Search Documents

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1980

The 67th Regular Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute convened in the C'est Bon Hotel, Park City, Utah, and was in session at 10:00 a.m. The meeting was called to order by Past President John A. Reeves, Vice President, Mid-Continent Coal & Coke Company, Carbondale, Colorado. Mr. Reeves introduced President Max A. Robb and read a brief biography as follows: A Westerner by birth, he has chosen to pursue his mining career with United States Fuel Company, a subsidiary of United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company. United States Fuel Company is the largest underground producer of commercial and utility coal in the Intermountain West. Max attended Utah schools and has kept his education current through correspondence courses in mining technology and business education, and through attendance at various university-sponsored development seminars.

Jan 1, 1971

By V. O. Murray

Gentlemen: I'm glad to see the crowd that's here this morning, glad to renew acquaintances with many old friends, and if you'll look at the program you'll see a heading there which states that as President I have the honor and pleasure to be here to address the membership of this meeting of the Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute, this being the 49th regular meeting. The tentative schedule of this gathering lists on the program the "President's Address," and I want to assure you that this will not be an address or a lengthy speech. It's said that a good speaker is one who arises to the occasion and then promptly sits clown, so please be at ease for I intend to sit clown very soon. There are other men here who have spent time writing and preparing papers on subjects that are to come up for discussion at this meeting, which will be, I'm sure, more interesting than what I have to say this morning; so again I'll say, we'll get this part of the program under way promptly.

Jan 1, 1953

[ALLISON, D. S.. ...................... ,1331 Roberta St., Salt-Lake City, Utah AMBLER, J. B.. ........ c-o Ambler & Riter, Kearns Bldg., Salt Lake City, Utah ANDERSON, A. E.. ................ ,403 Midland Savings Bldg., Denver, Colo. ANDERSON, ARTHUR E.. .. .Colorado Utilities Corp., Steamboat Springs, Colo. ANDERSON, FRANK ........................................... Crosby, Wyo. ANGUS, WILLIAM.. ........... .99 South Downing St., Apt. 204, Denver, Colo. APPERSON, A. B.. ............................ .Tramway Bldg., Denver, Colo. ]

Jan 1, 1928

Profiled here are the eight RMCMI 2000 Scholarship Award winners. Six of the eight attended the 96'' Regular Meeting and convention at the Sheraton Tamarron Resort in Durango, Colorado in late Tune. Each spoke during the Scholarship Awards Monday luncheon and shared their goals with attendees. In addition to receiving a 52,000 tuition credit, thanks to the Patrons of the Institute annual funding of scholarships, each received recognition at the luncheon with a brass plaque signifying this honor. The winners arc guests of the Institute Sunday through Tuesday noon and have an outstanding opportunity to meet many in the coat industry who could be potential employers. The state vice presidents host the winners and pay for their travel and hotel expenses. This is a continuing scholarship and may be renewed for tuition credit again in the senior year it the winner is a full time student and is recommended by the dean of the college or university. A resident from each of the eight member RMCMI states is selected by the Scholarship committee from Board approved institutions. Criteria for these annual awards is that the recipient (1) is a full time sophomore student who will use the tuition credit the junior year. (2) Be both a U. S. citizen and a legal resident of the member state. (3) Maintain good academic standing, be pursuing a degree in a mining related field and have an expressed interest in western coal as a possible career path. Contributions to this worthwhile project are tax deductible to each individual RMCMI member or his company. Through donations of $100 or more to the Patrons of the Institute, each Patron receives a plaque and a year bar for each additional year contributions arc made. There may be directed to RMCMI Patrons, 3000 Youngfield Street, #324, Lakewood, CO 50215. [ ]ARIZONA WINNER David L. Vatterrodt University of Arizona The son of Charlene and Larry Vatterrodt, David graduated from Marana High School, Tucson, Arizona where he attained a 3.6 GPA. In his second year at the University of Arizona he has a 3.4 GPA and is pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Mining Engineering. He is a member of SME and enjoys playing tennis and riding his motorcycle. He is the recipient of a $1,000 Tradition of Excellence scholarship. David volunteers every Saturday morning during the academic year at the U of A. San Xavier Mining Laboratory. His tasks there include work area inspections, jack-leg drilling, scaling, roof bolting, operating an LHD and overshot mocker, track laying and other general maintenance. COLORADO WINNER [ ]Jonathan B. Casten Colorado School of Mine. Graduating with high honors and a 3.99 GPA from Windsor High School, Colorado, Jon is well prepared for the rigors of academia. In high school he was on the Dean's list, Salutorian of the Senior Class, member of National Honor Society, Colorado Boys State delegate and lettered in varsity golf.At Mines, Jon belongs to SME and Work Study and maintains a 3.75 GPA. He enjoys golf, hiking and weight lifting. His parents are Katherine and Fred Casten of indsor. Jon has chosen Mining Engineering as a career as he plans to improve the nation's efficiency of extracting natural resources.

