements in bituminous coal samples from Sand and Lookout Mountains, eastern U.S., Tennessee, and Alabama. All values in part-per-million, whole-coal, as-received basis. Some values have been rounded.

Element

Sand and Lookout Mountains 47 samples

968 samples Eastern U.S. (Zubovic and others, 1980)

27 samples Tennessee (Zubovic and others, 1979)

20 samples Alabama (Zubovic and others, 1979)

Ag

0.05

As

13.

Cd

0.05

Co

8.

Cu

14.

Ga

3.2

Hg

0.14

Ni

15.

Pb

6.

Sb

0.78

Se

2.3

Zn

12.

0.02 8. 0.09 5.2 14. 5.2 0.10 12. 6.8 0.17 2.9 13.

0.03 7.4 0.05 4.4 13. 2. 0.08 6.9 4. 0.48
2. 7.5

0.08 17.
0.07 5.5 21. 6.9 0.18 11. 5.2 1.1 3.4 7.6

54

mercury contents are slightly higher in the Alabama samples

than Sand and Lookout Mountains samples and the Tennessee

samples contain slightly less.
* Arsenic concentration of the Sand and Lookout Mountains

samples is slightly higher than in eastern United States

and Tennessee samples and are about the same as Alabama

samples.
* Cadmium content of Sand and Lookout Mountains, Tennessee,

and Alabama samples is about the same; the eastern United

States coal samples contain about twice as much cadmium as

the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples.

.0: {""'

* Gallium concentration is about the same in Sand and Lookout

Mountains, Tennessee, and eastern United States coal

samples; Sand and Lookout Mountains coal contain two times

...,.

I

less gallium than does Alabama coal.

* Antimony content in Sand and Lookout Mountains toaris

about four times greater than in eastern United States

coal; about twice as much as Tennessee coal; and slightly

less than Alabama coal.
* Zinc concentration in Sand and Lookout Mountains coal is

about the same as in eastern United States coal; z~nc in

Tennessee and Alabama coal is slightly less than irt Sand

and Lookout Mountains coal.

A review of the tables in Information Circular 75 (Coleman and

others, 1985) reveals what appear to be anomalously highergeomet!ic.

mean concentrations, when compared to all samples from Sand and

Lookout Mountains, of some lithophil and chalcophil elements, sulfur

species, and ash contents for the following coal beds.

55

No. 1 .Si02, CaO, MgO, P205, boron, barium, bromine,

fluorine, strontium, zirconium, organic sulfur

No. 2

P205, silver, arsenic, barium, cadmium, copper,

mercury, molybdenum, antimony, selenium, zinc,

pyritic sulfur, and total sulfur

No. 4

CaO, chlorine

No. 5

CaO, chlorine

No. SA Molybdenum

No. 6

CaO, Fe203, chlorine and molybdenum

No. 8

Fe203, chlorine, arsenic, mercury, lead and

strontium

No~ 9A Boron, barium, cadmium, cesium, fluorine, mercury,

lanthanum, lithium, niobium, neodymium nickel,

lead, rubidium, tin, tantalum, terbium, vanadium,

tungsten, zinc, zirconium, ash, and organic sulfur

Nd.lO

Si02, arsenic, boron, bromine, cerium, chromium,

cesium, gallium, hafnium, mercury, lanthanum,

lithium, niobium, lead, scandium, selenium, tin,

tantalum, thorium, uranium, vanadium, zirconium

As more samples are collected and analyzed fr6in these coal beds

the-anomalous chemical values are likely to change or disappear.

