Some Criteria For Longwall Selection

Introduction In Europe, longwall mining accounts for over 95% of coal produced from deep mines, whereas in the U.S.A., longwall accounts for less than 5% of deep mine coal production. There are many reasons for the difference, but in general: a. U.S. mine operators have invested heavily in continuous mining or conventional equipment which continues to produce acceptable results; b. There 1s a reluctance to change from, a familiar (and proven) mining method to an unfamiliar one, despite promises of huge production increases,; c. Multi-seam mining in Europe has made longwall the only really viable mining method, whereas In the U.S.A. multi-seam mining (particularly in "below-drainage" mines), is relatively rare; d. Although some spectacular results have been achieved by longwall in the U.S.A.(I), the general performance of longwall in this country has not been good enough to generate much enthusiasm for its wide application; e. The much higher level of investment in face equipment required for longwall when compared to alternative methods (approximately $7.5 million for a medium seam longwall installation and $1 million to $1.5 million for a continuous miner section). However, declining productivity, national energy requirements and safety legislation are creating a situation in which longwall as a viable mining method is being examined more closely and in more places than hitherto. This paper, therefore, attempts to identify some of the principal criteria needing examination in any assessment of the feasibility of longwall application, the limitations of information for those criteria in the decision making process and the need for further research and development to assist the mine operators make the decisions.