BENCHMARKING – THE ONLY WAY FORWARD FOR THE

COAL PREPARATION IN INDIA

Prof. Sumantra Bhattacharya, Department of Fuel & Mineral Engineering
Indian School of Mines Dhanbad, <[email protected]>

INTRODUCTION

First benchmarking of coal preparation was possibly taken up about a decade and half ago
covering 27 plants involved in coal export spread over four countries located on four different
continents [1]. The campaign had the following scope broadly addressing the issues vital to
those plants.

Plant performance
Process control systems
Operating costs
Maintenance practices
Quality assurance
Quality control systems

SCOPE OF BENCHMARKING FOR COAL PREPARATION PLANTS IN INDIA

Scope and framework of benchmarking for coal preparation plants in India should be well
defined taking into account the following

Specifics of Indian coal characteristics: finely disseminated mineral impurities, NGM,

difficult washability characteristics; certain physical properties – hardness,
abrasiveness, porosity, etc
Specifics of Indian coal market, such as merchant, captive, BOM, existing CIL
washeries
Efficacy of common benchmark for all these varied types of washeries
Existing/ Emerging environmental regulations
Various local conditions: climate, labour, community relationship, etc

Correctly defining the scope and objective would ensure the participation of at least of the
majority stakeholders and implementation by the participants of best practices arising out of
benchmarking. That would attract more and more plants to benchmarking, thus bringing a
modernity in washery design and a continuity in performance improvement; consequently
improving the plant economics.
“Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM

Taking into account the specifics of Indian scenario benchmarking can be carried out at this
stage with the following scope at two different levels: one for the merchant washeries, stand
alone units and the other for the captive washeries; part of a larger system, where primary
objective is the prosperity/ profitability of the whole system, not necessarily in the same
extent of all the sub-components of the system, e.g. the captive washeries of Tata Steel and
SAIL.

Benchmarking Washery Design

Table 1 Design Capacities and Washing Processes in Major Coal Exporting Countries [1]
Maximum 5500 tph Minimum 250tph Average 1300tph
Dense Media 62% Modern Jigs 31% Combination 7%
(DM)
100% Steam 31%
100% Metallurgical 31% Combination 38%
Average US Plant 700 tph
Average Australian 1200tph India: typically 250-
Plant 50tph;
Most common 50-150tph; >250tph: Kathara, Moonidih, Rajarappa, Piparwar
Plant/ Circuit Capacity

Circuit capacities of 800tph or lower facilitate current standards of proven and reliable
equipment design. This capacity seems also to be the benchmark for wide body screens (10ft
x 24ft maximum) that have proven reliability. If needed, multiple circuits not exceeding the
800tph limit per circuit can be used. Multiple circuits also facilitate maintenance without
interrupting production [2]. Table 1 illustrates the plant capacity and process technology
trend in the United States (US), South Africa (SA), Australia and Germany. 250-1200tph
(1stph x 0.91 = 1tph) is the most common plant capacity (Fig. 1) in SA [3], also treating
Gondwana coal. With shallow and partial washing at small plant capacities, most of the
washeries in India are designed at a relatively low technology level. Mineral sizers, being the
most cost effective units, have become a commonly used crusher in coal handling and
preparation in South Africa (SA) and Australia, delivering a product as coarse as -254mm
and as small as -40/30mm. Yet, we have very few units in India in coal handling and in
preparation. Low efficiency barrel washers and Baum type jigs are commonly used units.
Dewatering is neglected and is mostly confined to crude slurry ponds. Modern technology
frequently gets out priced. Full potential of coal preparation in the reduction of emission, ash
generation, water conservation, coal conservation etc continues to remain unfulfilled.

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 2

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
“Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM

Plant Availability

Major developments in maintenance technology and engineering have led to more reliable
coal preparation plants that are capable of functioning longer hours between maintenance
intervals, lowering capital investment. By the end of 1980s virtually all coal preparation
plants in the “West” maintained >90% plant availability. Increased mine production forced
the plant operators to move away from traditional 6x2=12 or 7x2=14 to 18 production shifts
or more per week; to running the plant continuously during the week with maintenance at the
weekend. As a result a decade later, benchmarking partners averaged 93% availability with
two plants reporting 98% [1]. Captive washeries of a private steel maker in India on a regular
basis operate on 300-310 days a year basis, typical values being 302-304. That effectively
means only one full day in a week earmarked for maintenance shutdowns. On (304+52=) 356
basis that translates into 97.5% plant availability. Captive washeries of another private steel
maker processing significantly higher ash coal operate at about 92%. Standard design
calculations in India however assume 90% plant availability, some independent consultants --
as low as 80-85%.