Jan 1, 2000

Jan 1, 1927

By S. W. Farnham

We have listened to many papers describing mechanical loaders, and systems of mining planned to increase their efficiency. We have become familiar with the various types and in a general way, their capacities and limitations. Messrs. F. E. Cash and E. H. Johnson in Bulletin 17 of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, subject Coal Mining Investigations, have a very complete review of the loading situation then. Mr. A. W. Dickinson, in a recent paper before this Institute, gave a later illustrated review of mechanical loaders. On page 28 of Cash & Johnson's paper is a list of loading machines to which might be added to bring the list down to date, the following: Under Digging and Loading Machines The Goodman Power Shovel Under Scraper Loaders The Goodman 436-G-3 125 H. P. three drum Scraper loader The Goodman 35 H. P. Entry loader and the Two Drum 125 H. P. Hoist built by Vulcan of Denver for scrapers Under Shaking Trough Conveyors The Eickhoff Conveyor The Link-Belt Conveyor The McCarty Duck-bill which is really a digging and loading element built to attach to the end of and operated by a reciprocating conveyor. The outstanding feature in this line of work in the past few years is the fact that a few very successful operations have been worked out on a large scale; the officers and staff in charge of this work have gone into details very thoroughly and altered and improved, in many cases, their mine equipment and mining methods, and by the exercise of persistent energy and intelligent effort, in the face of frequent difficulties and discouragements, they have attained results that are far ahead of the average loader operation. The coal mining industry owes much to these men for the pioneering and development of mechanical loading; their investigations in transport, shooting, shearing, snubbing, cleaning, and production costs, the results of which they have given freely and frequently to the public, are of great value. Foremost among the pioneers in this work are the Union Pacific Coal properties, the Quealy properties, the Sheridan Wyoming Coal Company and in the Central West, the Union Colliery Company of Illinois. On the other hand, in the great majority of installations, one loader, or possibly two or three loaders have been started in a given operation and through failure to make the proper effort to improve their transportation and work out the systems to utilize their loading machines, the loaders have not shown appreciable savings and in many cases, the installation has failed. It has been frequently stated in many meetings where loading has been discussed, that the idea of mechanical loading must first be sold not only to the operating staff but to the entire personnel of any company where installations are made. The problems involved in the successful application of this equipment are such that it requires enthusiastic and wholehearted teamwork on the part of everyone connected with the work and when difficulties arise, they must be ready to exercise initiative and try new ways oftentimes of overcoming impediments. The closest attention now is given to the question of economics how much will a loader reduce the cost of coal in any particular situation? Without fear of successful contradiction, I believe that experience up to date has unquestionably shown that where the shovel type of loader can be properly used, it produces in wide work, the cheapest coal of any loading device yet brought onto the market. Naturally there is a considerable difference between the results from different makes of shovels.