Coal Utilization Parameters During the utilization of coal there are particular coal quality characteristics that are important. These include the alkali element content, concentration of chlorine, phosphorus, and sulfur.,

56

No. 1

SiOz, CaO, MgO, PzOs, boron, barium,

bromine, fluorine, strontium, zirconium, organic

sulfur

No. 2

PzOs, silver, arsenic, barium, cadmium,

copper, mercury, molybdenum, antimony, selenium,

zihc, pyritic sulfur, and total sulfur

No. 4

CaO, chlorine

No. 5

CaO, chlorine

No. SA

Molybdenum

No. 6

CaO, Fe203, chlorine and molybdenum

No. 8

Fez03, chlorine, arsenic, mercury, lead, and

strontium

No. 9A

Boron, barium, cadmium, cesium, fluorine, mercury,

lanthanum, lithium, niobium, neodymium nickel,

lead, rubidium, tin, tantalum, terbium, vanadium,

tungsten,-zinc,- zirconium, ash, and organic sulfur

No. 10

SiOz, arsenic, boron, bromine, cerium, chromium,

cesium, gallium, hafnium, mercury, lanthanum,

lithium, niobium, lead, scandium, selenium, tin,

tantalum, thorium, uranium, vanadium, zirconium

As more samples are collected and analyzed from these coal beds,

the anomalous chemical values are likely to change or disappear.

Coal Utilization Parameters During the utilization of coal there are particular coal quality characteristics that are important. These include the alkali element content, concentrations of chlorine, phosphorus, and sulfur,

57

forms-of-sulfur, ash content, calorific value, ash-fusion temperatures, free-swelling index, and the rank of the coal. In many cases these coal quality properties are mutually dependent on each other. In some cases their importance is governed by the planned end use of the coal and whether cleaning and blending are contemplated prior to use.
A voluminous literature exists on the role played by the alkali elements in coal ash in power plant combustion chambers. This literature will not be reviewed. Sodium and potassium are reported to cause fouling in power plant boilers and, if their concentration exceeds 6 percent, they contribute to slagging problems in the furnaces (Bryers and Taylor, 1976). The total alkali element concentration in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples is about 2 percent. This is comparable to the values in samples from adjacent states and the eastern United States (Table 8), and it is much less than 6 percent.
Both chlorine and phosphorus have been reported to contribute to boiler deposits and corrosion associated with power plant combustion (Ely and Barnhardt, 1963; Crossley, 1952; Kear and Menzies, 1952). Crossley (1948) stated that coal containing less than 0.15 percent chlorine could be used with little combustion difficulty. Gluskoter (1967), in studies of the Illinois Basin Herrin (No.6) coal bed, reported chlorine values which range from 0.00 to 0.65 percent. The geometric mean value for chlorine in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples, on whole-coal basis, is 0.07 percent, much less than 0.15 percent given by Crossley. For phosphorus the geometric mean value, on coal-ash basis, is 0.21 percent in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples.
58

Sand and Lookout Mountains coal 1s low-sulfur as indicated by the geometric mean value (0.98) for all samples studied in this investigation (Table 11). The total sulfur content ranges from 0.50 to 5.30 percent. This total sulfur content for Sand and Lookout Mountains coal is less than the total sulfur content for the eastern United States, Tennessee, and Alabama coal samples (Table 11).
The pyritic and organic sulfur contents of Sand and Lookout Mount.ains coal are also low. The geometric mean of pyritic sulfur content 1s 0.25 percent. When compared with other samples, only the pyritic sulfur content in Tennessee coal is slightly lower. Organic sulfur in Sand and Lookout Mountains coal 1s 0.51 percent and is less than in the other similar samples (Table 11).
The Sand and Lookout Mountains coal samples are characterized by a low ash content; the geometric mean is 7.53 percent. This is much lower than the eastern United States and Alabama coal samples. Tennessee coal _contains slightly less ash. -This low ash content is irrrr:iortant because it determines the value of the coal and the selection of pulverizing and cleaning equipment.
The geometric mean calorific value for Sand and Lookout Mountains coal is 13,260 Btu per pound. Only the calorific value of some Tennessee samples is higher. There are some Sand and Lookout Mountains samples which contain more than 15,000 Btu per pound on an as-received basis. Those samples that have relatively low Btu per pound may represent samples collected in less than ideal circumstances.
Ash-fusion temperatures are important in assessing the clinkering tendencies of the ash of the coal. The ash-fusion temperature of the Sand and Lookout Mountains coal samples are similar to those of other
59

Table 11.

Comparison of important coal-quality parameters (geometric mean)in coal utilization for bituminous coal samples from Sand and Lookout Mountains, eastern U.S., Tennessee, and Alabama. Values are on whole-coal, as received basis.