Plant Area

The continuing innovations in process equipment have led to a major reduction in the unit
numbers needed to process a ton of coal. Because of the ability of the multi slope vibrating
screen (banana screen) to process much greater capacities in comparison to horizontal
machines, fewer screens must be installed. A 1200tph plant designed in the 1970s may have
included 20 screens for de-sliming and dewatering. The same capacity today would be
achieved by only 6 large banana screens [2] (example: Piparwar Washery). That improved
the magnetite recovery circuitry also. Another example is large diameter Dense Media
Cyclones (DMC). Other process equipment has evolved to match the larger capacity abilities
of these units. This innovation coupled with wide application of spirals and column flotation
has eliminated tremendous amounts of square footage in plants; so fewer chutes, pipes and
other ancillary supports. Net result is reduction in capital cost. What should be our
benchmark in India for square footage per ton of coal processed or of washed coal produced
without sacrificing the convenience in plant maintenance?

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 3

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
“Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM

Fig. 1 Comparison of DM Cyclone Plant Installation Costs between US and SA [3]

Capital Cost

Nevertheless the capital costs for constructing a coal preparation plant in the US had more
than doubled between the years 2005 and 2007 [2], alternatively more than doubled between
the years 2000 and 2010 and in the latter year stood at >US$15.3 million (`765 million) per
tph. [3]. Sourcing of equipment and construction material makes the difference. Fig. 1 shows
an installation cost comparison for DMC plants in SA and the in US at capacity range of 250-
1800tph, values for the US being mostly lower. At the same 275tph level, two US plants
show 25% cost difference, whereas at 375 and 825tph level there is no difference in CAPEX.
Rather identical remains e.g. the cost of two plants in SA at approximately 350tph and 400tph
levels. Benchmarking always provides this kind of vital information which could be very
useful in deciding the plant capacity vis-à-vis the CAPEX. Current CAPEX for SA plants
would possibly be Rand 80, 000 (`28 million) and 200, 000 (`70 million) / tph for a jig and
for a DM plant; a ratio of 1:2.5, with little difference in capital cost between a DM Drum/
Bath and a DMC plant [4]. In contrast to the SA example of a ratio of 1:2.5 between jig and
DM plant, the corresponding ratio for India is 1:1.1 (Table 2), a surprisingly low figure. Cost
is very sensitive on coal load in and load out systems. Variation is evident between the two
estimates from independent consultants for both the coal types. This is precisely where
benchmarking is needed.

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 4

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
 “Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM
Table 2 Capital Cost ( in Crores/ Mtpy) for Wet Coal Wash Plants in India

Plant Thermal Coking Thermal Coking Coal

Estimate I* Estimate II **Simple
#
Jig Based 22 --- --- -- Sophisticated
DMC Based 24 30-36 (No Flotation) 25-30 35-40**; 40-45# Flowsheets
*for plants with moderate infrastructure including pollution control system; all equipment and structures
as per BIS; could be less with “cheap” design and construction without following norms.

Yield Estimation
A plant operating at 62% yield level did cost US$5.8 million per annum to operate. For only
1% yield improvement, a gain of around US$1.0 million could be realized. Precisely same
gain can be achieved through operating cost reduction by 17% [1], a very difficult task. For a
6Mtpy thermal coal wash plant compared to design values, yield of cleans increased by 2%
and of middling decreased by 1%. That brought additional profits @ `18crores per year [5].
Accurate estimation of yield at the design stage plays therefore a very important role. While
comparing in recent past the competitive bids for a captive DM based washery in India, it
was observed that yield guaranteed by five bidders – all with foreign tie-ups – varied by
7.5%. Of these, four had proposed the use of washers from the same manufacturer. Probable
Error in Separation (Ep) values quoted by them did not appear to justify such a large
difference. Had there been a benchmark, the bidders would surely have been more careful.
Benchmarking would eliminate or considerably reduce the scope of manipulation in yield
figures both at design and operating stage.
Technology Options
Contribution of power cost abroad in total coal washing cost is 13% [1]. That would be
significantly more in India because of;
Higher tariff
Large scale use of motors with no BEE certification, and
Large number of crushers reportedly up to 40% less energy efficient (compared to
international benchmark)
Some of the crushers in use have foot print and gross weight more by up to 30% than the up
dated models. The models also ensure minimum cost per ton crushed by new lubrication and
automation system. Power consumption in overall crushing has possibly the largest share of
power cost in coal washing in India. Very important therefore is standardization of plant
equipment through benchmarking not only for crushing but obviously for washing as well.
Table 1 indicates that on a global scale 62% use DM technology and 31% use modern jigs.
Rest uses a combination of both, jigs mostly being used for pre-cleaning purposes. Current