Jan 1, 1926

By Scott Dupont

Due to the scarcity of miners, and the necessity of decreasing the cost of mining, the Phelps-Dodge Corporation, Stag Canon Branch, at Dawson, [ ] New Mexico, decided to try, by various methods of mining, to increase the tonnage of coal mined per man, per day. With this in view, they first tried mining on a 250-foot face, maintaining the track at the face and using six to eight men shovel- [ ] ling. These men were able to aver age from ten to twelve tons each per, day when they were loading, but with

Jan 1, 1926

By J. L. Floyd

The Trapper Mine is a large surface coal operation located in northwestern Colorado US. The coal seams at the mine dip an average of 8 degrees so, historically, their dragline pits have been orien-tated parallel to the dip of the coal seam to balance stripping ratios. However, the mine plan in the future G and Z pits is designed to take advantage of pit orientations that are parallel to the strike of the coal. During the initial presplit and cast blasts in G pit, significant slope damage occurred. This damage included the opening of joints and tension cracking. There was also block movement directly above the L coal seam, which is the main plane of weakness in the slope. A detailed site evaluation was conducted to develop specific blast design modifications to protect the slopes during future blasting. The modified de-signs successfully controlled vibration levels during the blasting of the Z pit box cut. This paper includes a review of the blast vibration related factors that influence slope stability along with a detailed discussion of the field tests and design modifications developed.

Jan 1, 2004

By W. R. Deeths

The Great Plains Coal Gasification Project is the first commercial scale grass roots synthetic fuels (SNG) plant to be built in the United States. The plant will be constructed in two phases, with each phase producing 125 million cubic feet per day of pipeline quality (970 BTU per cubic foot) substitute natural gas from lignite coal. The plant is located north of Beulah in Mercer County, North Dakota. The first phase complex, when completed, will cost about 1.2 billion dollars and will include all necessary process units, oxygen production, steam generation, coal handling and preparation, utilities and infrastructure. The plant will be owned and operated by, the Great Plains Coal Gasification Associates, a partnership consisting of the following companies: ANG Coal Gasification Company, Mid Con Corporation, Tenneco, Inc., Transco Energy Company and Pacific Lighting Co. The Project began in late 1973 with a Phase I feasibility study and site selection study. The feasibility study was completed in 1975, at which time Kaiser Engineers and C. E. Lummus, the two engineering contractors, proceeded with a Phase II conceptual engineering design for the project. The culmination of the Phase II work was the publication of a detailed scope definition and control estimate, which was to become the cost guideline for procurement and plant construction. Following an engineering slowdown period in 1979, due to continuing delays in regulatory procedures, detailed engineering effort was reinstituted in early 1980 and by mid-1981 was approximately 35 percent complete. The total home office engineering effort amounts to approximately 3.5 million man hours of work split between Kaiser Engineers and Lummus. These totals exclude the engineering effort expended by Lurgi of Germany in the process design. The gasification plant shares the site and certain other facilities with the Basin Electric Power Station. Among these facilities are the plant access railroad, peripheral drainage ditch and raw water supply system. In addition, the gasification plant will draw its power directly from the Basin main substation, and Basin will receive coal from the gasification plant, consisting of the coal fines which cannot be gasified in the Lurgi units. The overall construction program covers a period of approximately 44 months with mechanical completion and initial gas production slated for late 1984. Craft labor requirements amount to approximately 11.5 million man hours and the work force peaked in excess of 4,500 people. In anticipation of an early resolution of both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling and Department of Energy loan guarantee commitments, certain work on the site was commenced during 1980. This work consisted of site rough grading, driving of piles, and erection of three of the plant auxilliary buildings. Orders and subcontracts were placed for compressors, pumps, electrical equipment, material handling equipment, piping, structural steel, boilers, oxygen plant and cooling towers. Over 40 major Federal, State and local permits were required. Among these were such diverse permits as: ? Soil conservation ?Railroad and pipeline rights of way ? Certificates of site compatibility ? Permits for structures in areas controlled by the ? U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ? Environmental permits required by the North ? Dakota Department of Public Health. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report began in September of 1973. FPC (now FERC) guidelines and North Dakota special requirements were followed except that, at the time, the highly structured form of environmental impact statements we know today was not in use. We were required to develop a number of new sampling and evaluation techniques and reporting procedures at a time when the requirements were vague and often contradictory. In March 1975, field studies were completed and submitted to the Bureau of Recla¬mation, which then began to prepare its own EIS. Two years later, in May 1977, public hearings began on the Project. The hearings and public review of the report drew over 400 comments or questions. Responses o the comments were in¬corporated in a Final Environmental Impact Statement issued in January 1978. In March 1975, the original filing was made for an FPC Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity which included: ? A technical feasibility study ? An Environmental Impact Assessment ? An Economic and financial feasibility assessment. An amended filing was submitted in 1976 to build the plant in two phases because studies then indicated that the cost of the plant had increased substantially. A second amended filing was submitted in 1977 to reflect the involvement of Peoples Gas (now Mid-Con Corporation) in the Project. At the time, it was believed that an FPC Certificate could be issued by December 1977. However, approval would be contingent on the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation having a complete Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project. In 1977, with the formation of the Department of Energy, the FPC

