Technical

Paper

“Opportunity Coal” Slag Control at

Lakeland McIntosh Unit #3
Authors:
M. Domingo Tubio (GE W&PT Product Applications), Ken Riddle (Interim Lakeland Electric Plant Manager),
Herb Quinones (GE W&PT Regional Industry Leader) and Don Meskers (GE W&PT Senior Technologist)

such as Northern Appalachian (NAPP) and Illinois

Basin (ILB) coal (less than $4/MMBtu) are being
evaluated as blends with or replacements for
CAPP coal.
Although lower rank coals such as NAPP and ILB
may be attractive from a fuel cost perspective,
they often present operational challenges includ-
ing slagging. Noncombustible minerals in the coal
can create deposits in the furnace and super-
heater areas which can lead to gas path plug-
gage, slag falls, extended outages, and affect sta-
tion reliability, among other issues. (Gabriel 2011)
In 2011, Lakeland Electric and GE Water conduct-
ed a fireside trial to evaluate chemical treatment
Abstract on opportunity fuels including Northern Appala-
chian (NAPP) and Illinois Basin (ILB) coals to mini-
Electric utilities in Florida are facing a range of chal- mize slagging. Over 72,000 tons of NAPP and
lenges, including competition from low cost natural 30,000 tons of ILB opportunity coals were con-
gas. For many years McIntosh has burned Eastern sumed with no detrimental impacts due to slag-
bituminous Central Appalachian (CAPP) coal, cur- related issues in the boiler or unit operations in the
rently $4.20/MMBtu. (Lakeland) Prices have in- flue gas train. The chemically treated fuel blend
creased in recent years due to rising exports as will help the McIntosh Station remain competitive
metallurgical coal and decreasing production. in the electric generating market, especially
(Buchsbaum 2008; Metzroth 2008) Meanwhile, nat- against low-cost natural gas-fired peaking units
ural gas prices have decreased to ~$3.50/MMBtu. which are now being run as baseload units in Flor-
(EIA, 2011) This cost difference places coal-fired ida.
electric generation at a competitive disadvantage
with natural gas-fired combined cycle units. (Bodell, Lakeland McIntosh Unit #3
2011) The lowest cost producers in the power pool
run baseload while the more expensive dispatch are Lakeland Electric McIntosh Station Unit #3 is a
idle until peak demand brings them online. To re- 365-MW balanced draft pulverized coal front wall
main competitive, lower-quality “opportunity” coals fired B&W Radiant Reheat Boiler commissioned in

Find a contact near you by visiting www.ge.com/water and clicking on “Contact Us”.
* Trademark of General Electric Company; may be registered in one or more countries.
©2012, General Electric Company. All rights reserved.

TP1193EN.doc Jan-12
1982. Steam production is 2.5 MMlbs/hr at 1,005 Appalachian (NAPP) or Illinois Basin (ILB). Histori-
deg F and 2,640 psig. The boiler fires about 100 cally, harder coals have been more valuable than
tons pulverized coal per hour at maximum load, and lower rank coals due to their clean burning (low
the boiler train is equipped with SCR, cold-side elec- ash) and high heating value (HHV), used extensive-
trostatic precipitators and a wet flue gas desulfuri- ly in transportation and power generation.
zation (Wet FGD) scrubber system. The plant is
Although CAPP, NAPP and ILB coals are all bitumi-
equipped with ZONAL*, GE Energy’s combustion
nous coals, their chemical properties vary. Each
monitoring and optimization system. The unit was
will possess a unique composition based on the
also recently outfitted with a hydrated lime sorbent
geological deposit. Elements such as sulfur, chlo-
injection system to mitigate SO3 emissions.
rine and iron can affect properties of combusted
Lakeland McIntosh provides power to more than coal such as emissions and slag production. The
120,000 residents of the City of Lakeland. McIntosh ash fusion temperature (AFT) is the temperature
has been a visionary in power generation, including where the solid ash melts and “fuses” into a liquid
previous evaluations of co-firing biomass and mu- phase. Higher rank coals have AFT’s ranging from
nicipal waste with pulverized coal. In 2002, Lake- low 2,100 to 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. A thor-
land McIntosh was ranked as the 10th most efficient ough understanding of the chemistry of coal is
and reliable coal-fired unit out of the nation’s top needed to properly evaluate a fuel and design a
200. (Lakeland) Lakeland’s management and oper- successful fireside treatment program. Lakeland’s
ations team remain committed to evaluating fuels primary fuel (CAPP) and opportunity coals (NAPP
and treatment programs for environmentally re- and ILB) are given in Figure 2.
sponsible and cost-effective power generation for
Coal Type CAPP NAPP ILB
the City of Lakeland.
HHV, BTU/lb 12,256 12,023 11,450
Coal Properties and “Opportunity” Coal
Ash, wt% 18.2% 12.7% 8.4%
The three most common types of coal mined in the
Moisture, wt% 8.8% 7.2% 12.5%
United States are bituminous, sub-bituminous, and
lignite. Different geological conditions over time Sulfur, wt% 1.6% 1.8% 2.9%
(heat and pressure) caused coal to form differently
across the country. In general, higher rank bitumi- AFT (o F) 2,600 2,482 2,400
nous coal is found on the East Coast and Midwest. Basicity Ratio 0.13 0.26 0.38
Bituminous coals can be used as a thermal coal
(power generation) or metallurgical coal (coking and Mineral Content (combusted coal)
steel production). (World Coal) Lower rank sub- SiO2 54.6% 50.8% 49.6%
bituminous coals (such as Powder River Basin coal)
are found out West while lignite is typically found in Al2O3 29.4% 24.3% 17.4%
the Gulf Coast and North Central US, (Figure 1).
Fe2O3 5.2% 14.2% 19.1%

