Coking coal of the United States—Modern and historical coking coal mining locations and chemical, rheological, petrographic, and other data from modern samples

Michael H. Trippi; Leslie F. Ruppert; Cortland F. Eble; James C. Hower

doi:10.3133/ofr20201113

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · ofr20201113

Coking coal of the United States—Modern and historical coking coal mining locations and chemical, rheological, petrographic, and other data from modern samples

Michael H. Trippi·Leslie F. Ruppert·Cortland F. Eble·James C. Hower

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Coking coal, or metallurgical coal, has been produced in the United States for nearly 200 years. Coking coal is primarily used in the production of coke for use in the steel industry, and for other uses (for example, foundries, blacksmithing, heating buildings, and brewing). Currently, U.S. coking coal is produced in Alabama, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Virginia , and West Virginia. Historically, coking coal has also been produced in 15 other states (Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming), but currently is not. Coals from the Appalachian, Arkoma, and Illinois basins are Pennsylvanian in age, while coals in Alaska, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming range in age from Early Cretaceous through Eocene. This Open-File Report presents the geographic locations of current and historical coking coal deposits of the United States, with additional information about recent and historical mining and exploration activities. Chemical, rheological, petrographic, and other criteria for evaluating the coking potential of coals are discussed, and historical data for coking coals in the United States are presented. In addition, new coking coal samples from Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma were collected and analyzed for this report, and the data are presented in multiple tables, including proximate and ultimate analyses; calorific value; sulfur forms; major-, minor-, and trace-element abundances; Free-Swelling Index; Gieseler Plastometer analyses; American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) dilatation; coal petrography; and predicted values of Coal Stability Factor and Coal Strength after Reaction with CO 2 (pCSF and pCSR, respectively). Data from previously analyzed coking coal samples in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia were supplied by three companies, including results from all the tests listed above, plus oxidation, Hardgrove Grindability Index, and ash fusion (in a reducing environment) temperatures are also presented in tables in the report. Geographic Information System (GIS) data compiled for this project are available for download for public and private utilization and may be used to create maps for a variety of energy resource studies. These GIS data are in shapefile format, and metadata files are included describing all GIS processing. Additional geographic information about coking coal areas of the United States are also presented in tabular format in the report, including the following: names of coal basins, fields, regions, districts, and areas; coal beds or zones; geographic locations including States, counties, towns, rivers, mountains, etc.; stratigraphic hierarchy and age of the coal-bearing interval; coking characteristics including sulfur content, ash yield, volatile matter, moisture, calorific value, and Free-Swelling Index; coal rank; names of coal mines and coal-mining companies; current and past mining activity; and references for reports about the coal.

Explore related subjects

Open-File Report Report

Source-reported bounding extent: 25.08° to 49.38905° latitude; -124.68721° to -66.96466° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Michael H. Trippi, Leslie F. Ruppert, Cortland F. Eble, James C. Hower. 2021-01-13. Coking coal of the United States—Modern and historical coking coal mining locations and chemical, rheological, petrographic, and other data from modern samples. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20201113

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2026

Estimating aftershock risk for entry into earthquake-damaged buildings

We present a simple method to estimate the risk of experiencing strong shaking from aftershocks during entry into earthquake-damaged buildings. We compute wait times until the probability of strong ground shaking from aftershocks reaches a predefined risk threshold; for example, a 0.4 percent probability of experiencing Modified Mercalli Intensity 7 or greater shaking during the planned building entry. We also develop a relation between aftershock probability and the probability of strong shaking, so that users can reference the U.S. Geological Survey aftershock forecast during an ongoing aftershock sequence to determine if the risk threshold has been met. We apply our method to active continental regions (for example, the Western United States), stable continental regions (for example, the Central and Eastern United States), and subduction zones (for example, Cascadia or Alaska).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2026

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region↗

USGS2026

Bathymetric survey and storage capacity of Upper Lake Mary near Flagstaff, Arizona in 2024

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the city of Flagstaff, collected bathymetric, light detection and ranging (lidar), and land-survey data of Upper Lake Mary in Arizona during the months of April and October 2024. The city of Flagstaff uses a combination of groundwater from well fields throughout the Flagstaff area and surface water, mainly from Upper Lake Mary, for its potable water supply. The purpose of the survey is to update previous surveys using new technology and compare the results to previous surveys to determine if there was a decrease in storage capacity that could affect the city’s water supply. The lakebed was mapped in April 2024 using a vessel equipped with a multibeam echosounder (MBES) and mobile lidar scanner with positioning captured using a real-time kinematic global navigation satellite system (RTK GNSS) base and receivers. In October 2024, areas of the reservoir that were too shallow for the boat and shoreline that were not captured by the vessel-based lidar were surveyed on foot using hand-held RTK GNSS receivers. At full pool (spillway elevation of 6,831.82 feet above NAVD 88 [2,082.34 meters (m)], Upper Lake Mary has a storage capacity of 16,449.80 acre-feet (20,290,611.73 cubic meters) and a surface area of 953.57 acres (3,860,926.075 square meters). The reservoir is 5.7 miles (9.7 kilometers) long and varies in width from 326 feet (99.36 m) near the central, narrow portion of the reservoir to 2,613 feet (796.44 m) in the upper portion. Comparisons between this survey and the previous two surveys from the 1950s and 2006 indicate no apparent decrease in reservoir area or storage capacity. Results of the 2024 survey indicate that Upper Lake Mary’s storage capacity increased by 0.9 percent from the 2006 survey and a 1.6 percent increase in surface area from the 2006 survey.

Arizona↗