Coal-quality parameter
Sulfur (percent)
Total Pyritic Organic
Ash percent
Calorific value (Btu/pound)
Ash Fusion Temperatures:
Defor)liat ion. Softening Fluid
Free Swelling

Sand and Lookout Mountains 45 sam!!les
0.98 0.25 0.51 7.53 13,260
1302C 1353 1380 6.0

850 samples Eastern U.S. (Zubovic and others, 19802
1.6 0.71 0. 79 9.3 12,560
124ooc 1270 1370 4.5

27 samples Tennessee (Zubo~ic and others, 19792
1.2 0.24 0.73 5.2 13,510
1330C 1380 1420 5.0

20 samples Alabama (Zubovic and others, 19792
1.4 0.66 0.67 11.8 12,660
1260C 1340 1410
5.0

60

Appalachian and eastern United States coal samples. These

temperatures are listed for specific coal beds in Information Circular

75 (Coleman and others, 1985).

The free-swelling index of Sand and Lookout Mountains coal samples

is about 6.0 (geometric mean). The range is 1.0 to 9.0. These values indicate th.at the Sand and Lookout; Mo1,1ntains samples hav~ some of the

highest free-swelling index values of any coal :ln the ea'stern United

States, and thus are some of the highest quality metallurgical or

metallurgical bl_end coals in the United States. This is especially

relevant when the low-ash and low-sulfur contents are considered.

Table 12 shows the calculated rank of each coal bed on Sand and
".
Lookout Mountains. Data are derived from our study and from Johnson

(1946), Gildersleeve 0946), and Nelson (1945). Th:l.s table reveals

that all samp~es from Sand 'Mountain have a calculated coal rank of

medium-volatile

b

i

t

u

m

i

n

o

u

s

.
.

.,..,_,.

S

a

m

pl

e

s

collected

and

analyzed

frOlil

Lookout Mountain show-that the youngest coal bed, No. 1~ is

medium-volatile bituminous in rank. Data from this study and from

Johnson (1946), Gildersleeve (1946), and Nelson (1945) reveal that the

predominant rank of the underlying No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, and No. 5 coal

beds is low-volatile bituminous. The rank changes to medium-volatile

bituminous in No. SA and then changes back to low-volatile bituminous

in our one sample of the No. 6 coal bed. Johnson, Gildersleeve, and

Nelson's rank for the No. 6 is medium-volatile bituminous.

The rank for coal bed (No. 10) on Lookout Mountain is

medium-volatile bituminous. This rank is substantiated by our study

and by analyses from the previous workers. We conclude that the rank

changes with stratigraphic (time) position within the coal-bearing

61

Table 12.

Calculated rank of coal beds on Lookout and Sand Mountains, by coal bed, Numbers in parenthesis are the number of samples having that rank, PaDr formula used in calculation. Abbreviations are Lvb = low-volatile bituminous, Mvb =medium-volatile bituminous, and HvAb =high-volatile A bituminous.

Lookout Mountain

Sand Mountain

Coal Bed No.

This Study

Johnson, Gildersleeve,
and Nelson

This Study

Johnson
Gildersl~eve,
and Nels.on

l

Mvb(l)

Mvb(3)

2

Lvb(l)

3

Lvb{2)

Lvb(4)

Mvb(O

4

Lvb(lO)

Lvp(S)

Mvb( 1)

Mvb(l)

5

Lvb(2)

SA

Mvb(7)

6

Lvb(l)

Mvb(l)

6A

Mvb(l)

7

8

9

Mvb(2)

9A

10

Mvb(6)

HvAb

11

-.,..
Mvb(3) Mvb(3) Mvb(3) Mvb(l)

Mvb(3) Mvb(3)
Mvb(l) Mvb(l)

62

sequence. The low-volatile bituminous coal beds are in the middle of the stratigraphic section on Lookout Mountain. More research LS needed to confirm this relationship.