CaO 1.0% 1.4% 2.8%

MgO 1.0% 1.0% 0.9%

Na2O 0.3% 0.2% 0.8%

K2O 3.5% 2.8% 2.2%

Coal Seam Name Blanton Ramsey Armstrong

Creech Crimson
Macopin
Figure 1: Coal Reserves in the United States
Williamson
(American Coal Foundation, www.teachcoal.org)
“Harder” coals include Anthracite and Bituminous Figure 2: Lakeland McIntosh Typical Fuel Properties
coals such as Central Appalachian (CAPP), Northern

Page 2 Technical Paper

Slag and Fouling Mechanisms weaken the deposits and allow them to be more
easily removed by sootblowers.
In addition to carbon, coal contains numerous non-
combustible inorganic impurities such as minerals The selection and dosing of chemical additives is
and metals, as shown in Figure 2. Depending on the typically accomplished by a thorough analysis of
concentrations and ratios of these minerals and coal including ash composition. The mineral con-
metals, slagging and convective pass fouling can tent is input into one of the common slagging in-
occur in boilers. Slag formation accelerates when dex calculators such as basicity ratio. Based on
the furnace exit gas temperature (FEGT) is greater the result, the treatment is selected that can move
than the ash fusion temperature of the ash, because the index in the desired direction. In cases where
the slag is then in a more liquid state. the application is focused on a single type of coal,
this approach can lead to good results in many
Slag density increases with time and temperature, cases, considering primarily bulk phase effects.
and hard sintered deposits are difficult to remove
with sootblowing. Similarly, sticky deposits which When opportunity coals are blended, additional
attract flyash and exhibit “pseudo-plastic” proper- complications develop beyond those seen with
ties cannot easily be removed by sootblowing be- single coal analyses. Blended coals not only have
cause they deform under pressure, instead of being mixed ash chemistries but the blending ratios can
removed from the tubes. change based on coal availability, operations, or
economics. The overall effect of anti-slagging ad-
Fouling is closely related to slagging and usually oc- ditives needs to be considered across the range of
curs in the boiler’s cooler convective back-pass sec- potential ash chemistries.
tion. Vapors such as sodium and potassium
condense onto the cooler tubes in the reheater and At Lakeland, GE Water used a prototype predictive
primary superheater areas. Fouling deposits can model to look at coal chemistry and identify the
“bridge” across tubes and restrict gas flow. That proper treatment approach. While standard
increases induced fan horsepower, increasing the models generally look at bulk chemical effects, the
plant heat rate and, therefore, lowers plant efficien- model used at Lakeland utilizes a complex analyt-
cy. ical process to account for effects of formation of
microscopic crystal structures and other physical
Slagging and fouling can result in derating (shed- parameters that can affect slag density and re-
ding load) and costly unscheduled outages and re- moval. A range of chemical additives were con-
pairs from damaging slag falls. But these problems sidered before a two products approach was
can be eased by combining chemical additives for selected based on thorough analyses of the fuels.
fireside applications with operational and mechani-
cal changes, including sootblower placement and The ash composition for a series of blends ranging
operation. from 100% CAPP to 100% NAPP or ILB was input
into the model. Across all blend ratios for both
Chemical Additives opportunity coals the model clearly indicated that
the addition of a copper based metal oxide com-
The three important aspects for every fireside pro- pound would be the most effective anti-slagging
gram are mechanical, operational, and chemical agent. The model indicated the use of magnesi-
parameters. Mechanical aspects include details like um based chemistries would be effective at higher
tube spacing and sootblower locations. Operational blend ratios of lower rank coals – particularly with
aspects include load shedding and sootblowing fre- ILB coal.
quency. When those two categories have been
Overall, the model suggested that a combination
thoroughly explored and persistent slagging issues
of products would be the most successful ap-
remain, it is time to consider the third parameter:
proach to provide flexibility and optimization for
chemical treatment.
each blend, (Figure 3). When using lower blend
Chemical additives have exhibited interesting prop- ratios of opportunity coal, the magnesium dosage
erties including increasing ash fusion temperature, may decrease and total treatment cost will be re-
increasing deposit friability and even changing the duced.
crystal structure in the slag to create microscopic
cracks. These chemical and physical changes