Jan 1, 1984

D. HARRINGTON: Owing to lack of funds, the United States Bureau of Mines have made no experiments in the Bruceton mines in the use of mudite. MR. McAULIFFE: I doubt that mudite cam be delivered at fifty cents a ton and that a mile of heading can be treated with mudite for ten dollars. You could not dig a ton of sand out of a sand hank for that money. L. C. CLARE: The tram road leading to Wattis mine crosses a shale bed and it is easy to screen the shale through a %-inch sieve and load it into a mine car. W. J. REID: A slow trip passing through a mudited entry will dislodge practically no dust, a rapid trip will make air disturbance enough to coat the cars with fine dust. MR. PRYDE: We have used mudite on stoppings around a fire in Reliance and for two months thought they were getting good results, but the fire was found to be drawing air and to be spreading. This mudite was smeared over the stoppings with a trowel. After this apparently failed we used dry adobe.

Jan 1, 1925

[Page Minutes 5 Low Temperature Distillation and Briquetting 8 F. C. Miller. Discussion of Mr. Miller's Paper 11 Track Bonding 15 D. C. McKeehan. Discussion of Mr. McKeehan's Paper 16 Report of Safety Committee 19 Wm. Littlejohn 19 P. F. Patterson and G. A. Knox 20 D. Harrington, J. C. Roberts and Jas Dalrymple 22 Discussion of Report of Safety Committee 27]

Jan 1, 1923

By A. L. Jones

The subject assigned to me of "The Power" Problem of the Mine" is so broad that I have decided to confine myself to the question of the power supply itself, rather than the application of electricity throughout the property. We will look over certain economic aspects of the problem, particularly in the way it affects the mine manager or executive and his attitude toward the power plant. The accepted method of power application to the mine is by electric power, and the experience of each of you is that the job is never complete as you are always undertaking some further electrification which necessitates the stiffing up the power house to care for the additional load. The mine executive, then, is wrestling almost continuously with the problem of his power plant. Either it is overloaded and must be enlarged and rebuilt; or its operating costs are excessive; or it breaks down and limits coal output; or some one wants to sell new and improved machinery, until the manager almost hates the thought of such a restless part of his property. If he purchases power, every day new uses for it seems to be found. In many ways this unrest is due to short-sighted policy toward the problem, and the tendency when the problem of extension has to be met, to dispose of it in the cheapest way and without thought as to where the future is leading. The day when each opening had its own boiler plant, steam hoist, steam driven fans, steam pumps, steam loaders, etc., seems to be far behind us. The recognized method of power distribution today is by electric power, except for rather limited applications of compressed air; most of which is electrically compressed. During fifteen years contact with mines of Colorado and Wyoming the writer has seen nearly every mine power house double or triple in capacity or abandoned in favor of purchased power, worn. out and inefficient machinery thrown out, isolated boiler plants dropped, seam pumping at great depth changed to electric drive, all resulting in greatly reduced labor and fuel costs. Power costs, which in such isolated plants were considered normal, would be unthinkable today. One property where the main power supply was by compressed air from steam driven com¬pressors used under boilers 8.35 per cent of all the coal mined. The cost of power was 12 1/2 cents per ton of coal mined. Another property of four openings, each with its own boiler plant and usual equipment of hoists, pumps, etc., had a power cost of 10.3 cents for each ton mined; and these were days when you did not get very high prices for coal. Another property operating two mines mostly by steam used 11.1 per cent of the coal output under their own boilers and the power cost was 19.45 cents for each ton mined. Each of these properties is now electrified and power costs are from 3 to 4 cents per ton, and the fuel burned runs from 1 to 2 per cent of the output. With the broadening market and high prices for slack coal and the high prices for labor in boiler and engine rooms, the cost of steam is reaching a high figure, and efforts must be made to keep this down, by more efficient steam production and by utilizing this steam in better machinery which will increase the work done by each pound of steam. It must not be overlooked either, that the plant which is very wasteful of fuel is usually a pretty old one and one far from reliable. In a general way the more efficient the plant, the greater its reliability. Ample and reliable power supply means ability to get out coal when there is a market. The increasing use of purchased power is largely due to changing conditions which are tending constantly to push up the cost of power, unless the most efficient machinery is used and large scale production possible. The