'

Coal Environmental Parameters

From an environmental viewpoint the most important coal quality

characteristics are the sulfur and ash contents and the forms-of-

sulfur. Recently, however, more attention has been focused on the t-race' elements in coal. These include such "environmentally ~ensitive"

e-lements as arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel, iead,

. "

f

.

antimony, selenium, and zinc. Many of these elements have either

t:halcophil or organic affinities.

Dicussions about the concentrations of these elements in Sand and

Lookout Mountains coal are covered previously in this bulletin~

'

.

.

Possible explanations for the unusual concentrations of the

..
"envirorimentally sensitive" elements in some coal beds are evident

when one examines the' number of coal samples represented by the

analyses for a particular coal bed, the ash content, and the pyritic

-~ulfur concentration. For example, the No. 2 coal bed contains

tinusua1ly high values of most of . the "environmentally sensitive"

elements. This bed is represented by a single sample even though two analyses are reported. Moreover, the pyritic sulfur content of this coal bed is about 3.38 percent and the ash content is about 15 percent. These values are much higher than the geometric mean values for all samples analyzed in this study. There are eight samples and analyses representing the No. 10 coal bed. However, there are unusual concentrations of th'e "envirorimentally sensitive" chalcophil elements. The analyses in Information Circular 75 (C-oleman and other, 1985)

63

indicate that some of the samples have very high ash and pyritic sulfur values. As a first approximation, one could assume that the higher concentrations are related to the ash and pyritic sulfur contents. Coal bed No. 8 has higher than average concentrations of the chalcophil elements and also has some samples which are high in total sulfur and pyritic sulfur contents.
CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions result from this investigation of the quality of coal underlying Sand and Lookout Mountains in Georgia and Alabama.
* Coal underlying Sand Mountain has a rank of medium-volatile
bituminous.
* Coal underlying Lookout Mountain has a ~ank from
medium-volatile to low-volatile bituminous.
* Coal underlying Sand and Lookout Mountain~ contains low
sulfur. The pyritic and organic sulfur contents are very low for many of the coal beds and coal samples analyzed during the current study. Much of the pyritic sulfur might be removed in routine beneficiation processes, yielding a cleaner fuel.
* Sand and Lookout Mountains coal can be categorized a~ low
in ash content. The geometric mean for all samples is less than 8 percent ash on an as-received basis.
* Sand and Lookout Mountains coal is some of the highest
quality metallurgical or metallurgical blend coal in the Appalachian Basin and in the United States. This is supported by a free..-swelling index which ranges from 1 to 9 with a geometric mean value of 6.
64

* The calorific value of Sand and Lookout Mountains coal is greater than. 13,000 Btu per pound on an as-received basis. Some samples have calorific values of 14,00{) to 15,000.Btu per pound indicating that some of this co.al :has the highest Btu per pound values in the United States.
*The major lithophil oxides such as Si02, Al203, MgO, K20, Fe203, MnO, Ti02, and P205 in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samp.les show only slight differences in concentration when compared to values for eastern United States, Tennessee and Alabama.
The CaO concentration in Sand and Lookout Mountains and Tennessee samples is notably higher than in eastern United States and Alabama coal-samples.
There are notable Na20 and P205 concentration differences between Sand and Lookout Mountains samples and Alabama samples
., Differences in oxide and chlorine contents exist between individual coal beds on Sand and .Lookout Mountains when compared to the mean for all Sand and Lookout Mountains samples. These coal beds and their anomalously different oxides and elements include:
No. 1--Si02, MgO and P205 No. 2--P205 and Fe203 No. 3--CaO No. 4--CaO and chlorine No. 5--CaO and chlorine No. 6--cao, Fe203 and P2o5 No. 8--Fe203 No. 9--P205 No. 10--Si02
65