Technical Paper Page 3

The chemical additives were transferred from agi-
tated bulk tank and trailer-mounted base tote to
the coal belts via peristaltic pumps, where the
chemicals were the dosed at predetermined
amounts via a manifold mounted above the coal
conveyor (Figures 4 through 7). The magnesium
slurry was stored in an 8,000 gallon tank, sized to
receive a full bulk tanker truck of product, and
equipped with secondary containment. The prod-
uct requires agitation to avoid suspended solids
settling out. The metal oxide slurry was provided
in convenient 270-gallon totes.

Figure 3: Predictive Model Output

The proprietary mix of additives selected for this trial

included a magnesium-based compound and a
metal oxide-based slurry. The magnesium is known
in the industry to elevate ash fusion temperatures
due to the high melting point of magnesium oxide.
This treatment keeps the slag in a solid state instead
of liquid-phase deposit.
The metal oxide-based slurry contains copper which
has been used in the industry as a combustion cata-
lyst. Less well known is that copper can reduce the
cohesive strength of the ash via a nucleating effect
with iron species. Gradual thermal decomposition
of the metal oxide product also makes the slag po-
rous and, therefore, weaker. These mechanisms
complement the magnesium’s effect for certain
types of coals or coal blends, depending on the ratio
of minerals and other non-combustible species. To-
gether, the proprietary additives create fracture
planes in the solidified slag, weakening the deposits
so that they can be more easily removed by soot- Figure 4: Agitated Bulk Storage Tank
blowers.

Trial Design
Utility experience indicates boiler conditions can
deteriorate within days of introducing an opportuni-
ty fuel. (Tubio 2011, Gabriel 2011) To minimize the
risks of forced boiler outage during trial, Lakeland
blended its typical CAPP fuel with a small proportion
of opportunity NAPP fuel. The coal blend was treat-
ed with a mix of proprietary chemical additives to
reduce severity of fireside slagging. Product dosag-
es were optimized as the percentage of opportunity
coal was increased until it reached the target level
of 50 percent. Figure 5: trailer-mounted base totes