Jan 1, 1923

Jan 1, 1962

By R. Dawson Hall

R. DAWSON HALL (The Coal Age, New York City) : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I do not feel that I have anything in particular to say. I have not prepared anything for an occasion such as this. I just came from New York City, and as one man said to me today, "That is not any recommendation in particular." (Laughter.) In answer to your request for a few remarks of a timely character I would say: One of the possibilities in the Rocky Mountain Region coal mines is the use of steel arches, posts and straps. The timber of the region seems unusually subject to dry rot and does not last long, especially in those places as in southern Wyoming, where the mine atmosphere is likely to contain a large quantity of carbon dioxide. It is true that, in many mines, much care is taken to drive out this gas and to arrange that the timber will have the fresh air that will prolong its life, but despite such provision much timber is subjected to speedy rot. Steel has made rapid progress in England, Germany and France and is recognized as an economy, not an extravagance. Frequent replacement of rotting wood and removal of broken rock are a source of great waste, risk and inconvenience in operation that together spell great cost. The very dryness of the mines and the lack' of acid water are favorable to the use of steel where support of roof or sides is necessary.

Jan 1, 1932

PRESIDENT MARKS: We have a letter from Mr. Frank N. Cameron, of the Utah Fuel Company, that perhaps I had better read to you. It is addressed to Mr. Shubart, Rocky Mountain Coal Mining Institute (hands letter to Secretary Shubart). UTAH FUEL COMPANY MINE SUPERINTENDENT Castle Gate, Utah, February 9, 1926 Mr. F. N. Cameron, Vice-President & General Manager, Salt Lake City, Utah. Dear Sir: It has now been about nine months since we started the system of having the fire bosses take charge of all shooting and gas inspections at the Castle Gate Mines. We had considerable trouble when we started. Like all other new systems which have been installed, this one was hard to get started and was criticised both by the miners and officials in our own organization, as well as by other organizations in the mines of this county. The older the official and miner was the stronger they seemed to be opposed to the new method. They have no arguments to offer against it, but they know it is not right "because their grandfather did not work it in that way." We know that when some of the other systems were started in the mines of this county, they were fought from all angles. The electrical shooting almost brought the miners at Sunnyside out on strike; their main argument was that they could not make a living if they had to obey the rules that the company was trying to enforce. They also claimed that they could not make enough coal for the day's work by only shooting once at the end of the shift. The same applies to the sprinkling the miners claimed that they would all die of some disease if they were forced to work in a sloppy, wet mine every day. The mining machine was another thing that was hard to install the miners claimed that the company was trying to rob the Door miner out of a chance to make living by installing mining machines to cut the coal. I do not think that the system we have at our mines is perfect-there is still room for improvement in the shooting and inspection of the mines, but I do really think that for safety and efficiency, the inspection department at our mines, working under the new system, is as good if not better than any other inspection department working under the old method in the other mines. I am giving some of the arguments in favor of the new system and would like to hear the arguments against it-if there are any. In cutting the men from monthly to day wages, I do not think it is only the company that benefits by the arrangement, but the fireboss is the one that gets the best of it by the change. How often have we heard the fireboss complain of the hours he had to put in just because he was a monthly man? Under the new wage scale he is paid for every hour he puts in the mines, and when the mines are working every day he makes considerable more than when he was being paid a monthly salary. When the mines are working slow, there is generally some work that has to be done on idle days, or in slow times the force could be cut to a point where some of the work could be done on idle days, and thus the fireboss could be given the preference in this extra work and in this way, his wage could be kept up to the standard monthly salary he was getting before. Under this arrange-