The concentration of the minor and trace lithophil elements, when compared. with elemental concentrations from eastern United States, Tennesse~, and Alabama coal samples, have the following similarities and differences:
* Beryllium, cerium, chromium, cesium, europium, germanium,
lanthanum, lutetium, scandium, samarium, terbium, yttrium, and ytterbium concentrations in Sand and Lookout Mountain~ coal samples are essentially the same as those in eastern United States, Tennessee, and Alabama samples. This suggests similar source area or depositional processes for the coal beds.
* The concentration of barium, gallium, germanium, hafniUm,
lithium, niobium, neodymium, uranium, and zirconium in Alabama coal is at least twice that in Sand and Lookout Mountains samples.
* Strontium concentration in Sand and Lookout Mountains coal
samples is about the same as Alabama samples, but three times greater than in eastern United States and Tennessee samples.
* Boron concentration in eastern United States, Tennessee,
and Alabama samples is more than twice the boron concentration in the Sand and Lookout Mountains samples.
* Fluorine concentration is about the same in Sand and
Lookout Mountains, eastern United States, and Tennessee samples, but Alabama coal has almost twice as much fluorine as the Sand and Lookout Mountains coal.
66

The trace chalcophil elements inthe Sand and Lookout Mountains

samples show the following cortceritt'ation patterns:

* The overall concentration of silver, arsenic, cob~lt,

'

.

mercury, nickel, lead, selenium, and zinc in Sand and

Lookout Mountains samples is only slightly different frOm

values in other coal from .the eastern United 'States,

Tennessee, and Alabama.
* Cadmium and gallium contents are about the same or less

than reported values for similar coal in eastern United

States, Tennessee, and Alabama.
* Antimony concentration is unusually high in the Sand and''

"'

Lookout Mountains samples when: compared to other bituminous

coals.

~:.:

* Coal beds No. 2, No. 8, No'. 9A, and No. 10 contain high

..-..r :.

condmtratiorts of the chalcophil elements when compared to the overall geotnetri2 me'ari. for all Sand and Lookout

Mountains samples. This is especially evident for the..

elements arsenic, antimony, cadmium, mercury, lead,

selenium, and zLnc.

Lastly, depositional environments in which Sand and Lookout

Mountains coal accumulated likely changed through time as indicated by

the variation of the lithologies which enclose them, by the presence

of marine horizons, by the variable sulfur and ash contents, major,

minor and trace element concentrations, and by the shape of the coal

beds and enclosing lithologies.

It is probable that these environments were similar to those

described by Milici and various other workers, and likely ranged from

barrier bar complexes to fluvial and alluvial systems.

67

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to e~p:ress O'!lr appreciation to the many land owners and coal company personnel on Sand and Lookout Mountains for allowing us access to their property and mines to collect the coal samples reported here. We wish to thank David A. Brackett, Ch:t:"is Maples, David Knight, an.d J. C. Lumsden who helped collect many of the coal samples. Within the USGS, we are indebted to the following chemists for analyzing the samples: D.W. Golightly, R. Moore, L. Winters, Joseph L. Harris, W.B. Crandell, D.M. McKnown, R.B. Vaughn, S. Danahey, J. Storey, M. Coughlin, Harry J. Rose, Jr., E. Dwornik, G. Sellers, B. Scott, R. Johnson, A. Woodside, S. Fleming, J. Kane, L. Rocke, 1;... Mei, P.A. Baedecker, C.A. Palmer, H.T. Millard, Jr., S. Lasater, and B. Keaten. The processing of the analytical data by Linda J. Bragg, Kathleen K. Krohn; A.L. Medlin, and Pat Kerr h appreciated. We acknowledge Robin Sut:ton and Peggy Foose for the drafting of the figures and Melba Berry, Sara Banks, and Connie Gilbert for typing the Jitanul'!cript. The thorough reviews of: the manuscript by F .0. Simon and John Maberry and the art work of Kimberly Crawford are much appreciated.
68

. . ~

' :.

REFERENCES

Albrighton, J.A., 1955, Sedimentary ,features of the Sewanee

Congl9m..e. .ra.t~ e:

Emory University Unpub. M.S.

. . ..

.',;;, .-; ~:;.

thesi~,

Atlanta,
"

Georgia .

Allen, A.T., Jr., 1955, Some depositionaJ features of Pennsylvanian

. strata i~ Georgi~ Cabs.): Gepl. Soc. America B~ll., v . 66_, no.

.. . "~, ~, ; ..

.

; :....

.... 'f"

' j

12, pt. 2 ' p. 16 85

Averitt, Paul, 1961, Coal reserves of the United States--a progress

report,_,l~Il:uary 1,_ .1960:. U.~. G~o_l., Suryey Bull. 1136, 116 p.