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 5

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
 “Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM

combined installed thermal coal washing capacity in India appears to be about 132Mtpy
(Appendix). It was estimated that about 44% of the existing installed washing capacity was
utilized in the year 2007. That has possibly increased now to 50-55%. Capacity utilization is
reportedly poor in merchant and captive washeries. Besides coal supply, following are the
issues involved in low capacity utilization.
Deficiencies in the process flowsheet developed
Wrong selection of processing equipment
Various operational problems arising out of inadequacies in the design of material handling
system and layout
Small plant capacities
Low level of technology used (e.g. barrel washers and Baum type jigs)
Many of the washery operators are new and small
In terms of both installed and operating capacities particularly the latter, jigs both dry and wet
appear to be the preferred processing equipment (Appendix). Dry jigs are quite common in
small capacity plants aiming an ash reduction of 5 - 8% with corresponding yields of 70 -
80%. Focus is on obtaining a dry product immediately suitable for use in DRI and cement
plants. Being captive washeries, grade improvement is of no great concern. Relatively large
capacity merchant washeries generally use barrel washers and wet jigs, but not necessarily
the modern ones In spite of inferior separation efficiency there appear to be a set of reasons
for the preference towards e.g. Baum type jigs.
Relatively low investment and low operating cost
High cut density required for both pre-cleaning and cleaning generally in the range of 1.8 –
2.2
Constraints in the procurement of magnetite: price, quality and logistics of supply
Difficulties associated with the environment friendly disposal and or sale of rejects arising out
of anomalies in the UHV/ GCV linked grade based pricing system
Scope of maximum utilization of combustibles within the system through fluidized bed
combustion of reject
What therefore, should be the washing technology benchmark?

Table 3 Typical Performance Parameters of Major Processing Equipment

Process Probable Error in Separation (Ep) Organic Efficiency Remarks

DM Drums/ Baths 0.010 - 0.025 93 - 95 - 97% Range of values
DM Cyclones 0.020 – 0.070 90 - 96% essentially dependent
Modern Jigs 0.045 88 - 91% on the expertise of the
Baum Type Jigs 0.09 80 – 85 - 87% manufacturers vis-à-vis

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 6

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
 “Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM
Barrel Washers 0.10-0.25 80% the coal characteristics

Performance Measurement

Answer to that is provided by performance measurement of the technology to be used. Ep and

Organic Efficiency (Eorg) are the two most commonly used measures of equipment/ process
performance. DM drums and baths are the most efficient separators (Table 3) which can wash up to a
size of 10mm or even 6mm followed by DMC commonly to a size of 1mm or 0.5mm even up to
0.2mm. At 27% NGM level, quite common for Indian thermal coal, through DM washing 100%
organic efficiency could be achieved at Ep= 0.005. Even at 75% NGM level, also through DM
washing close to 90% organic efficiency could be achieved at Ep=0.02 [7]. In the already reported
benchmarking study [1] organic efficiency values were found to average 95%, with a range of 90-
99%. Table 3 in fact provides the benchmark for the choice of washing technology. By virtue of
their high separation efficiency, DMC are the method of choice for processing difficult–to–
wash raw coal. They are also applied in cases where the price of the product dictates that the
highest possible yield be obtained [2].

