Tlll'J IJAKAKAHS. 
Coiiipari.soii of Ko- 
rean coal witli ollici' 
(■oals from (ho (-'(wUral 
Provinces and Central 
India 
It is diflicull, to compare the quality of the Korean coals with 
tluit of the Ijent-kiiowu fields iu the (Vutral 
Provinces and Central India, because of the 
paucity of published data, the ninjority of 
iiualyscs repiesentinjf isolated saiii[)h'S. Jlovvever, 
the following lif^ures taken from 15all and 
Simpson's memoir may be considered. 
Tai!le 5. 
Comparison of Composition of Kurusia Coal with thai of alJicr fu ids 
in the Central Provinces and Central Indio. 
KUEASIA FIELD. 
< 
K 
O 
PS 
■>1 
p: 
JIOIU'ANl. 
S s 
S \i 
O PS 
>^ "1 
«K 
s 
I-i 
-I 
n 
1 
s 
•-5 
■ ^ 
Average of 2 samples 
(prior to 1877). 
"cs ^ 
oj S 
en 
bp 
o 
JS 
Average of 13 an- 
alyses. 
el 
Average of 3!) 
alyses (from j 
Average of U 
alyses. 
Average of se> 
analyses {spli 
"S 
iB 
< " 
a 
A verage of 3 ; 
alyses. 
SampU 
cores. 
Moisture 
7-47 
11-72 
2-52 
2-84"j 
riiio 
3-71 
Volatile matter 
29-48 
29-33 
24-26 
20-55 1- 
22-8 
■j 31-5U 
27-55 
34-85 
Suliilmr 
1-55 
0-51 
0-95 J 
L -- 
■■ 
I'l-wd Carbon 
Ash .... 
48-40 
14-65 
43-80 
13-60 
48-71 
24-01 
37- 42 
38- 24 
53-5 
23-6 
45-47 
' ft ■ 
11-87 
56-14 
12-60 
54-4? 
10-71 
It is to be regretted that figures showing the average compo- 
sition of the coal as sold from these various fields are not avail- 
able. But it is understood that Umaria coal as now sold, and 
Warora coal as it was sold before the mine was shut down, are 
much higher in ash than indicated by the foregoing figures ; whilst 
many of the Kurasia analyses (see tables 8 and 10) show lower 
ash than the solitary Ballarpur analysis given above. It is evident 
therefore that the Kurasia coal compares favourably with that of 
all the above fields except, perhaps, Johilla. The Sanhat average 
(see p. 183) is poor compared with that from all the above fields 
except Mohpani, but the coal of Murma and Rakeya in the Sanhat 
field (see p. 191) is not much inferior to that of Kurasia. 