~"';._.'JJ. ',f:':J~:~:,

~!)~~.,'.,rr ~'

0'

'

1'

. ,

,

,

,'

,

,

1969, Coal resources of the United States, January 1, 1967:

.-~----:- ,.

::. " '

'

U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 1275, 116 p.

,~.--.,: ,_19?].! ._Coa,l resources of th.e United State.s~ January 1, }.9.74:....

U.S. Geol. Survey Bul1.)~17, 13.1 p.

,
\

, B;ryers ,_R.W., and T_~ylor, '1;'. E.,, 19]6_, An exam~nation _of the ,,.

' ~e-l~:F~ons/lip be.twe,en ~~1). .ch~istr:y and fusion temperature in.

~a,r~~~~;~?al siz_~ and &ravity, fractions using polynomial

.. regress,ion analysis: Transactions of Amer. Soc. Mechanical

;. .

i

Engineers, paper No. 75-WA/CD-3.

Butt:_s~. Charles, an9- Gil9-.ersleeve, B.G., 1948, Geology and mineral

~.:Y. :,.:;- \~.~-

~- J

~-



~





,

,



resources o~ the Paleozoic area in northwest Georgia: Georgia

,Geol. Survey Bull. 54, 176 p~

. Ca.mpb:ell. ~'

M.R., 1908,

,,

. ~ ~ . '.

Coal . fields

of

the United

Sta~~s:

U.S.
."J.,

G'e. ol.

. Survey Map, scale 1:7,000,000.

Chen, C.S. and Goodell, H.G., 1964, The petrology of Lower

P~nnsylvanian Sewanee. Sa~dstone, Lookout Mountain, Alabama and

'

'I



l

~ ' ....

~' ' ,' ..

Georgia.:. Jour . Sed. Petrology, v. 34, no. 1, p. 46-72.
'

69

Chowns, T.M., edito~, 1972, Sedimentary environments in the Pa~eozoic

rocks of northwest Georgia--Georgia Geol. Soc. Guidebook 7th Ann.

Field Trip: Georgia Geol. ~~rvey Guideboo~ 11, 100 p.

Cohen, A.C., 1959, Simplified estimators for the norm~l distr~b~tion

when samples are singly censored or truncated: Technometrics, v.

1, no. 3, p. 217-237.

Coleman, S.L., Crawford, T.J., and Medlin, J.H., 198~, Anatyses of

I

.

coal from northwest Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Info. Circ. 75.

Connor, J.J., Keith, J.R., and Anderson, B.M., 1~76, Trac~-metal

variation in soils and sagebrush in the Powder River :&~si~,

Wyoming ~nd Montana: U.S. Geol. Survey, Jour. Research, v. 4, no.

1, P 49-59.

Cramer, H.R., 1979, Penn~y~vanian stratigraphy of northwe~t Geor~ia:

U.S. Geol. Prof. Paper 1110-A-L, p. H19-H37.

Cressler, C.W., 1963, Ceolo~y and ground-water resoure~s of Catoosa

County,'Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Info. Circ. 28, 19 p.

_______ 1964a, Geology and ground-water resources 9 ~he Paleozoi~

rock area~ Chattooga County, Georgia: Geor~ia Geot. Surv~y Inf.

Circ. 27, 14 p.

------- i964b, Geology and ground-water resou~ces of Walker County,

Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey lnf. Circ. 79, 15 p.

------- 1970, Geology and ground-water resources of Floyd and Polk

Counties, Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey In. Circ. ;3~, 95 p.

Croft, M.G., 1964, Geology and ground-water resource~ of ~ade County,

Georgia: Georgia Geo1. Survey !~. Circ. 26, 17 p.

Crossley, H.E., 1948, Depos~ts on the external heating surfaces o~

water-tube boilers: Transactions Inst. Chem. Eng., v. 2p, pp.

131-138.

70

., ,,

..,.....___ H.E., 1952, External boil~r d_eposits: J . Inst~ Fu~L;:v<;''25,

pp. 221-225.

