Effect of mine characteristics on life cycle impacts of US surface coal mining

  • Ofentse Ditsele
  • Kwame Awuah-OffeiEmail author



This study’s aim was to understand the effect of mine characteristics on cradle-to-gate life cycle impacts of surface coal mining in the USA. Five bituminous coal strip mines were used as case studies. The study assessed the life cycle water use, land use, energy use, abiotic resource depletion, and climate change impacts.


The study employed the general principles of the ISO 14040-49 series LCA standards, modifying them where necessary. The functional unit was defined as “one tonne of processed coal at the mine gate.” The relative mass–energy–economic value method, with some modification, was used to scope the product system. Data were obtained from environmental impact statements, coal mining permit applications, government reports, and published literature. Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) included classification and characterization but no normalization, grouping, or weighting, to avoid ambiguity. In this work, mid-point characterization models were preferred over damage-oriented (end-point) characterization models because of their high levels of uncertainties. The LCIA also included sensitivity analysis.

Results and discussion

For the studied mines, life cycle potential water use impact is 178 l/tonne of processed coal at the mine gate. The potential land use, energy use, abiotic resource depletion, and climate change impacts range from 3 to 10 m2 year/tonne, 97 to 181 MJ/tonne, 7.8 to 9.4 kg Sb-eq./tonne, and 38 to 92 kg CO2-eq./tonne, respectively. Land use impacts depend mainly on land for coal extraction activities and the climatic conditions of a region, which affects the vegetation recovery rate, following reclamation. Economies of scale significantly influence land use, energy use, abiotic resource depletion, and climate change impacts. Geology, which determines stripping ratio, coal quality, and coalbed methane, affects land use, climate change, and energy use impacts, particularly energy for overburden removal, reclamation, and beneficiation.


The data show that large-scale mining operations have lower life cycle impacts due to economies of scale, which results in lower energy use. Also, land use impacts, measured by land occupation, are affected by geologic conditions. This study provides insight into sources of variability in life cycle impacts of coal mining. The authors recommend timely reclamation to minimize land occupation impacts, as well as adoption of large-scale production, where appropriate, for efficient use of land occupied by mine facilities.


Abiotic resource depletion Climate change Coal mining Energy use Land use Life cycle assessment Water use 


  1. Aimone CT (1992) Blast design. In: Hartman HL (ed) SME mining engineering handbook, vol. 1, 2nd edn. Society for Mining Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, pp 722–746Google Scholar
  2. Argonne (2009) Operating manual for GREET. Argonne National Laboratory, ArgonneGoogle Scholar
  3. Babbitt CW, Lindner AS (2005) A life cycle inventory of coal used for electricity production in Florida. J Clean Prod 13:903–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) The hitch hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Studentlitetteratur, LundGoogle Scholar
  5. Chinh LD, Gheewala SH, Bonnet S (2007) Integrated environmental assessment and pollution prevention in Vietnam: the case of anthracite production. J Clean Prod 15:1768–1777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Czaplicka-Kolarz K, Wachowicz J, Bojarska-Kraus M (2004) A life cycle method for assessment of a colliery’s eco-indicator. Int J Life Cycle Assess 9:247–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day SJN, Carras JN, Fry R, Williams DJ (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from Australian open-cut coal mines: contribution from spontaneous combustion and low-temperature oxidation. Environ Monit Assess 166:529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ditsele O (2010) Application of life cycle assessment to estimate environmental impacts of surface coal mining. Missouri University of Science & Technology, RollaGoogle Scholar
  9. EIA (2009a) Electric power monthly: March 2009, DOE/EIA-0226 (2009/03). US Energy Information Administration website. Accessed 25 Feb 2011
  10. EIA (2009b) Annual coal report 2008, DOE/EIA-0584 (2008). US Energy Information Administration. Washington, DC. September 2009. Retrieved on 09/19/2009 at
  11. EIA (2009c) Annual energy outlook 2009: with projections to 2030, DOE/EIA-0383(2009). US Energy Information Administration website. Accessed 25 Feb 2011
  12. EIA (2010) Coal news and markets: average weekly coal commodity spot prices. US Energy Information Administration website. Retrieved on 04/01/2011
  13. EPA (2005) Emission facts: average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel. EPA420-F-05-001. Accessed Mar 11, 2011
  14. EPA (2009) The emissions & generation resource integrated database: eGRID 2007 Version 1.0. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Protection Partnerships, Division, EP-D-06-001, April 2009, Washington, DC. Accessed 16 Mar 2011
  15. Froese RE, Shonnard DR, Miller CA, Koers KP, Johnson DM (2010) An evaluation of greenhouse gas mitigation options for coal-fired power plants in the US Great Lakes States. Biomass Bioenerg 34:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guinée JB (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to ISO standards. Kluwer Academic, SecaucusGoogle Scholar
  17. Infomine (2009) Mine and mill equipment cost. Infomine USA, Spokane ValleyGoogle Scholar
  18. IPCC (2007) In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim S, Dale BE (2005) Life cycle inventory information of the United States electricity system. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10:294–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lindeijer E (2005) How far should we improve impact assessment methodology for metal mining? Illustrated with a biodiversity LCIA method. In: Dubreuil A (ed) Life-cycle assessment of metals: Issues and research directions. SETAC, Raleigh, pp 123–131Google Scholar
  21. Mangena SJ, Brent AC (2006) Application of a life cycle impact assessment framework to evaluate and compare environmental performances with economic values of supplied coal products. J Clean Prod 14:1071–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. OSMRE (2008), Black Mesa project: final environmental impact statement, Vol. I, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Report #: OSM EIS-33. Accessed 11 Mar 2011
  23. PE International (2006) “GaBi Databases 2006”—documentation. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
  24. Raynolds M, Fraser R, Checkel D (2000) The relative mass–energy–economic value (RMEE) method for system boundary selection—part I: a means to systematically and quantitatively select LCA boundaries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 5:96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruether JA, Ramezan M, Balash PC (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions from coal gasification power generation systems. J Infrastruct Syst 10:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schreiber A, Zapp P, Kuckshinrichs W (2009) Environmental assessment of German electricity generation from coal-fired power plants with amine-based carbon capture. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:547–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Spitzley DV, Tolle DA (2004) Evaluating land-use impacts: selection of surface area metrics for life-cycle assessment of mining. J Ind Ecol 8:11–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Coal Institute (2005) The coal resource: a comprehensive overview of coal. Available at World Coal Institute’s website. Accessed 25 Feb 2011

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MinesMinistry of Minerals, Energy And Water ResourcesGaboroneBotswana
  2. 2.Department of Mining & Nuclear EngineeringMissouri University of Science & TechnologyRollaUSA

Personalised recommendations