Unfortunately majority of the plants in India use the inferior washers at the other end of the
efficiency spectrum. For washeries operating in conjunction with fluidized bed units, it works
out to be economic to have combustibles misplaced in rejects, making thereby low efficiency
separators the preferred washing equipment. GCV and ash content of rejects required for efficient
burning in such units are in the range of 1300–2000kcal/ kg and 53-60%, respectively. Generation
cost is quite competitive. DM systems in spite of their significantly superior performance loose out. It
is important to remember that the EIA Guidance Manual for Coal Washeries introduced by the MOEF
in the year 2010 mandates besides sulphur, the reporting of mercury, arsenic, lead and cadmium for
raw feed and all the washing products. Since, thermal coal is being washed at 30-45% ash for power
generation and at about 25-30% for DRI processes and cement plants, and sometimes coking coals are
being cleaned at 22-23% ash concerns have been raised particularly about the level of mercury not
only in reject but in all the washing products. A comprehensive element by element balance of these
products and the feed would compel the plant designer and operator to opt for best technology option
as indicated by benchmarking.

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 7

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
“Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM

Benchmarking Washery Operation – Major Issues

Table 4 Typical Magnetite Loss in Indian Coal Preparation Plants

Feed Size, mm Typical Feed Composition, mm Magnetite Loss

–76+13 +50(35-50%); -50+25(25-35%); -25+13(20-30%) Bath ~0.34kgpt
–38/ 30 +13(40-60%); -13+6.5(7-15%); -6.5+3(5-10%); -3 DMC 2.20kgpt
+ 0.5 (15-25%)
-25/ -20 +13( 50%); -13+6.5(15-30%); -6.5+3(10-20%); - 1.25kgpt
3+ 0.5 (10-20%)
-15/-13 (d50=4-9) +6.5( 55%); -6.5+3(10-25%); -3+ 0.5 (25-40%) 0.40–1.25 kgpt
Generally Accepted Figures in DM Plants Abroad
+10 (Coarse) Europe, eastern US and South Africa (Gondwana coal) 0.05kgpt
-10+0.6 (Fine) Europe, eastern US and South Africa (Gondwana coal) 0.15kgpt
-10+0.6 (Fine) Canada (Friable coal; d50=1.8mm) 0.75–3.0kgpt
-0.5+0.074 South Africa (Feed NGM: 25 – 51) 0.90-1.11kgpt

Magnetite Consumption

DM cannot be the benchmarked technology without an assured supply of quality magnetite at

a reasonable price. Besides the historic DSM (Dutch State Mines) generalized specifications,
An ISO standard for the testing of DM magnetite and its generic specification are available.
Some countries have their own specifications. That precisely is the reason why magnetite
losses abroad are so low (Table 4), in spite of less favorable feed size analysis. The same in
Indian plants, even under the best practice conditions with imported magnetite are high,
which is difficult to justify by the higher porosity of Indian coal. Quality of reasonably priced
magnetite and operational efficiency of magnetite circuits assume paramount importance in
view of the specific requirements of LVC coal washing. Benchmarking the specifications and
losses of magnetite would go a long way to exponentially expand the application of DM
technology in India.

Water Consumption

China and India with more than one third of the world’s population have less than <10% of
the world’s consumable water, India’s share being only 4%. From the year 1947 to 2002,
average annual per capita availability of water in India has declined by ~70% to 1820m3.
With 1.2billion plus population in the year 2012, the figure must have come down further. At
approximately the same rate of decline it would be 1341m3 in the year 2025. This is in a time
period when coal belt of India would face massive requirement of water because of upcoming
washeries and coal fired power plants at pithead. As a rule of thumb in India coal preparation
plants operate with solid to water ratio of 1.0: 0.5 – 2.0. This is quite high as compared to the

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 8

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
 “Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM

plants in South Africa (1.0: 0.15 – 0.25 – in exceptional cases - 0.5) and also to those in
China, the countries on both sides of India in average annual per capita availability of water
(Table 5). CPCB code of practice for coal washeries stipulation of 1t: 1.5m3 is in itself
rather high. So called zero discharge washeries are more a myth less a reality. Some of the
plants consume up to 40% as make up water. The need to reduce coal preparation in India’s
water footprint is obvious.