Jan 1, 1926

By O .. G. Sharrer

Loading mechanically has of late become the most widely discussed subject in connection with coal mining and has even equalled. the discussion of safety measures as a topic of interest. The subject has been discussed in the various mining journals and by well. informed persons at the Mining Institutes, so it would appear; that all has been said that can be said until further experiments bring out new lines of discussion. It is, therefore, not the intention to present this article as a technical discussion of the subject of mechanical loading as a whole, but rather as a plain talk on machines with which the writer has had personal contact. In 1919, during the first period of post-war depression, a Pennsylvania coal company employing union labor became interested in the possibilities of mechanical loading with the hope of reducing their mining costs, which were and are yet too high to meet competition from the non-union fields of Somerset and Westmoreland counties. Of several loaders presented for their consideration the model of the Joy loader shown by Mr. Joseph F. Joy, seemed to hold the greatest possibilities, and after extended study, the management decided to invest in a machine of this type. A machine was built, which as far as the writer knows was the only one of its type ever put on the market. This machine arrived at one of the mines early in 1920 and was put to work immediately. It was a forerunner of the present 4-BU and 5-BU types, but differed from them very radically as to design. In general the machine consisted of the familiar Joy gathering arms and a short conveyor which discharged into a steel tank which held about four and one-half tons of coal. This tank was emptied by a second conveyor which placed the coal in the mine car. The object of this conveyor tank was to provide storage room while changing cars and to allow the machine to load on the entry while the room was short. This plan was very efficient and from our experience was worth retaining, but has been abandoned by the Joy Company on account of its making the machine unwieldy. The whole machine was mounted on caterpillar tractors which were driven by two 10-H.P. Westinghouse series wound motors, each having its own controller, the controllers being arranged in tandem so as to be operated by the same handle. This very ingenious scheme which is shown in Figure 4, was supposed to make it possible to steer the loader by the controllers. By swinging the handle one way both motors moved forward, by swinging the handle the other way both motors moved backwards and by twisting the handle as shown by arrows, one motor moved ahead and the other back, thus causing the machine to turn. This scheme proved a failure as the loader was too temperamental and erratic in its operation. After Mr. Joy, himself, narrowly escaped serious injury, this device was taken off and the controllers manipulated separately. This system never proved satisfactory and was abandoned' for

Jan 1, 1925

PRESIDENT LITTLEJOHN: Gentlemen, you have heard Mr. Dyer's paper. The meeting is now open for discussion. MR. NORMAN: I would like to ask the gentleman what is the distance between your crosscuts for the ventilation of rooms and entries in the state of Utah?

Jan 1, 1925

By Donald P. Brown

[Mr. Brown did not make his speech available for reprint.] Productivity is the Answer - Always Was; Always Will Be When Bill Balaz invited me to speak here this morning, he asked me to examine the three most important issues Consol will face over the coming decade. There are more than three. But the more I thought about that question, the more I realized all our issues come down to only one. As I reviewed the U.S. coal industry over the past ten years, and as I thought ahead into the year2000, one thing stood out. Not markets. Not government regulations. Not record tonnages. But productivity. The recent history of American coal is a tale of productivity improvement. It is a story that needs telling. And understanding. Not just for the good of the coal industry, but for the benefit of the American economy. Americans today do not appreciate the value of productivity growth. I don't say that lightly. As I review recent debate over American industrial competitiveness, as I look at certain legislative proposals, I see disturbing trends. It's not that anyone is against productivity per se. But many people seem to fear the very processes that enhance productivity. Twentieth century America enjoyed unprecedented growth in productivity. And in personal standards- of-living. Those two go together. This century has been one of change. Demographics. Education. And technology. Many new industries-cable television, computer services, telecommunications, for example-have grown from mere dreams to billion- dollar enterprises employing tens-of-thousands. And some older industries have declined. The nature of work has changed-from manual work to know- ledge work. From agriculture, to manufacturing, to services. In the mid-1960s. AT&T employed more than one million people. These were not high-paying jobs: telephone operators, linemen and equipment assemblers. Today, the successor Bell companies and their new competitors employ no more than a few hundred thousand. Because of automation. Because of enormous gains in employee productivity.

Jan 1, 1988