Culbertson, W.C., 1963, Pennsylvanian nomenclature in.northwest

Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey_Professional Paper 450-E, p. E51-E57.

Davis, A., Russell, S.J., Rimmer~ S.M., and Yeakel, J.D., 1984, Some

genetic implications of silica and aluminosilicates in peat and

coal: Coal Geol., v. 3, no,. 4,,:p. 293-314.

Ely, F.G., and Barnhardt, D.H., ) 963, Coal ash-its effect on boiler

availability:

in

Chemistry

of

coal

utilization, .

ed.

H.H.

Lpwry. ,''

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, supp. v. 1963, p. 820.

' I

.

'

Fetm, J.C., Milici, R.C., and Eason, J.E., 1972, Carboniferous

depositional environments in th.e Cumberland Plateau of southern.

Tennessee and northern Alabama: Tennessee Div.Geology Rept. Inv.

No. 33, 32 P.

Finkelman, R.B., 1980, Modes of occurrence of trace elements in ~oal:

U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Rept. OF-81-99, 301 p.

Gildersleeve, B.G., 1946, Minerals and structural materials of the

Hales Bar and Chickamauga Reservoir areas: Tenn. Valley

Authority, U.S. Department C()IIll)lerce, Regional Products.Research

Division, Rept. No. 4, 54 p.

Gluskoter, H.J., 1967, Chlorine in coals of the Illinois Basin:.

Transactions, Soc. of Mining Engin., Ameri. Inst. of Mining

Engin., v. 238, p. 373-379.

Goldschmidt, V.M., 1954, Geochemistry: Oxford at the Clarendon Press,

London E.C.4, 730 p.

Hayes,G.W., 1891, The overthrust faults of the southet:n.Appalachians:

'

.

Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 2, no. 1, p. 141-154 .

71

_____ 1892, report on the geology of northeastern Alabama and adjacent portions of Georgia and T~nnessee: Alabama Geo1. Survey Bull. 4, 85 p. and U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Folio 19, 4 p.
----- 1894, Description of the Ringgold quadrangle (GeorgiaTennessee): U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Folio 2, 3 p.
_____ 1895, Description of the Stevenson sheet (Alabama-Tenneessee): U.S. Geol. Atlas, Folio 19, 4 p.
_____ 1902, Description of the Rome quadrangle (Georgia-Alabama): U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Atlas, Folio 78, 6 p.
Johnson, V.R., 1946, Coal deposits on Sand and Lookout Mountains, Dade and Walker Counties, Georgia: U.S. Geol. Survey, Preliminary Map, scale 1:48,000.
Kear~ R.W. and Menzies, R.M., 1952, Chlorine in coal: Its occurrence and behavior during combustion and carbonization: BCURA Monthly Bull., v. 20, No. 2, pp. 53-65.
Keystone Coal Manual, 1980, Seams, descriptions, and analyses of Georgia coal: McGraw-Rill Mining Publications, New York, N.Y., p. 495.
Mackowsky, M.-Th, 1982, Minerals and trace elements occurring in coal: in Stach;.s Textbook of Coal Petrology, 3rd ed., Gebruder Bontraeger, Berlin, Stuttgart, 535 p.
Maynard, T.P., 1912, A report on the limestones and cement materials of north Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Bull. 27, 2 93 p.
McCallie, S.W., 1904, A preliminary report on the coal deposits of Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Bull. 12, 121 p.
McKee, E.D., Crosby, E.J., coordinators, 1975, Paleotectonic investigations of the Pennsylvanian System in the United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 853, 3 parts: pt. 1, 349 p.; pt. 2, 192 p.; pt. 3, plates. 72