Page 4 Technical Paper

era) real-time slagging phenomena. Numerous
observation ports on 14 separate levels were
identified and labeled. Visual observations during
the trial focused on approximately four ports on
each of nine levels. Infrared and visual photog-
raphy records were included in the trial evalua-
tion.
Data was recorded during the “baseline” (100%
CAPP coal) and chemical treatment trial periods,
assuming equipment parameters such as tube
cleanliness, and sootblower availability were con-
stant over time. Lakeland’s fuel blends included
ranging from 12% NAPP to 75% NAPP.
Figure 6: Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) on peristaltic
hose pumps for chemical dosage During the chemical trial, the unit was kept at full
load as long as possible. Overnight load shedding
allows the slag to contract in the cooler flue gas,
and this uneven contraction in the matrix causes
cracks and gravity-assisted removal of the accu-
mulated slag. This beneficial procedure was not
conducted during most of the chemical trial so the
system could experience “worst case” stress.
The trial began on May 17 with 50% Ramsey
(NAPP) / 50% Blanton (CAPP) fed to one of 4 silos
(12% NAPP overall). The coal was dosed at 1.5
lbs/ton magnesium-based product and 0.25
lbs/ton metal oxide-based product, on the coal
belt en route to bunkering silos.
Figure 7: Product Manifold at Coal Belt Conveyor
By May 23, two of 4 silos received 50% Ramsey /
Dosing occurred when the coal belts conveyed a 50% Blanton (25% NAPP overall). The trial results
blend of the CAPP / NAPP coal. Variable frequency looked promising, and the trial resumed after
drives (VFD’s) were used to provide flexibility to dose Memorial Day holiday. By June 3, the trial team
product across a range of coal belt bunkering rates. had ramped up to an aggressive 75% NAPP coal
The manifold was designed with valves to control blend, dosed with only 1.5 lbs magnesium-based
product flow onto the coal. Aqueous magnesium- product per ton and 0.25 lbs metal oxide-based
based slurry dosages were initiated at 1.5 lbs of product per ton. Although the low slagging level
product per ton of NAPP coal, based on the predic- remained acceptable, Lakeland began to experi-
tive model and experience with other NAPP coals. ence increasing SO3 emissions. McIntosh Unit #3
(Tubio 2011) is equipped with a hydrated lime sorbent system
for SO3-related “blue plume” abatement. Howev-
Aqueous metal oxide slurry was co-fed at 0.25 lbs of
er, it was decided that the sorbent system could
product per to on NAPP coal to synergistically miti-
remain offline and instead Operations would trim
gate slag accumulation. The metal oxide slurry was
opportunity fuel to avoid potential SO3 issues.
fed in separate dedicated lines on the bunkering
conveyor belt. By June 7, the opportunity coal was exhausted,
and delayed train shipments resulted in the next
Trial Details delivery in August. Infrequent coal shipments re-
sulted in the trial spanning several months, which
To be considered successful, the trial’s main objec- made it challenging to “optimize” dosage without
tive included determining the optimum product feed risking boiler slagging. Figure 8 summarizes the
rates of both chemical products for the CAPP/NAPP trial dosing schedule.
blends while monitoring (with an infrared (IR) cam-

Technical Paper Page 5

PARAMETERS 5/17 – 5/23 – 5/31 – 6/1 – 6/3 – 6/5 – 8/4 – 12/5 – 12/12 –
5/19 5/25 6/1 6/2 6/4 6/6 8/21 12/9 12/16
(start – end dates)

NAPP Coal Percentage 12.5% 25% 50% 66% 75% 50% 75%

ILB Coal Percentage 50% 75%

Magnesium product, lbs/ton 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Metal oxide product, lbs/ton 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
Figure 8: Lakeland McIntosh Unit #3 Trial Schedule with CAPP Coal and Opportunity Coal blends
(Boiler at Full Load and Experiencing “Acceptable” Low Slag Conditions)

Visual & Infrared Photography Overall slagging was considered minor at the start
of the trial, and the team increased the percent-
The trial team used port inspection and photog- age of opportunity coal. Visual spectrum photos
raphy to monitor boiler slagging conditions in the are provided in Figures 9-13.
furnace. The team developed a standardized nam-
ing convention for referencing boiler ports at vari-
ous elevations. For example, port “8A” refers to Level
8, Port A. This system ensured that slagging condi-
tions were properly recorded since more than a
dozen trial team members viewed, photographed,
and commented on the visual conditions in dozens
of observation ports during the trial.
Visual and infrared (IR) photos of conditions at the
various boiler elevation ports were recorded. Visual
photos were made with an Olympus** brand “point-
and-click” digital camera and IR images were gen-
erated by a Mikron LumaSense*** Model 7604F in-
frared camera. The camera’s integral flame filter Figure 9: Superheater, Floor 9.5 Port A (5-17-11)
and high temperature range covered the boiler’s
operating range (up to 3,000 deg F). In addition, the
multi-spot temperature measurement capability
enabled final images to include reference tempera-
ture profiles. (Mikron, 2011) Thermal photos of the
boiler slag conditions were recorded at the boiler
ports throughout the trial.
Not only were visual observations of these condi-
tions important, they were, arguably, the best way
to measure the impact of chemical treatment on
boiler slag, since instantaneous changes in many
variables (such as sootblower activity, number of
pulverizers in operation, load changes, etc) make it
difficult to compare with other parameters in isola-
tion (such as FEGT).
Figure 10: Under “Bullnose”, Floor 8 Port D (5-17-11)
Several photos of the slagging conditions in the
boiler at the start of the trial (Figures 9 and 10) clear-
ly show the bottom of the superheater (SH) pendant
with no or minimal slag accumulation during base-
line conditions.