3
Table 5 Annual per capita Availability of Water (m ) in the Year 2002

Saudi South India Germany China Mexico United Global Water Water
Arabia Africa States Average Stress Scarcity
118 1154 1820 1878 2259 4624 10837 ~7700 1700-1000 1000

Washing Cost

Once the issues of plant availability, appropriate technology (from crushing to dewatering),
energy efficiency inter alia power cost (most importantly in crushing and pumping),
magnetite loss, reagent (for coking coal in particular) and water consumption have been
addressed, processing of coal can be done at a reasonable cost. Depending on size consist of
the coal washed, process flowsheet, dry or wet route, plant location, power tariff, etc, actual
washing cost for thermal coal should vary between `10 and `50 per tonne. Corresponding
figures for coking coal would be `200 - `275 per tonne. Washing cost claimed beyond this
range would possibly be frowned upon. It is important to remember that based on e.g. US
practices, the relationship of coal washing costs, coarse to fines, generally is restricted to 1:4 -
1:3, whereas in India for coking coal it is estimated to be around 1:5.

SUMMARY
What therefore benchmarking can do? It can bring out the best possible practices in coal preparation
under specific Indian conditions. Those practices invariably would lead to the following
Standardization and optimization of plant and circuit capacity
Increased plant availability
Reduced plant area per ton of coal processed
Reduced capital cost per ton of coal processed
More accurate yield estimation
Choice of best technology available
Reduced consumption of power, magnetite, reagents and water, etc
Quite reasonable and therefore competitive washing cost
REFERENCES

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 9

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012
“Benchmarking – The only way forward for the Coal Preparation in India” Prof. S Bhattacharya, ISM
1. M J Laurila, Best Practices in International Coal Preparation: A Benchmarking Study, X,
International Coal Preparation Congress (ICPC) Vol. I, Brisbane, 1998 pp 17-24
2. B J Arnold, M S Klima and P J Bethell (Ed), Designing the Coal Preparation Plant of the
Future, SME, Littleton, 2007
3. Larry Watters, International Coal Preparation Plant Pricing, South African Coal Processing
Society IV Biennial Coal Preparation Conference, Secunda, 2011
4. G J de Korte, Personal Communication, 2011
5. A S Chowdhary, S Bhattacharya and M Evans, Sink Float Tests of coal: Sampling and
Washability Data Validation Issues, International Mineral Processing Congress, Delhi, 2012
6. D W Horsfall, The Lows and Highs of Dense Medium Separation, Dense Medium Operators
Conference, AusIMM Southern Queensland Branch, 1987
APPENDIX
A Tentative Estimate of Installed Thermal Coal Preparation Capacities in India
Company Commissioned / Capacity, Consumer Prod Process
Modified in Mtpy Ash
1 CIL 1958 – 2003 19.72 Merchant <34% Jigs (ROM /
(15.0%) Washeries Wet)
2 ACB Ltd* 1999 – 2011 69.05 Mostly for Barrel/ DMC/
(52.4%) Power Plants Wet Jigs
3 Bhatia 2005 - 2007 4.00 DMB
International (3.0%)
4 SV Power 2009 1.50 Wet Jigs
5 Monnet 2009 3.50 DMB
6 K R Enterprises 2008 0.30 Dry Jigs
7 CESC Kolkata 2009 1.50 Captive Power Wet Jigs
Total Power (75.6%) 99.57
8 JSPL 2002-2005 10.20 Captive; 29-30/ DMB/ DMC
(7.7%) DRI+ Power 40%
9 Bhusan SPL 2006/ 2010 8.10 Captive DRI 25- Wet Jigs/ DM
10 SSPL 2006 0.60 30% Wet Jigs
11 Lloyd Metals 2006 1.00
12 SKS Ispat 2006 1.20
13 Others 2006 - 2011 5.90 Dry Jigs
Total Captive DRI (20.5%) 27.00 Mostly 0.3Mtpy Plants
14 Grasim 2006/ 2009 0.65 Captive 25- DM
15 ACC 2011 1.00 Cement 34% DMB/ DMC
16 Ultratech 2011 3.50 Jigs/ DMC
*
Total Captive Cement (3.9%) 5.15 Includes two plants with 10.51Mtpy
Grand Total (100%) 131.72 capacity currently not in operation

Workshop on “Benchmarking of Coal Washing Technology & Reject Management”, 10

CMPDI, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India; 14th April 2012