McLemore, W.H., and Hurst, V.J., 1970, The carbonate rocks in the Coosa Valley area, Georgia: .Technical Assistance Project, U.S. Department of Commerce, 170 p.
Miesch, A.T., 1967, Methods o:f computation for estimating geochemical abundance: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 574-B, 15 p.
Milici, R.C., 1974, Stratigraphy and depositional envi~onme~ts of Upper Mississippian and Lower Pennsylvanian.rocks in. the southern Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee, in Briggs, Garrett, ed., Carboniferous of the southeastern United States: Geol. Soc . America Spec. Paper 148, p. 115-133.
Nelson, W.A., 1945, Analyses o-f .T~nnessee co~ls (including Georgia): U.S. Bureau of Mines Technical Paper 671, 243 p.
O'Gorman, J.V., and Walker, P.L., 1972, Mine.ral matter and trace
elements in U.S. coals: Officeof Coal Research, u.s. Dept.
Interior, Research and Dev . Report, Interim Report No. 2, 184 p.
Parr, s.w., 1928, The classification of coal: The University of
Illinois Experiment Station, Bull. 180 Renshaw, E.W., 1951, Pennsylvanian sediments in northwest Georgia:
Emory University Unpub. M.S. thesis, Atlanta, Georgia. Schlee, J.S., 1963, Early Pennsylvanian currents in the southern
Appalachian Mountains: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 74, no. 12, p. 1439-1451. Shearer, H.K., 1912, Report on the slate deposits of Georgia: Georgia Geol. Surv. Bull. 34. Shotts, R.Q., 1957, The structure of.a portion of Lookout Mountain in Alabama: Alabama Acad . Sci. Jour., v. 28, p. 62-68~ Smith, R.W., 1931, Shales and brick clays of Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Bull. 45, 348 p.
73

Spencer, J.W., 1893, The Paleozoic group; the geology of the ten counties of northwestern Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey, 406 p.
Stearns, R.G., and Mitchum, R.M., Jr., 1962, Pennsylvanian rocks of southern Applachians, in Pennsylvanian System in the United States--A symposium: Tulsa, Okla., Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologist.
Sullivan, J.W., 1942, The geology of the Sand-Lookout Mountain area, northwest Georgia: Georgia Geol. Survey Inf. Circ. 15, 68 p.
Swanson, V.E., and Huffman, Claude, Jr., 1976, Guidelines for sample collection and analytical methods used in U.S. Geological Survey for determining chemical composition of coal: U.S. Geol. Surv. Circ. 735, 11 p.
Thomas, W.A., 1972, Mississippian stratigraphy of Alabama: Alabama Geol. Survey Mon. 12, 121 p.
Troxell, J.R., 1946, Exploration of Lookout Mountain and Sand Mountain coal deposits, Dade and Walker Counties, Georgia: U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 3960, 10 p.
u.s. Bureau of Mines, 1967, Methods of analyzing and testing coal and
coke: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bull. 638, 82 p., 50 figures.
u.s. Bureau of Mines, 1977, Demonstrated coal reserve base of the
United States on January 1, 1976: U.S. Bur. Mines Mineral Industry Surveys for 1977. U.S. Department of Energy, 1981, Demonstrated reserve base of coal in
the United States of January 1, 1979: u.s. Department of Energy,
Energy Information Administration, Washington, D.C. Wanless, H.R., 1946, Penns'ylvanian geology of a part of the southern
Appalachian coal field: Geol Soc. America Mem. 13, 162 p.
74

______, 1961, Depositional basins of some widespread Pennsylvanian coal beds in the United States: in Origin and Constitution of Coal, 3rd Confer., Crystal Cliffs, Nova Scotia, 1956; Halifax, Nova Scotia Dept. Mines, p. 94-128.
Wilson, C.W., Jr., Jewell, J.W., and Luther, E.T., 1956, Pennsylvanian geology of the Cumberland Plateau, Tennessee: Tennessee Div. Geology Folio, 21 p.
Zubovic, Peter, Oman, C.L., Bragg, L.J., Coleman, S.L., Rega, N.H., Lemaster, M.E., Rose, H.J., Golightly, D.W., and Puskas, John, 1980, Chemical analyses of 659 coal samples from the eastern United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 80-2003, 513 p.
Zubovic, Peter, Oman, C.L., Coleman, S.L., Bragg, L.J., Kerr, P.T., Kozey, K.M., Simon, F.O., Rowe, J.J., Medlin, J.H., and Walker, Forrest, 1979, Chemical analyses of 617 coal samples from the eastern United States: U.S. Geol. Survey Open-File Report 79-665, 460 p.
75