Page 6 Technical Paper

Figure 11: Wall tubes, Floor 5.5 Port D (5-17-11)
Figure 13: Superheat Section, Floor 9 Port E (5-26-11)
Plant monitoring and the images above from the
early phases of the trial revealed that the slag for-
mation was minimal and was being effectively re-
moved by the sootblowers. Lakeland and GE
continued to monitor and report on slag formation,
and GE continued to photograph the Unit at these
ports and report the finding after each inspection.
Operator log sheets were completed, which helped
the trial team understand variations in slag condi-
tions day to day.
The superheat section remained clean during the
trial, although sootblower frequency was increased
slightly at the beginning. Tube wall conditions re-
mained acceptable throughout the trial, although
Figure 14: Wall Tubes, Floor 8.5 Port A (5-26-11)
more slag was observed in the furnace during the
opportunity coal burns.

Figure 12: Superheat Section, Floor 9 Port B (5-26-11) Figure 15: Under “Bullnose”, Floor 8 Port NW
(5-26-11)

Technical Paper Page 7

Lakeland McIntosh Unit 3 - ESP Fly Ash LOI's
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0

4/1/2011
4/15/2011
4/29/2011
5/13/2011
5/27/2011
6/10/2011
6/24/2011
7/8/2011
7/22/2011
8/5/2011
8/19/2011
9/2/2011
9/16/2011
9/30/2011
10/14/2011
10/28/2011
11/11/2011
11/25/2011
12/9/2011
12/23/2011
Figure 17: McIntosh Unit 3 LOI values during 2011

Trial Results and Conclusions

The two-product approach of magnesium and
Figure 16: Burner Level, Floor 5.5 Port A (5-26-11) metal oxide slurries allowed Lakeland the flexibility
to evaluate a wide range of opportunity coals for
Impact to Balance of Plant their system. The magnesium-based product in
conjunction with metal oxide slurry maintained
Prior to the trial, the chemical additives were re- relatively slag-free boiler even at high opportunity
viewed to determine if they would impact other coal ratios (75%). Higher opportunity coal blends
plant operations, such as Selective Catalytic Reduc- could be evaluated with SO3-remediation systems
tion (SCR), Electrostatic Precipitator (ESP) or Wet Flue in place.
Gas Desulfurization System (Wet FGD) performance
for NOx, particulate and SO2 emissions, respectively. The visual observations and operator feedback
In addition, the metal oxide product was reviewed indicated that the synergistic combination of the
for impact to flyash or wastewater discharge per- 1.5-lb magnesium-based product range per ton of
mitting. During the trial Lakeland Operations con- NAPP coal in conjunction with 0.25-lb metal oxide-
tinued to monitor the flue gas train and balance of based product per ton of opportunity coal was
plant, and it was determined that the products did very effective in mitigating slag of the blended
not adversely impact the plant. fuel. Different coals or coal blends may require
customized product ratios to appropriately ad-
There were several beneficial results of the trial be- dress potential slagging issues.
sides slag mitigation. Lakeland’s daily flyash lab
testing indicated an increase in alkalinity and a de- Because delayed coal deliveries affected the trial
crease in Loss On Ignition (LOI) during the periods of schedule, chemical dosage was not able to be op-
time where the product was being dosed to the timized during these short trial durations. GE
coal. This is believed to be attributed to the metal looks forward to working with Lakeland Electric to
oxide’s role as a combustion catalyst in addition to evaluate other Northern Appalachian and Illinois
the primary role as slag reducer. The three trial pe- Basin opportunity fuels to achieve lowest dosage
riods are highlighted in Figure 17. The second phase of products to minimize total treatment costs.
(8/4-8/21) firing 25% CAPP / 75% ILB strongly indi-
cates LOI improved during the trial. Longer runs Economic Forecasts
and a more thorough statistical analysis is required Lakeland’s estimates for fuel cost savings are sig-
to definitively claim LOI improvement. Since Lake- nificant: $3-4 million in cost savings could easily
land sells their flyash for cement production, among be achieved in 2012, as reported by The Ledger.
other uses, a low LOI brings value to the end-user (Chambliss, 2011) At full load, McIntosh fires 3,000
and appears to be a co-benefit of the slag mitiga- tons of coal per day. Firing 100% CAPP at $100
tion program. per ton (delivered), annual fuel cost estimate is
approximately $110 million.

Page 8 Technical Paper

coal treatments to remain operational and con-
tinue contributing to US electricity production in
Spot Price the future.
Coal $/ton $/MMBtu
CAPP $80 $4.90
NAPP $65 $4.37
ILB $42 $3.58
Figure 18: Coal Cost Estimates

Figure 18 lists market spot prices for the three varie-

ties of coal. The cost per million BTU assumes a typ-
ical $40 per ton delivery charge, which can vary
based on contracts or utilities who own transporta-
tion infrastructure.
For a 50% CAPP / 50% opportunity fuel blend, pro-
jected savings will be between $10 and $20 million
per year, depending on whether the selected oppor-
tunity coal is a NAPP or ILB. Firing a 75% ILB blend,
the annual savings could increase to $30 million per
year, as shown in Figure 19. Figure 20: Natural Gas Spot Prices, $/MMBtu
(Source: Intelligence Press, intelligencepress.com)

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge
the following individuals and groups who helped
contribute to this project and make this trial a
success. Thank you to the American Coal Founda-
tion and Intelligence Press NGI for granting per-
mission to include their data in this paper.
Thank you to key Lakeland Electric trial team per-
sonnel including Linda Miller, James McArthur,
Figure 19: Projected Annual Fuel Savings Brett Gailbreth, David Dodson, and Laura Jackson.
Thank you to Lakeland Electric former Plant Man-
ager Tony Candales for supporting the fuel evalu-
Recall that Florida coal-fired utilities are competing ation program. Thank you to the round-the-clock
against low-cost natural gas units. Baseload dis- efforts of the Lakeland Electric Operations,
patch orders are sent to the lowest cost producers Maintenance, Scrubber, Fuel and Environmental
while higher cost generators are idled until needed. Health and Safety teams as they blended coals,
The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) ex- monitored performance and insured safety and
pects that Henry Hub (natural gas) spot prices will compliance during the trial.
continue to decline in 2012, averaging $3.70 per
MMBtu, (Figure 20). Natural gas prices may decline Thank you to the dedicated GE Water & Process
further in the future, depending on Marcellus shale Technology team members including Account
gas production levels and industrial demand in the Manager Tom McCafferty, Area Manager Ken Rici-
Northeast. Note in Figure 18, ILB coal offers a very sak, and field expertise from Randy Schukay and
competitive $/MMBtu against natural gas. Ben Graves.
** Trademark of Olympus Corporation
In conclusion, it is critical for coal-fired utilities to
*** Trademark of LumaSense Technologies Inc.
understand the competitive power generation land-
scape, economics of various fuels, and opportunity
Technical Paper Page 9
References  Tubio, M. Domingo: “Slag Control Treatment
Program at a Southeastern Utility.” Presented
 American Coal Foundation, (www.teachcoal.org). at Clearwater Clean Coal Conference, Clear-
Retrieved December 2011 from water, FL. June 2011. Retrieved December
http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/co 2011 from
alreserves.html http://www.gewater.com/pdf/Technical%20P
 Bodell, Tanya. “When Baseload Generation Be- apers_Cust/Americas/English/TP1189EN.pdf
comes An Option.” Electric Light & Power, Vol-  World Coal. Retrieved December 2011 from
ume 89, issue 3. http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/what-is-coal/
 Buchsbaum, Lee. “New Coal Economics.” Ener-
gybiz, November / December 2008. Retrieved
December 2011 from
http://energycentral.fileburst.com/EnergyBizOnli
ne/2008-6-nov-
dec/Financial_Front_New_Coal.pdf
 Chambliss, John. “Cheaper Coal Could Save Mil-
lions for Lakeland Electric.” Retrieved December
2011 from
http://www.theledger.com/article/20111125/ne
ws/111129530
 Gabriel, Mark: “Slag Control Treatment Program
at EKPC Spurlock Station.” Presented at Electric
Power Conference, Chicago, IL. May 2011. Re-
trieved December 2011 from
http://www.gewater.com/pdf/Technical%20Pap
ers_Cust/Americas/English/TP1190EN.pdf
 Lakeland Electric, retrieved December 2011
from
http://www.lakelandelectric.com/AboutUs/Insid
eLakelandElec-
tric/HistoryofLakelandElectric/tabid/122/ De-
fault.aspx
 Metzroth, Lawrence. “Regulatory and Other
Constraints on CAPP Coal Supply.” Presented at
7th Annual Coal Trading Conference, New York
City, NY. December 2008. Retrieved December
2011 from http://www.coaltrade.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/02/Metzroth.pdf
 Mikron, retrieved December 2011 from
http://www.mikroninfrared.com/EN/products/th
ermal-imagers-detectors-and-cores/portable-
thermal-imagers/portable-special/m7604f.html

Page 10 Technical Paper